Justin Wu , Aug 30, 2008; 12:22 p.m.
Hi all. I've gotten some fantastic advice on this forum and would truly appreciate some more! I've done a ton of research on these two
lenses, including reading the old threads, looking at the reviews (the-digital-picture.com, FM, etc.), but you know how that goes. The more
you read, the less definitive your decision becomes.
Anyway, here's my setup: 40D, 10-22, 18-55 IS, and 50/1.8.
I'm all over the place in terms of photography, but I enjoy travel (upcoming 2 wk France vacation in October), city/street photography, and
will hopefully be gearing up for some family/baby pics in the near future (and I like good bokeh for portraits). I'm only shooting handheld
right now, no flash yet, and the majority outdoors. I'll mostly print 4x6's, but hoping to take some fantastic photos worthy of 16x20.
My thoughts so far: (with cost not to big an issue)
55-250: lighter, wider range, marries well with my 18-55, and of course, IS.
70-200 f/4 NON-IS: better build, in general, seems to have slightly better IQ, although how much you can tell on most shots/prints seems
to be debatable, and f/4 throughout.
I'm not really considering the 70-300 just because I don't really need the range, and the other two seem to be better buys for what you get.
Can someone convince me to go one way or the other?
Sinh Nhut Nguyen 
, Aug 30, 2008; 12:42 p.m.
if cost is not an issue, the 70-200 f/4L
Bob Atkins 
, Aug 30, 2008; 01:17 p.m.
If size and weight (and cost and convenience) are issues, the 55-250IS may be the better choice.
Jeff Higdon , Aug 30, 2008; 01:24 p.m.
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.
Justin Wu , Aug 30, 2008; 01:29 p.m.
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.
Sheldon Nalos 
, Aug 30, 2008; 01:29 p.m.
> 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.
Justin Wu , Aug 30, 2008; 01:40 p.m.
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.
Justin Wu , Aug 30, 2008; 01:46 p.m.
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.
Marc Bergman , Aug 30, 2008; 03:34 p.m.
Justin Wu , Aug 30, 2008; 04:09 p.m.
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....
