Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS or Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

I ran a search but nothing really comparing them two (obviously they are in different class). Both got good reviews. Cost isn't really an issue. It depends if I want to put money aside for 1 month (to get 55-250mm) or 2-3 months (for 70-200mm).

Size is one of my concern right now with the 70-200mm. I have a Lowepro Flipside 200 Backpack and wonder if space would be enough. Lens is alittle under 7" inches. I have my cleaning kit and a 18-55mm inside. 50mm 1.4 is being mounted on body. I am sure space isn't that big of a problem. I am sure it will fit when time comes.

Other problem I have with the 70-200mm is the length. Its so darn long. For it weighing in at 1.5lbs, I think it would cause an unbalance compared to the body. Will it cause problem like the camera tipping over when its on the tripod?

With the 55-250mm, its smaller, cheaper build, and I am sure picture qualities will be different compared to a L lense.

I want to hear what others think. To L or not to L. Thanks for helping me out. After taking some shots with my new 50mm 1.4 at the beach over the weekend, I really lack the distance for what I want. Therefore I started to research on what I needed. The 70-200mm is at $600 bucks and that is the most I am willing can cough up for a lens right now. I'm already turning towards the 70-200mm lens right now. I just want to hear what other think about that lens.

Thanks again. Its hard to find a good community on a forum. Most forums just tell you to search and be really mean. I use to run a high traffic forum as a moderator and I know how it feels.

raiyo wrote in post #9020453
I ran a search but nothing really comparing them two (obviously they are in different class). Both got good reviews. Cost isn't really an issue. It depends if I want to put money aside for 1 month (to get 55-250mm) or 2-3 months (for 70-200mm).

Size is one of my concern right now with the 70-200mm. I have a Lowepro Flipside 200 Backpack and wonder if space would be enough. Lens is alittle under 7" inches. I have my cleaning kit and a 18-55mm inside. 50mm 1.4 is being mounted on body. I am sure space isn't that big of a problem. I am sure it will fit when time comes.

Other problem I have with the 70-200mm is the length. Its so darn long. For it weighing in at 1.5lbs, I think it would cause an unbalance compared to the body. Will it cause problem like the camera tipping over when its on the tripod?

With the 55-250mm, its smaller, cheaper build, and I am sure picture qualities will be different compared to a L lense.

I want to hear what others think. To L or not to L. Thanks for helping me out. After taking some shots with my new 50mm 1.4 at the beach over the weekend, I really lack the distance for what I want. Therefore I started to research on what I needed. The 70-200mm is at $600 bucks and that is the most I am willing can cough up for a lens right now. I'm already turning towards the 70-200mm lens right now. I just want to hear what other think about that lens.

Thanks again. Its hard to find a good community on a forum. Most forums just tell you to search and be really mean. I use to run a high traffic forum as a moderator and I know how it feels.

I've never had the 55-250 but the reviews on it are good I did have the 70-200 f4 IS and it is an amazing lens I dont think you can compare the 55-250 to it .Mine was the IS model so I don't know how much it differs from the non IS as far as too long on a tripod I never had a problem I even bought the tripod collar and never needed it hope this helps.

Alan

As far as quality is concerned, the 70-200 f/4L is better by far. Take a look at this review. It compares the two.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …4-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx

I currently own a 55-250 and its a great little, light lens and the IS is helpful for me, but the quality is much better with the L. It's a trade off really.

IS, Price, Weight, Size vs. Quality, Focusing, Build, Full Frame compatibility

If cost isn't really an issue, save another couple of months and get the 70-200/4L IS.

If your tripod/head system threatens to topple, get a better tripod/head system.

If the lens is too big for the bag, get a bigger bag.

You seem have the cart before the horse here.

Well, as you say, you're comparing apples and oranges here. The 55-250 is a terrific lens for the price; lightweight, great IQ and an awesome IS system. On the other hand, the focus is slow. The 70-200 that you're considering is an "L" lens and will give better colour and contrast, a better aperture at 200 mm, and will focus much faster. On the other hand, it doesn't have IS, and is bigger and heavier.

It all depends what you want. I have both the 55-250 and the 70-200 f/4 IS, and use them for completely different things. Personally I wouldn't want a longish telephoto such as a 70-200 without IS, but that's just me. I have shaky hands (arthritis), and the IS is helpful. But lots of people manage perfectly well without it.

tester3000 wrote in post #9020852
IS, Price, Weight, Size vs. Quality, Focusing, Build, Full Frame compatibility

My dilemma right is now IS, weight, size VS quailty & built. I think IS would help me if I am not using a tripod. With the 50mm 1.4 I have, there are motion blur when I take pictures when I am at f/4

ceegee wrote in post #9021400
Well, as you say, you're comparing apples and oranges here. The 55-250 is a terrific lens for the price; lightweight, great IQ and an awesome IS system. On the other hand, the focus is slow. The 70-200 that you're considering is an "L" lens and will give better colour and contrast, a better aperture at 200 mm, and will focus much faster. On the other hand, it doesn't have IS, and is bigger and heavier.

It all depends what you want. I have both the 55-250 and the 70-200 f/4 IS, and use them for completely different things. Personally I wouldn't want a longish telephoto such as a 70-200 without IS, but that's just me. I have shaky hands (arthritis), and the IS is helpful. But lots of people manage perfectly well without it.

With the 55-250mm, is there lens creep?

xarqi wrote in post #9021296
If cost isn't really an issue, save another couple of months and get the 70-200/4L IS.

If your tripod/head system threatens to topple, get a better tripod/head system.

If the lens is too big for the bag, get a bigger bag.

You seem have the cart before the horse here.

^^^^ +1

raiyo wrote in post #9021762
With the 55-250mm, is there lens creep?

No, no lens creep, too light to creep. Though I found mine (before I sold it) had a slight move/play on the lens mount. Slight enough not to have any effect on picture.

Rio Sundoro wrote in post #9021896
No, no lens creep, too light to creep. Though I found mine (before I sold it) had a slight move/play on the lens mount. Slight enough not to have any effect on picture.

sweet, good to know. might be moving towards the 55-250mm now due to IS.

raiyo wrote in post #9021930
sweet, good to know. might be moving towards the 55-250mm now due to IS.

Very sharp too. Here is a link if you want to see my sample:

http://www.flickr.com/​photos/5471665/3321205​855/

just picked up a side job, now I can get the 70-200mm f/4 IS version instead. plus a round trip to Hong Kong with all expense paid. oh yah. so stoked. leaving on the Nov 22nd. everything is happening so soon. gonna see my new toy on Thursday.

I don't get ppl saying 55-250mm lens being sharp. It's not. It's no where near, and not even REMOTELY close to being sharp. (At the 250mm end that is, the focal length I spend most time in).

For the PRICE TAG, yeah, I suppose it's not bad with the IS. Very reasonable lens.

But seriously, if you are even that tiny bit concerned with image quality, don't even bother thinking about it. There's a whole boat load of lens that utterly wipe the floor with this lens.

I don't see how someone could say it is not sharp. Are there sharper lenses? Sure. But not without paying considerably more. I suppose would could compare it to a 200L prime and it would come out sorely lacking.

Sakura1234 wrote in post #9034946
I don't get ppl saying 55-250mm lens being sharp. It's not. It's no where near, and not even REMOTELY close to being sharp. (At the 250mm end that is, the focal length I spend most time in).

For the PRICE TAG, yeah, I suppose it's not bad with the IS. Very reasonable lens.

But seriously, if you are even that tiny bit concerned with image quality, don't even bother thinking about it. There's a whole boat load of lens that utterly wipe the floor with this lens.

Name a sharper current zoom that goes beyond 200 mm for under twice the price of the 55-250 IS.

Sakura1234 wrote in post #9034946
I don't get ppl saying 55-250mm lens being sharp. It's not. It's no where near, and not even REMOTELY close to being sharp. (At the 250mm end that is, the focal length I spend most time in).

For the PRICE TAG, yeah, I suppose it's not bad with the IS. Very reasonable lens.

But seriously, if you are even that tiny bit concerned with image quality, don't even bother thinking about it. There's a whole boat load of lens that utterly wipe the floor with this lens.

huhhh

the Canon 55-250 is seriously sharp - at every focal length including 250mm !!

Canon 55-250 with 450D (XSi) at 250mm -