Upgrade from 55-250 STM?

Does it make any sense to own the Canon 70-200 F4 non IS? Mainly for shooting outdoors in bright light.
I do like that it has better build quality and faster auto focus, but have yet to play with one.

I already had an EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM when I bought a 55-250 STM for something lighter to shoot on my crop camera. I spent one afternoon at the park with it, shooting squirrels, birds, and such. For the way I shoot, the 55-250 STM didn't help anything. The 70-200 is faster, aperture and focusing, and much sharper. The IQ difference is slight, but favors the 70-200. My biggest concern was the focus speed. I shoot a lot daytime sports/athletics. I sold the 55-250 STM.

If it were me, I would find a clean used copy of the 70-200 F/4 non-IS and sell the 55-250 STM. The 55-250 STM is a wonderful little lens, but the "L" build quality, the better AF, and shooting at F/4 make it an easy decision.

zaijacobs wrote in post #18259351
Does it make any sense to own the Canon 70-200 F4 non IS? Mainly for shooting outdoors in bright light.
I do like that it has better build quality and faster auto focus, but have yet to play with one.

Shooting *what* outdoors, in bright light? Moving things or shots where you may want more subject isolation/"background blur" than the 55-250 can do, most certainly. Static shots or shots where you're shooting at f/5.6 or smaller anyway, not so much.

The build quality of the L lenses, especially in this comparison, is massive and the L feels much more robust, etc. You lose a bit of "wide" and "telephoto" with the switch, but unless you are shooting at the bottom end a lot, probably won't notice that loss much; an the 50mm at the long end probably won't feel too much of a loss, either.

There's also the 70-300L. I really liked mine when it was in my possession. It is currently out on "loan" to our youngest son.

You can pick one up in perfect condition for around $700 at the moment. I paid $1499.00 back in May of 2012 and that was a sales price. They are currently listed at $1349 at all the major online sites.

Anyway, it's an option. This lens is at f/5 at 200mm, f/5.6 at 300mm of course. It's sharp throughout its range. I can't tell the difference between photos with it and my very fine 100-400 ii at 300mm.

Definitely worth the step up. You can find the f/4 non is all over for $500 or less. For outdoor, bright light use it's fantastic. I regularly use mine to shoot my daughter's softball games. Very sharp and AF is lightning quick. Heck, I even used mine this year at night at the Rolex 24 for panning at 1/60 shutter speed and came away with some nice keepers.

what are you shooting? is the loss of range, and IS going to matter...personally i wouldn't do it...save up for something more substantial of an upgrade