I wouldn't say price isnt a factor, I'm more looking for what makes more sense. I've read mixed reviews on this question and am still not sure. Im shooting on a crop and was wondering what everyone's thought was and why. Your opinion is very much appreciated
Hands down the 70-200/4L. if you can afford it the IS version. But an alternative (and a very good one at that) would be the 70-300 IS.
I have that lens and its got very good IQ which is almost upto the L . Its only real downsides are the rotating front element (not a problem unless you use a CPL) ,the AF is not the proper Ring USM of the L and is not as quickas it could be, The lens extends when zoomed teh L is constant length, and they charge extra for the Hood.
But for the price its a good alternative to the L
Tokina 50-135mm 2.8 It will be shorter than the rest, but gives crop (and only works on crops) the 80-200mm ish range with constant 2.8 aperture. I've heard phenomenal things about it and its got a 9.8 here, so need I say more? It is a bit more expensive (around the L's price if both are used, $150 cheaper if both are new), with build quality and image quality to match. The others have better range though.
I believe the 70-300mm and 55-250mm are very comparable, except the 55-250mm is about ~$150 cheaper and that's a new 55-250mm vs a used 70-300mm. If you plan to buy new, then the 70-300mm is twice as much. The 70-300mm has USM but its the micro motor, and Canon has certainly made its newer lenses just as fast as the micro motor, IMHO. I'm sure you already know, the 55-250mm is made of plastic which can be good or bad depending on how you're going to be using it. Both rotate the front element like Ian said.
I have heard wonderful things about the f4L as well. IS or no is up to what you're shooting (hand held or tripod). You're certainly getting quality with it. However, the IS version is about twice the price ($500 non-IS -> $950 IS on the used market). With real USM and FTM, if you're shooting fast moving objects, this will probably be the best.
I guess you have to ask yourself what you're shooting. Walk-around, moving or static objects, hand held or tripod, etc. I'm not sure about the 70-300mm but the rest hold their value pretty well, with the Tokina having a niche market (only those in the know).
Here's another thing, you have some very quality lenses from the looks of it. Those are basically the L equivalents in the EF-S world. However, you do mention money may be an issue. If you're not using this length much, I wouldn't worry very much but if you do,
I'd go for the more expensive ones just because I'm sure you're used to certain quality images. Who knows, you can try the 55-250mm and see if it produces the "right" images for you, that's what I'm doing.
I personally just got the 55-250mm new, waiting for it to arrive. I really wanted to try the Tokina when I have the chance as well as the F4L but they cost about twice as much for a used one and without IS. I'm an amateur and I'd rather save my money at this point and again its holding it value so I can always resell later. If you're a pro or even make the slightest money from your shots, I'd get the Tokina or F4L.
thanks Dude - this sounds about right, id consider myself an amateur. Ive seen some good deals on the F4L, around 450 and was wondering if the extra 200 was worth it for the IQ versus the cheaper EF-S and its IS which i will probably need on the long end being an amateur.
Im not really interested in 3rd party lenses, had a sigma, didn't like, haven't bought 3rd party since.
You are right the 70-300 is more money than the 55-250 and prob marginally better IQ if any, thus it wasnt on my list of choices.
Lemme know how u like your 55-250 when u get it, ive read a lot of good things and am interested. I also like where it picks up from my 17-55.
misternikko wrote:
Need:
A Tele zoom to finish out my range.
You'll need to ask if you plan on shooting with a telephoto lens a lot. For me, the answer was a resounding no. So, the 55-250 made perfect sense to me. It's inexpensive, has IS and is discrete. I purchased the lens for the few times I would want to shoot with a long lens.
If you want to shoot with a telephoto lens a lot, such as wildlife, birds, etc, the 70-200 may be better between those two, but you may want to consider a long prime as they tend to have much wider apertures.
If you want to shoot sports, not sure either will suffice.
misternikko wrote:
thanks Dude - this sounds about right, id consider myself an amateur. Ive seen some good deals on the F4L, around 450 and was wondering if the extra 200 was worth it for the IQ versus the cheaper EF-S and its IS which i will probably need on the long end being an amateur.
Im not really interested in 3rd party lenses, had a sigma, didn't like, haven't bought 3rd party since.
You are right the 70-300 is more money than the 55-250 and prob marginally better IQ if any, thus it wasnt on my list of choices.
Lemme know how u like your 55-250 when u get it, ive read a lot of good things and am interested. I also like where it picks up from my 17-55....Show more →
I tried a 55-250 a couple of weeks back and can say that my 70-300 betters it by miles (maybe I tried a bad 55-250) . That said from what you have said (no 3rd party) if its a toss up between the EFS and the non IS L then I would take the L any day. Its a lens you will use and keep for ages and at the cost they are no you wont loose much if anything if you ever decided to sell.
I'd get a 70-200 F4 IS or a tokina 50-135 (as mentioned above). Unfortunately, the Tokina has been discontinued. Probably couldn't stand up to the 55-250 and 70-200 F4... It was pretty expensive.
I tried the non-IS version and hand holding was difficult. (ie required a big ISO increase).
I would take the 70-300 or 55-250 over the non IS 70-200 for usability alone.
Eventually the Ring USM/Full time manual focusing and the non rotating front element made me save up more money for the 70-200 f/4 IS. I would have preferred a black lens but you can't fault the IQ and with the quality glass you have already (IQ wise) I think you will notice a difference if you don't go for the L.
Thanks for the tips guys, I think the following is true:
1) I just want it for the times when i need a longer reach.
2) Didnt wanna spend more than a used F4L. This eliminates the IS version of the F4. At that length i think ill need IS.
3) From what I have seen the bokeh on the 55-250 is surprisingly smooth, kinda like the F4L.
4) Last question now i guess is...is it the 55-250 or 70-300. Ian you said it betters it by miles...you talking about across the board? IQ? AF? 55-250 seemed to have gotten a better review on FM.
misternikko - Yeah, I've seen it for $450 a couple times too. I just mentioned the $500 because I've seen as high as $600 asking as well. Like I and others have said, how often are you going to be using it? That $200 can be put towards a body upgrade or your next lens.
I just came up with a thought though, IS shouldn't be too much of an issue when shooting outside in good daylight (if that is the use of this lens), since you'll get good shots from f4 from the L and that should allow fast shutter speeds. And if you're shooting indoors, the IS isn't going to save you on these small apertures, if your targets are moving (people, animals, etc).
I believe we can agree that performance/price ratio is pretty similar, pay more for better IQ. And due to the lack of IS or a large aperture, both of these choices will limit you to outdoor decent sunlight use. If you plan to shoot far indoors, I'd highly recommend a 2.8 zoom or prime, like the 135mm or 85mm.
So in conclusion, I believe it's how much you want to spend and the weight (390g for the 55 and 709g for the F4L).
TweakMDS - Aw man, I didn't know. I saw one selling on here a few weeks back and still kicking myself for not getting it. It was ~$500 IIRC.
Ian.Dobinson - I think the issue is that the 70-300mm is the "jack-of-all-trades, master of none" On the used market, it has the price of the F4L, the AF, focal length (slightly more), IS (slightly older version) of the 55-250mm, with an image quality in between. I do have to agree and say if your 70-300mm was miles better than the 55-250mm you may have a prime copy of the 70 or a dud copy of the 55, as I have not seen where the price difference was justifiable. Congrats to you though, you may just have a real gem there. I have seen a person convert the 55 to EF just to use on their 1D or 1DS (I forget) though not a pro, they liked it THAT much. Who knows, maybe it'll be "just right" (Goldilocks)
If you are not doing any paid work, 55-250IS will be the best buy. Mine is sharp wide open all focal lengths. IS makes a lot of difference for this focal range.
Ian.Dobinson - I think the issue is that the 70-300mm is the "jack-of-all-trades, master of none" On the used market, it has the price of the F4L, the AF, focal length (slightly more), IS (slightly older version) of the 55-250mm, with an image quality in between. I do have to agree and say if your 70-300mm was miles better than the 55-250mm you may have a prime copy of the 70 or a dud copy of the 55, as I have not seen where the price difference was justifiable. Congrats to you though, you may just have a real gem there. I have seen a person convert the 55 to EF just to use on their 1D or 1DS (I forget) though not a pro, they liked it THAT much. Who knows, maybe it'll be "just right" (Goldilocks)
Looking at examples of the 55-250 online I would have to say that the one I tried may have been a bad copy. and yes I think I probably have a very good copy of the 70-300. although it cant match my 80-200L which is why it doesn't get used very often and why I was looking at a 55-250 as a small light carry around instead.
I will say however that the difference in price is justified by the better build qulity and feel, better and faster AF,
The 55-250 IS is a fine outdoor lens, (light weight, good IQ, and reasonable price), but you might want to add a fast prime to compliment this range. I would suggest the 85mm f1.8 for a crop body. As others have suggested the 70-200 L series are outstanding (any of them).
I have the 55-250 and my brother has the 70-200L so I've used both pretty extensively. The efs lens is a great bargain unless you plan on using it for action shots regularly. It's light, has good range, pretty good IQ, effective IS. It is not in the L's league in focusing speed.
