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

How about we examine the actual differences shall we?

55-250mm # F/5.6

Syntaxxor wrote in post #10611131
Should've thrown the broken lens at him to take him down!

hahahahahaha

Destractions wrote in post #10611154
Now to some of you that may not be a big diference, but to me it is night and day.

/agree

I love my 55-250, but I totally want a 70-200mm.

watt100 wrote in post #10611144
(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!)

i bet on the skill.

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.

Your use of the word slightly, is WRONG.

Edit

dsvilko wrote in post #10610353
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/

i really doubt those shots are handheld...

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. 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

i think it's funny you mention how apart it would be from the 75-300mm...the digital-picture.com used to have the 75-300mm on it's ISO chart list, and it blew just about every canon lens away....until i emailed him saying there must be something wrong...then it was taken down...since then i don't trust that site nearly as much


to the o.p....if you want to shoot wildlife, i'd say neither lens

Syntaxxor wrote in post #10611131
Should've thrown the broken lens at him to take him down!

Part of the issue is that the lens was broken, but not out of the mount - the mount had twisted/bent/deformed enough that it wasn't as easy as it normally would be to remove a lens... additional twisting and pushing was needed (all while worrying about any extra pressure breaking anything inside)... by the time that was resolved, that kid was long gone...

and a plastic lens isn't going to hurt a guesstimated 12 year old...

Combatmedic870 wrote in post #10611191
You use of the word slightly, is WRONG.

Your use of the word you, is WRONG

Destractions wrote in post #10611154
How about we examine the actual differences shall we?


Now to some of you that may not be a big diference, but to me it is night and day.

night and day? - !


you can lug around a tripod to hold your heavy 70-200 non-is and hope you get a good shot or get amazing shots with a cheap and light 55-250IS - hand held !

Canon 55-250IS at 250MM with XSi

Most any lens will do fine stopped down in good light. 55-250 looks like a great deal for around $200.

watt100 wrote in post #10611271
night and day? - !


you can lug around a tripod to hold your heavy 70-200 non-is

Have you ever held a 70-200 non-IS lens? They're not heavy at all.

I prefer the Sigma f/2.8 myself. (although it's really heavy)

I think its pretty heavy but these are 2 lenses that have many differences that go beyond the final output. Full time manual focus, faster accurate USM, great build etc. I don't think its really something you can even compare. I Love my 70-200 2.8 but for travel or casual use, I can see the 55-250 being a good choice.

Syntaxxor wrote in post #10611029
And the kid story, well I would've strangled the kid...or made his parents cough up the cash on the spot.

You'd have probably had a soccer mom whooping your ass for bruising her kid with your lens...


on topic, I've had the 55-250 and the 70-200/4. Some days I kind of wish I still had the 55-250, but not usually. The 70-200 is quicker to focus, which you will appreciate if shooting moving subjects. The 55-250 is more versatile, going wider and having IS. If I were choosing based on OPs needs (wildlife & landscapes) then I would go with the 55-250.

SMP_Homer wrote in post #10611225
Your use of the word you, is WRONG

Tuchete (didnt spell that right i bet!)
I meant your...

watt100 wrote in post #10611271
night and day? - !


you can lug around a tripod to hold your heavy 70-200 non-is and hope you get a good shot or get amazing shots with a cheap and light 55-250IS - hand held !


Canon 55-250IS at 250MM with XSi

and it's only $199 !

I don't know what to say to that... work out???
I mean 70-200mm f/4 is not that heavy to carry around.... I can't see why anyone would choose 55-250IS over 70-200L f/4 based on IQ and weight.
Try man-handling 70-200mm f/2.8 IS MK2...