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

Cesium wrote in post #10619659
My point exactly. I'd be impressed if he could blur a full circle, or at least half. THAT would be a good argument for the usefulness of IS.

yeah, me too.

I know. no worries.

tkbslc wrote in post #10619676
Nobody argued that they weren't good shots, but they are not good arguments for why the 70-200 is a worse lens. Which was what he was trying to do.

well, he's a bit over the top with his boldness, but I would say the 55-250 is better in the situation he posted. The point here is the 55-250 is one of those lenses that's dirt cheap and an amazing value. IS, cheap, light, great IQ and all for ~$200? Why NOT buy one?

If this argument was between the 70-200 f4 IS and the 70-200 f2.8, it'd play out a lot different. Why? Because both are L lenses and no one's feelings get hurt when you suggest an EF-S might be able to hang with canon's top shelf lenses. It's a similar issue here, just with labeling issues, build, and size/weight included as well. For some people, IS is crucial. For others, speed is crucial. Effectively, you're looking at the <$500 version of the 2.8 -vs- 4w/SI discussion we see all the time. Same for the 24-105 -vs- 24-70. Some people need/want speed, some people need/want IS, some people have the money to buy both. Pick what works best for you. The discussions shouldn't become flame wars because one person likes their 55-250 and has very good sample shots to prove it works well. He's a fan, good for him. Others like the f/4 non IS version, so what? Yes the 70-300 comes into play here as well, but personally, I'd take the 55-250 over it because if I'm going to have crappy build and a rotating front element, I refuse to pay $500 for it. The f/4 non IS version doesn't have that problem (and has internal zoom and focus which is awesome) but for $200 the value of the 55-250 can't be ignored. You can buy two and break one and be ahead if it's the build you're concerned with.

I've used both, but the critical difference for me is that you can't put a 50-250 on full-frame. I also was unhappy with its focusing speed for sports. I found that it did not track fast enough. I found I got better results with an equally slow, but faster focusing 100-300.

Still holding out for the new Sigma 2.8 OS...

So let's be more specific.

For an airshow, to get prop blur, the 55-250 IS is likely a better choice than 70-200/4 nonIS

For football, soccer, etc. the 70-200 is better, given faster AF and better IQ? IS doesn't help for these applications. Correct?

For slow moving hand-held wildlife shots 55-250 wins because of more reach and IS?

What else?

mpix345 wrote in post #10619922
So let's be more specific.

For an airshow, to get prop blur, the 55-250 IS is likely a better choice than 70-200/4 nonIS

For football, soccer, etc. the 70-200 is better, given faster AF and better IQ? IS doesn't help for these applications. Correct?

For slow moving hand-held wildlife shots 55-250 wins because of more reach and IS?

yes

55-250 wins on size and weight. 55-250 wins on cost. 70-200 wins on build. 55-250 wins from 55~69 and 201-250. For any situation where you're freezing action, the 70-200 is better, for anything where you're shooting at slower than 1/FL shutter speeds (effective shutters) the 55-250 is better thanks to IS. If you need fast AF the 70-200 wins.

ceegee wrote in post #10611105
Well, I own a 55-250 and a 70-200 f/4 IS, and I'd agree with JoYork that the difference in IQ isn't that great. The most obvious differences between these two lenses are focusing speed and build quality. The 70-200 does give better contrast, but contrast is a very quick fix in Photoshop. When I bought my 70-200, my intention was to sell the 55-250, but in the end I couldn't bring myself to let it go. I've kept it as a travel/vacation lens and am constantly blown away by the quality of the images it produces.

Having owned a lens in this focal range without IS (Sigma 70-200 f/2.8), I'd think hard before repeating the experience. If the OP is going to be shooting mostly moving subjects, I'd say go with the 70-200. Otherwise, don't underestimate the utility of IS. It's hard to go wrong with the 55-250, especially for the price. It's a terrific little lens.

THANK YOU. I was reading all the 'trash the 55-250' posts and becoming madder and madder. I too have owned and used both. i agree with you 100%. The major differences are build quality and AF speed. The 70-200 may have the contrast edge but that's it.

OP,
Don't let these 'L' snobs talk you out of a gem of a lens. Sure, the 'L' is nice, but so is the 55-250. If you're doing wildlife and landscapes, get the 250. Sports iss a different story.

P.S. 'L' snobs, i luv u guys. and I'll need your help/advice/input in the near future.

Good Lord.

I went with the 70-200mm f4 L USM.

Great lens.

-Mike

Tommydigi wrote in post #10619765
This post got me considering a T2i with the 2 kits lenses for casual shooting/travel etc. Great photos.

I'm glad this thread was useful to someone.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10619786
well, he's a bit over the top with his boldness, but I would say the 55-250 is better in the situation he posted. The point here is the 55-250 is one of those lenses that's dirt cheap and an amazing value. IS, cheap, light, great IQ and all for ~$200? Why NOT buy one?
) but for $200 the value of the 55-250 can't be ignored. You can buy two and break one and be ahead if it's the build you're concerned with.

+ 1 for boldness !

mpix345 wrote in post #10619922
So let's be more specific.
For an airshow, to get prop blur, the 55-250 IS is likely a better choice than 70-200/4 nonIS
For football, soccer, etc. the 70-200 is better, given faster AF and better IQ? IS doesn't help for these applications. Correct?

For slow moving hand-held wildlife shots 55-250 wins because of more reach and IS?

What else?

well, I swear, I'm trying to stop myself ! actually the $199 Canon 55-250IS can do soccer - the "AF" is no slouch!


Canon 55-250IS with XSi (450D)

It depends on what you like to shoot. Yes, there are times when I find that I can't use my 70-200mm in a shot because I can't the shutter speed fast enough in low light, but for MOST of what I shoot, I don't need IS. I do a lot of candid and "in the moment" pictures of my friends, so they don't stay still.

I also shoot my friends' basketball games, and at times go to the park to shoot animals, which I won't need IS even if they stay still because the daylight has gotten me covered.

watt100 wrote in post #10620973
well, I swear, I'm trying to stop myself ! actually the $199 Canon 55-250IS can do soccer - the "AF" is no slouch!

Canon 55-250IS with XSi (450D)


please, someone stop me!

The question wasn't "Can the 55-250 do soccer?", the question was "Which lens is better for soccer?". One photo doesn't answer that. Expertise and experience with both lenses certainly helps to though. Can you offer that?

The AF is one of the main advantages with the 70-200 imo. Doesn't mean the 55-250 is bad, just a very real and noticeable upgrade if you move from it to the 70-200.

Nice shot btw, except for that annoying photog in the background. Don't you just hate that?

mpix345 wrote in post #10623716
Nice shot btw, except for that annoying photog in the background. Don't you just hate that?

yeah, the annoying GWC's in the background !

For soccer I wouldn't pick any of these lens, the 100-400 sounds good but heck, if I could get anything in a fantasy lens world I would choose set of nice primes - 300mm 400mm 500mm etc, !

LMAO, still going strong.

Thanks for all who contributed to this thread. I was reading it from very beginning and it was very helpful to make final choice for me and learn about FL and FOV as well.
I choose 70-200 F4 L. The 55-250 IS - is nice lens with amazing price, perfectly balanced with Rebels, but few things I don’t really like in this lens and 70-200 is much better for me because of this.
70-200 F4L is not extending outside tubes lens and it does have full manual focus.
Here is also one thing which really bugs me a lot with all and only plastic-fantastic lenses I have - it has metal mount.
My kit lens mount looks like it is ten years old and my camera lens mount collecting plastic decoy, which I’m not happy to see at all.

I have to admit, I purchased 70-200 mostly for still kind of objects photography, but I have no problem to chaise my kids with 90mm focal length at my old 28-90 non IS EF Canon lens at 400-640 exposure, so I don’t think it is going to be a problem with 70-200 at the same exposure.
I also don’t see any reason to use 55-250 in low light at 1/15, because in my typical situation like this I’ll have at least one external flash and 1/200 exposure or it will be on the tripod with 1'' or longer exposure.

And thanks for denoir at post #73 for link to IQ test.
After I saw this it was no questions for me why 70-200 F4 non IS is more expensive.