which is better 70-200 f4 L USM non IS and 55-250 IS

as titled said , which is better beetwen both lenses ?
70-200 USM non IS and 55-250 IS
any comment would be appreciated ....

55-250 covers a wider range, has IS (which is very useful).

70-200 has slightly better build and has slightly better image quality.

so what's your choice pal ?

Pick the 70-200, better imagequality beats IS anyday!

/ Magnus

70-200 IMHO ...

pros:

better IQ
better build quality (metal mount etc)
can be used on all EOS bodies (not just 1.6 crops) = better future proofing should you upgrade body
constant f4.0 throughout range

cons:

cost
weight
size

fashioneyes wrote in post #10610027
better build quality (metal mount etc)

<rant mode>
What's with the metal mount obsession? When comparing two lenses that differ in this regard it's almost always the first thing mentioned! The main differences between the nifty fifty and the 135L are metal mount, ... You would think it's a huge deal but I can't remember that I saw a thread 'Help, my plastic mount broke' without it being followed by 'when I dropped the camera from a second floor window' and almost everyone either uses or have used a lens with a plastic mount!
I mean, do you use the lens to take pictures or to fix your hair/lipstick with the mount's high mirror finish?
</rant mode>
Haven't used the 70-200 but I must admit that the photos I saw are very good. On the other hand, 55-250 is not bad at all (for the price). The 70-200 has a one stop advantage in the long end of to zoom. The 55-250 on the other hand has a IS that can often (not always) be 'converted' to a 3-4 stop advantage over non-IS lens. So that's about 2-3 stop advantage to 55-250. The question is now how much is the 70-200 better wide open than the 55-250mm is stopped down to f/9-f/11. Here, the IQ difference is probably not worth the price difference. Of course, this is not that useful for a fast moving subjects where the IS is not effective.
On my 55-250 I most often use the 250mm so if you also consider that you would need to more heavily crop the 70-200 the IQ also goes slightly down.
I did have a 75-300mm and terrible IQ aside I have wowed never to buy a non-stabilised tele lens again (it was useless in anything other than the direct sunlight).
The significant size/weight difference is also something to consider carefully as what's the point of a lens that mostly sits at home because it's too big to be carried around all the time.
I certainly don't think it's an easy choice. It largely depends on what you intend to photograph.

LOL ... OMG ! There's no obessions with metal mounts ..

"I did have a 75-300mm and terrible IQ aside I have wowed never to buy a non-stabilised tele lens again" ... I guess it depends upon technique and subject matter. Personally and it is only my personal opinion, I would sooner have an extra stop on the lens and use the high ISO values than have IS on the lens.

From the reports and reviews on line, I actually don't think these lens are comparable in IQ ... my comments are purely based upon my own research and reading reviews when making decision on what glass to purchase but since I don't have either I hope that someone who has experience in both can comment ....

To the OP ... this is good read and mentions both lens

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

antique wrote in post #10609720
as titled said , which is better beetwen both lenses ?
70-200 USM non IS and 55-250 IS
any comment would be appreciated ....

I would choose the Canon 55-250IS - better pics with IS and longer focal length - and it's only $199 !

Here is a direct comparison at the similar handheldability:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …&SampleComp=0&F​LI=5&API=4

70-200mm is still sharper but these are 100% crops so the difference does not seem all that great.
Here is a nice real-world review of the 55-250mm (not mine!):
http://www.komar.org/f​aq/camera/canon-55-250/

fashioneyes wrote in post #10610259
LOL ... OMG ! There's no obessions with metal mounts ..

"I did have a 75-300mm and terrible IQ aside I have wowed never to buy a non-stabilised tele lens again" ... I guess it depends upon technique and subject matter. Personally and it is only my personal opinion, I would sooner have an extra stop on the lens and use the high ISO values than have IS on the lens.

From the reports and reviews on line, I actually don't think these lens' are comparable in IQ ... my comments are purely based upon my own research and reading reviews when making decision on what glass to purchse but since I don't either I hope that someone who has experience in both can comment ....

can 70-200 L plugged into 1000d ?
is ok to installing 70-200 L to 1000d ?
and if you're in my position , what would you choose beetwen both lenses ?

antique wrote in post #10610373
can 70-200 L plugged into 1000d ?
is ok to installing 70-200 L to 1000d ?
and if you're in my position , what would you choose beetwen both lenses ?

Yes, the 1000D can mount any EF or EF-S lens including the 70-200 or the 1200mm

As said above, 55-250IS has more range and IS, 70-200 is constant f/4 and sharper but more expensive and bigger/heavier. What is more important to you, size/weight, cost or sharpness?

antique wrote in post #10610373
can 70-200 L plugged into 1000d ?
is ok to installing 70-200 L to 1000d ?

Yes and yes. Certainly a better combination than a 7d and a 75-300mm (IMHO). It's always better to invest more in the lenses. Nice thing with the L lens is that if you buy used you can essentially rent if for free indefinitely with a down-payment (as you can probably sell it for the same price even in a few years time). 1000d, on the other hand will be almost worthless 5 years from now.

hpulley wrote in post #10610412
Yes, the 1000D can mount any EF or EF-S lens including the 70-200 or the 1200mm

As said above, 55-250IS has more range and IS, 70-200 is constant f/4 and sharper but more expensive and bigger/heavier. What is more important to you, size/weight, cost or sharpness?

nice answer pal ... that was i'm asking about ...
usually i'm using for wildlife or landscape and sometimes dragonfly too ...
any suggestion ?

dsvilko wrote in post #10610413
Yes and yes. Certainly a better combination than a 7d and a 75-300mm (IMHO). It's always better to invest more in the lenses. Nice thing with the L lens is that if you buy used you can essentially rent if for free indefinitely with a down-payment (as you can probably sell it for the same price even in a few years time). 1000d, on the other hand will be almost worthless 5 years from now.

nice answer very details with samples ....
if you have another word or something please tell me about both lenses ....