55-250 IS vs 70-200L f4 IS

Do you think this would be a good upgrade? I have been in turmoil over this for the past couple of weeks.
I have also been debating over the f4 versus the 2.8 IS. Trying to be smart regarding f stop and weight. I don't do 'a lot' of low light, but still would like the ability to shoot low light in the future.
I will be taking on a trip to Yosemite and Northern Cal coast in a couple of weeks, so weight is a definite factor. Thanks for opinions....Janie

this is exactly what i want to do in the near future. i've read a lot that the f4L IS is the sharpest of the 70-200 L's. i say go for it!

Well, they are both significantly more heavy than the 55-250. I believe they are worth the upgrade. They also hold their value well and if weight is a factor - the f/4 is an easy choice. You can always sell and upgrade at a later date if you decide you need f/2.8.

Actually, the new 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is the sharpest, but the f/4 IS is a little sharper than the original f/2.8 IS. They are all VERY GOOD.

james_in_baltimore wrote in post #10083117
Well, they are both significantly more heavy than the 55-250. I believe they are worth the upgrade. They also hold their value well and if weight is a factor - the f/4 is an easy choice. You can always sell and upgrade at a later date if you decide you need f/2.8.

Actually, the new 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is the sharpest, but the f/4 IS is a little sharper than the original f/2.8 IS. They are all VERY GOOD.

doh i forgot the new one came out...

I own both the 55-250 and the 70-200 f/4 IS. The 70-200 is definitely a worthy upgrade in terms of build, contrast, colour and focusing speed - it's a great lens, hands-down the best I've ever put on my camera. It's larger and heavier than the 55-250, but is still convenient to carry around. I used to have a 70-200 f/2.8, but found I was leaving it at home more often than not, just because of the size and weight; it was a very large beast. In the end I sold it (a) because of the weight, (b) because it didn't have IS, and (c) because in reality I hardly ever used it at f/2.8. In any case, with the IS on the f/4 version, I can hand-hold shots at very low shutter speeds. I'm very happy with my f/4 IS.

Having said that, I didn't sell my 55-250 when I got my 70-200. It's still a terrific lens and I've kept it for vacations and travel.

I went from the 55-250 to the 100-400 as I wanted a bit more length, it also sits well with my 24-105..
How much I end up swapping lenses remains to be seen..

Didn't plan on doing it, but just bought the new 70-200 2.8. I put it on my camera and played and my my, is it awesome!! I know it is going to be heavy, but I've had a habit of not getting what I really want due to $$ and then being somewhat disappointed. So I went for the 2.8 because I know I will want the speed at some point -- and I had the $..or most of it..hehe
A nearby camera store sold it to me for $100 less that the b&h price. He said the new canon rebates were going to release tomorrow, and although this lense isn't rebated, he said he could do it.
Now, I just have to figure out how to break it to hubby. It is hiding in my closet till I get up the nerve.

Is your low light photography predominantly of static or moving subjects? This will inform your choice between, perhaps, the 70-200/4 IS and the 70-200/2.8.

I upgraded from the 55-250 to the 70-200 F2.8 and I absolutely love it, my favorite lens by far for most things.

I am getting ready to start shooting some basket ball shots of my granddaughter. Also there will be some dance recitals that will be low light, so subjects will be moving.

I am used to the IS on my sigma 150-500. It is sooo loud and you can't even hear the 70-200.

if it helps, I was in the same boat so I got the 55-250 since money was an issue. The 55-250 is nice, but I wish I had saved and got the 70-200 f4. Now im in the second guessing boat... if you are even thinking of it, get the "L" lens. Ill probably end up selling mine when I get some cash saved up and go with the 70-200 IS

jag757 wrote in post #10085544
I am getting ready to start shooting some basket ball shots of my granddaughter. Also there will be some dance recitals that will be low light, so subjects will be moving.

You may be better off with the 2.8 (non-IS) then for about the same price as the 4IS. If you have a shutter speed adequate to freeze the action, it should be (just about) fast enough to hand hold. Monopod maybe?

jag757 wrote in post #10085544
I am getting ready to start shooting some basket ball shots of my granddaughter. Also there will be some dance recitals that will be low light, so subjects will be moving.
.

I all honestly, this sounds like a job for your 85mm f1.8, but if you want a zoom for it, definitely f2.8. Those kinds of scenarios are notorious for having the worst light imaginable. F4 is not going to cut it and IS won't help because your subject will be moving too fast.

xarqi wrote in post #10086158
You may be better off with the 2.8 (non-IS) then for about the same price as the 4IS. If you have a shutter speed adequate to freeze the action, it should be (just about) fast enough to hand hold. Monopod maybe?

If you need to freeze the action, then yes you will need the 2.8. But if you think the 1 stop shutter speed advantage will match the 4 stop IS for handheld purpose on a 70-200 zoom, you will be disappointed. Of course if you add a monopod, it will be different story.

Check this thread out also...https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=864918