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

For wildlife you need the longest lens you can afford, even for dragonflies so out of those two I'd get the 55-250IS though realistically you should think about a 300 or 400mm lens if you are into wildlife or longer (would love a 500mm or 600mm, or 800mm myself while I'm dreaming). I love my 100-400L but it might be too expensive though in the end it is what you'll get (just watch) or the 400mm f/5.6. I've not used the 70-300 IS USM but it is the same price as the 70-200L and might work better.

hpulley wrote in post #10610459
For wildlife you need the longest lens you can afford, even for dragonflies so out of those two I'd get the 55-250IS though realistically you should think about a 300 or 400mm lens if you are into wildlife or longer (would love a 500mm or 600mm, or 800mm myself while I'm dreaming). I love my 100-400L but it might be too expensive though in the end it is what you'll get (just watch) or the 400mm f/5.6. I've not used the 70-300 IS USM but it is the same price as the 70-200L and might work better.

ok so what would you choose beetwen both lenses ?

I'd avoid buying the 70-200mm cause it's an L lens. You might catch that one disease that makes you become obsessed with only buying L's and then you'll go mad! MAD I SAY.

Seriously though, I own the 55-250 because it's the bigger brother of my kit lens, it's very nice, pretty quick, I don't like the jiggle during AF though, it's nothing serious, just kinda makes you second guess it sometimes.

Overall the IQ from the 70-200mm is better, definitely more sharp, you can see it at DPreview i believe. In all honesty, I'd take USM over IS any day, there were days when Is didn't exist, and people still took fine pictures at full focal length, also full range F4 is beautiful, compared to the 5.6 of the 250mm.

In the end, if you're just looking for a good zoom lens, get the 55-250, it won't fail you.

The 70-200mm is on my list of lenses to pick up and keep though.

i would recommend you to go to a camera store and try them both. really. there your personal likes and dislikes will reveal themselves.

if you are looking for sharpness of the image and for build quality then 70-200 willl be a good choice. if you are more budget oriented, i do not think that 55-250 will disapoint you too much. besides, if you buy 55-250 and dont like it you may sell it for $150-175 and upgrade to 70-200. but then again, you may avoid this by just going to the store and trying them both. good luck.

dsvilko wrote in post #10610157
<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>

Metal mounts do matter...
I've seen plastic mount lenses drop, hit mount-first, from 2-3 feet, and mount is cracked. My buddy thought it was fine (it looked fine other than the big crack in the mount) and tried to mount it up. The pressure needed there broke the mount, or what was left of it.
Same guy, with his 2nd 55-250, we were shooting drag racing. He was panning one way, on his knees, some kid came running by him, and smacked the side of the camera/lens. Lens broke on contact. The plastic mount had twisted and became harder than it should have to remove.

2 of those lenses later, he has a 70-200 f4 IS.

JoYork wrote in post #10609791
55-250 covers a wider range, has IS (which is very useful).

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

Slightly better image quality? lol. if by slightly you mean from decent to awesome, then okay... You'll be hard pressed to find 2 current model Canon teles that are further apart in IQ if you don't include the 75-300mm. Especially 2 lenses so relatively close in price.

here are some real life samples.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …4-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx

Destractions wrote in post #10610848
Slightly better image quality? lol.

kind of chuckled at that as well.

JoYork wrote in post #10609791
55-250 covers a wider range, has IS (which is very useful).

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

slightly better?
maybe .... but the 55-250IS has better image quality at air shows !


Canon 55-250IS with XSi (450D)

SMP_Homer wrote in post #10610762
Metal mounts do matter...
I've seen plastic mount lenses drop, hit mount-first, from 2-3 feet, and mount is cracked. My buddy thought it was fine (it looked fine other than the big crack in the mount) and tried to mount it up. The pressure needed there broke the mount, or what was left of it.
Same guy, with his 2nd 55-250, we were shooting drag racing. He was panning one way, on his knees, some kid came running by him, and smacked the side of the camera/lens. Lens broke on contact. The plastic mount had twisted and became harder than it should have to remove.

2 of those lenses later, he has a 70-200 f4 IS.

Sounds like two stories about people who don't handle their equipment properly.

I'm sorry for their loss, but dropping your lens? Metal mount or not, it's going to do damage.

And the kid story, well I would've strangled the kid...or made his parents cough up the cash on the spot.

watt100 wrote in post #10611020
slightly better?
maybe .... but the 55-250IS has better image quality at air shows !


Canon 55-250IS with XSi (450D)

So then where is your comparison shot? lol.

The 55-250 is a fine enough lens. I sold it when I bought the 70-200mm and it served me while while I had it. it is the best value below the 70-200mm in Canon lenese. What it isn't is a comparable lens to the 70-200mm when it comes to IQ. Shooting from a tripod or on a bright day (like your airshow sht) and IS isn't even a factor. Your shutter speed for that shot had to be over 1/250 so IS wouldn't even work.
In terms of IQ the 70-200mm is arguably the best Tele zoom canon has ever made, while the 55-250 certainly is not.

Syntaxxor wrote in post #10611029
Sounds like two stories about people who don't handle their equipment properly.

I'm sorry for their loss, but dropping your lens? Metal mount or not, it's going to do damage.

And the kid story, well I would've strangled the kid...or made his parents cough up the cash on the spot.

I'm not sure how holding your camera at eye level, panning with a car and shooting is considered mis-handling his gear... hard to fault a shooter when he gets blindsided like that! Not many people get to put a wall of Secret Service agents around them to prevent loose kids from running in public areas...
The dropped lens, I agree, anytime a lens falls prey to gravity, the owner has had a play in that, and any blame starts at the owner's feet... but would that lens have had a metal mount, and fallen the same way, the mount wouldn't have broke - it *may" have bent, and I've seen plenty of bent mounts that just need to be bent back to fit again - plastic mounts don't get that luxury

The kid hit the camera/lens, my buddy never let go (wrist strap), kid went down, got up and took off again... never really pursued that any further

Destractions wrote in post #10610848
Slightly better image quality? lol. if by slightly you mean from decent to awesome, then okay... You'll be hard pressed to find 2 current model Canon teles that are further apart in IQ if you don't include the 75-300mm.

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.

Destractions wrote in post #10610848
Slightly better image quality? lol.

That reminds me of the descriptions astronomers (myself included) give to objects they observe. When you show a "big, extremely bright galaxy with clearly resolved spiral arms" to a non-astronomer he thinks you are nuts because all he can see in the eyepiece is a black space with a few stars

Things are relative. The IQ of the 55-250 is good enough that it won't in any way distract an average person from enjoying a good photograph while the 70-200 won't magically make your average photos look fantastic to people who are not used to searching for the 'little clues' of high quality optics. I don't have expensive optics but there is little doubt that the IQ difference between my 18-55 (non-IS!) kit lens wide open and my extremely sharp 50mm 1.8 stopped down to 5.6 is a few orders of magnitude larger then between the two lenses we are discussing. How would you call this difference, I wander? Super ultra 3000 large? Anyway, no one from my family can reliably spot the difference and are confused as to what all the fuss is about (I shoot RAW and tweak each photo a bit before conversion).

Also, to some people the $300 difference between these two lenses is a pocket change while to others it would be a very significant investment. In my neck of the woods lenses are about twice as expensive compared to US and the average salary is about half of the one in US so if the difference between these two lenses 'felt' like $1200, would you still be so quick to recommend to 70-200? Things are relative. I would rather have 55-250mm and 85mm 1.8 for just a bit more than the 70-200mm f/4.

SMP_Homer wrote in post #10611086
The kid hit the camera/lens, my buddy never let go (wrist strap), kid went down, got up and took off again... never really pursued that any further

Should've thrown the broken lens at him to take him down!

Destractions wrote in post #10611067
So then where is your comparison shot? lol.

.

my friend had the 70-200 non-is at the air show and I had the 55-250IS and we both had very similar cameras, - I got much better pics LOL !


(could have been the IS that made the difference, could have been the extra 50mm - but then it could have been the skill of the photographer!)