55-250 vs 70-200 f/4 (NON-IS)

if cost is not an issue, the 70-200 f/4L

If size and weight (and cost and convenience) are issues, the 55-250IS may be the better choice.

70-200 f/4 = 3.0" x 6.8", 25 oz. / 76mm x 172mm, 705g

55-250 IS = 2.8 in. x 4.3 in./70 x 108mm (maximum lens length); 13.8 oz./390g

70-300 IS = 3.0 in. x 5.6 in., 22.2 oz. / 76.5mm x 142.8mm, 630g

The L lens is white - you may not get it into certain venues. And you may draw attention to yourself at places you would prefer not to. The L has FTM and USM. The EF-S 55-250 lens does not. The L costs about twice as much. The 55-250 increases in length as you zoom out to 250. The L does not.

The build is far superior on the L. It's less likely to break.

Both get excellent reviews. But image quality on the L is likely to be superior.

Note FWIW: I think the 70-300 IS is worthy of consideration even if you have no interest in 250-300. Price is about the same as the L and it has IS. I think it's a little of the best of both worlds.

Bob, from what I gather, the 70-200 is not that heavy a lens. Most people seem to indicate that it's not that much of a burden to carry around most of the day. Do you find that it's too inconvenient to carry for travel?

Cost is not a huge factor in my decision-- of course, I'd like to get a good value for my money, and I believe that to be the case for both lenses.

> but hoping to take some fantastic photos worthy of 16x20.

Definitely the 70-200mm then. Another couple things to think about...

You are likely to want to replace the 55-250 at some point. You probably wouldn't want to replace the 70-200 unless your needs change, since it is already as good IQ as you can get.

The true cost of owning these lenses (depreciation of the lens value over time) is probably about equal. The 70-200L will hold its value very well in the long term probably not losing more than $100 in value overall. The 55-250 will not hold up as well physically (build quality) and probably will lose about the same amount of value over time.

Jeff, I appreciate your detailed input.

I think the reason why I discounted the 70-300 IS was because of all the fantastic reviews I had been reading about the performance of the 55-250, and I figure if performance is equal or even better with the 55-250, I might as well save the cash since I don't need the length to 300mm.

Likewise, if performance with the 70-200 f/4 is better than the 70-300 IS, and they cost about the same, I'd rather take the 70-200 despite its color. I think I can learn to deal without IS, but I really don't know at this point. I guess the question is: does the difference in performance between the 70-200 f/4 and 70-300 IS outweigh the lack of IS, everything else being equal? I also like the constant f/4 at the long end.

Sheldon, I'm far too early in the infancy of this hobby to think about depreciating value over time as a decision factor between the two lenses (or far to short-sighted, maybe <g>). I can't imagine replacing either lens in the next couple years.

Justin,

Have you looked at the detailed reviews at Photozone?

Photozone Canon lens tests.

Marc, yep, saw those as well. Honestly, I really don't think I can go wrong. Just hoping a strong argument could be made for one or the other....

I have the 70-200/4L non-IS.

Back when I bought it, neither the 70-300/IS or 70-200/4L-IS was available.

Today, I frequently use the 70-200/4L with a 1.4TC attached. That extra bit of reach is nice. What kind of stuff are you shooting? In many cases, it is challenging to get the necessary 200-300 shutter speed to avoid motion blur. Fortunately, the new bodies produce quite clean images at ISO 1600. . .but still.

Today, if money was no object, I would ignore both lenses you are considering and get the 70-200/4L-IS. If not. . then I would opt for the 70-300/IS. Only if money was REALLY tight would I go with the 55-250/EF-S. Honestly. . .I am admitting a strong anti EF-S bias here.

Buy the 55-250 and rent the 70-200 f/4 (non-IS) at the same time and compare for a week. If you have issues with both, then try the 70-300 IS.

Lab results are going to show the L as far superior. But maybe not for your use. For example, when you use a bigger, heavier lens without IS maybe your photos (because of what works for you) may not be as sharp as they would be with a light, smaller lens with IS. Some prefer a heavier, bigger lens and take better photos with it. The lab can't always test for what works better for you. The color and bokeh of the 70-200 will likely be better regardless but will you notice the difference or care? Also, the color difference can, to some extent, be improved in Photoshop or Elements etc.

On the other hand, since you are "hoping to take some fantastic photos worthy of 16x20", I'd opt for the L.

Whether the 70-300 IS or the 70-200 is the better lens has been often debated on this board. If you use a tripod often, that's one factor in support of the L. If you need 200-300 (why wouldn't you?), well that's a factor in favor of the 70-300. If your hand is not so steady and most of your photos will be around handheld and 150mm to 200mm, I would not discount the need for IS. My guess is that once you try the 70-200 f/4, you won't want to look any further.

That being said, I have been very happy with the 70-300 IS. Color, bokeh, sharpness and more than decent quality at 300mm. It was a major improvement over the Canon 100-300 (non-IS). But it's still a slower lens than the L. A sample of the 70-300 IS on an Xti is attached.

Here's a thought, if you are delighted with the 18-55 IS, you'll probably be happy with the 55-250 IS.

And don't forget the new Canon 18-200 IS which would let you sell your 18-55 IS kit lens.

Confused enough? Me too.

Dear Justin,

If you say you're in the infancy of this hobby I would count that as a reason not to sink too much money in it. Especially because you do not really know your tele needs.

My opinion is that you should work with the 55-250/IS to practice long range shooting and to learn what you seek in long lenses.

You might need IS, you might need longer, you might need faster: you just don't know just yet.

(That said, I've got the 70-200/4 IS and I never want another... I bought it after shooting with a Sigma 18-200 for 18 months thus learning what I needed.)

Kind regards, Matthijs.

I know you're choosing between the two. However, now that you say that price is not an issue, you might want to consider Sigma's 50-150/2.8 and Tokina's 50-135/2.8. They're smaller and faster than the 70-200. Also, those extra 20mm on the short end might come in handy for the kind of shooting you indicate.

I choose the 55-250 after previously owning the 70-200F4 Non IS.

I definitly made the right choice. In any daytime situation, the lens is great (no more than 1 stop slower). The build quality isnt as good, but it isnt terrible. I think if you would be planning on using this lens every day, i would definitly think about an L (maybe F4IS or F2.8IS). For vacation, candids and casual use, the 55-250 is an exceptional value IMHO.

Think about spending your additional savings on upgrading your wide zoom to the Tamron 17-50 F2.8. :-)

I own the 70-200 and love every photo I take with it. It is sharp with good colour, contrast, and bokeh. It's focus is fast and silent - great in AI Servo for shots of the always moving kids.

I've never used any of the other telephoto lenses mentioned but from the reviews it seems you can't really go wrong with any of the 3 (55-250, 70-200 or 70-300). For your vacation, you may want to consider the white lens factor and the attention it attracts - in that regard, the 55-250 would be the better choice for travel in crowded places.

IMO, the 70-200 would be the best choice if you want to freeze subject movement and for long portraits (constant aperture and fast focusing), however the 55-250 and 70-300 both have IS with the differences between the 2 being the better build quality and full frame capability of the 70-300 if a future upgrade in camera body is forseen.

In summary, your choice is a difficult one, but I'm sure you will enjoy any of these lenses. Like someone else mentioned, maybe you should wait and see if the new 18-200 is available before your trip and only take the one lens.

70-200 f/4 is a great deal for a "L" lens. IS would be nice but I prefer the 70-200L.

Buying non-IS seems like buying a very nice car and then opting for inexpensive tires at the last minute. I guess that's a way of saying I really do find the IS beneficial. I have it on an older 75-300, and on several others. At the low end of things I don't see much difference, but up around 200mm--it is, I think, worth it. Just a thought, among many-- if it helps.

Something I meant to include in previous. Several folks have remarked about the "white lens" attracting attention, and being excluded from various events. Has anyone had a major issue with that? Maybe I just haven't been anywhere that was a problem, but I'm curious if it's something I might wish to "factor in". Just a request for comment I guess. Thanks......

Bill:

Certain professional sports venues have restrictions on bringing in professional lenses without a photographer's pass. Concerts are a problem in this regard also. (But many of the bigger concerts will ban SLRs anyway - if not all cameras). Some venues base their lens ban on the size of the lens rather than the color - some base it on both. I have used the 70-200 f/2.8 (IS and non-IS) and the 100-400 IS (all three of which are white lenses) at college sports events, dance recitals and school plays and many other events. Trust me, they attract lots of attention and often lots of questions. Whether this bothers you or is a factor in your choosing a lens is purely personal. I know some on this board like having one good black long zoom and one faster, better white lens and choose their weapon based on the circumstances. I was particularly pleased with the results of the 70-200 f/2.8 (non-IS) for portraits and dance recitals and really couldn't care much about what funny looks and questions I got. I went home with nice shots..

Jeff:

Thanks. No, I really don't care either. It's just that I never thought non-photo-types really knew the difference. I couldn't agree more. You come home with the goodies. For dance recitals--I imagine the 2.8 is great. I thought about it once, but most of my stuff is outdoors...including fast moving things like rodeos and so on. Thus the IS, and the lesser weight. Appreciate the feedback..

Bill:

For dance recitals, I prefer to try to get up close and use my 85mm f/1.8. But the white lenses are necessary when you are not so close or want to isolate one dancer or get some real closeups.

FWIW, the new Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 ($700 USD) seems to be getting some attention. It's black, it's lighter than the Canon f/2.8 70-200s. Some are complaining about the autofocus and the lack of some form of IS but overall it seems like a good option if the white color of the Canons bothers people.

70-200 f/2.8 IS = 1470g

70-200 f/2.8 (nonIS) = 1310g

70-400 f/4 IS = 760g

70-400 f/4 (nonIS) = 705g

Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 (no IS) = 1112g

Thanks for the replies everyone.

Jeff, so far I *am* happy with my 18-55, so your suggestion about the 55-250 resonates with me. I think it will be plenty a lens for me at this stage, the only real drawback I can see being the f/5.6 on the long end, for events, graduations, etc where I'd like the depth of field but might not be able to get up close.

I don't do alot of concerts or recitals, so the color of the 70-200 won't come into play there, but for travel, I can see where it may be a concern.

So, right now I seem to be swaying towards the 55-250 (and maybe I'll but the saved cash into getting a flash).

Jeff---

I do some indoor stuff also. 28-135 IS seems to work, but on the subject of Tamron. I have an 18-250 which I haul around on vacations, etc. I don't get excited about changing lens anywhere but my "clean room" (that's a room where the cats do not go). Anyway....I've had very good luck with the thing. You're right--autofocus seems to be a little unsure where it wants to be on occasion, and IS would be a real plus at 250...but for what it is, it ain't bad. Canon is better, no question. But I am so over...trying to clean a sensor out in nowhereland, that this alternative works for me.

I know you have already made your mind. Just as an added note to the discussion, a black lenscoat may be used on the 70-200mm lens.

(link)

Prasoon

I tried the EF 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS when I bought my XTi earlier this year. I would generally agree with the reviewers that don't like it very much. I'm would now like to sell that lens (this is not a commercial).

Once my disenchantment with the 55-250 became too high I bought the EF 70-300mm f/4.5.6 IS USM. I couldn't be happier. First, I think the IS is a "must have" feature. Second, I too thought that 250mm was as much reach as I would ever need. Recently, I was invited to a late model stock car race on a 1 mile oval track. While I'm not really much of a race fan I thought it would be interesting to see how my XTi and the 70-300 lens handled the challenge.

My photos were far better than I could have anticipated! Great sharpness and clarity. I even took some shots of cars traveling at 150 mph on the backstretch nearly 1/4 mile from my location. The results were amazing. I am now a big fan of the 70-300mm lens.

Larry

Larry, can you specify what exactly you didn't like about the 55-250?

If you use a CPL, a rotating front element will drive you crazy. I shoot around water a lot, and as soon as I'm able, a 70-200 F4L will replace the 70-300 I've got in my bag. A non-rotating front element is one of the reasons I love my 17-55 F2.8