Worth changing from 55-250 to 70-200 f4 non is?

chiffs

chiffs

Messages
437
Name
Sean
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a 500d with kit lens, 50mm f1.8 and the efs 55-250mm.

Have used the kit lens a bit for landscapes and some portraits, 50mm mostly for snaps of my baby girl (8months old) and the 55-250 i have been using for trips out at zoo's and on walks taking some wildlife bird pics.

Is the image quality a massive jump from efs 55-250 to the 70-200 f4 L non is. The other 70-200s are to be honest out of my price range so would be looking at a second hand 70-200.

Would probably be a case of sell the 55-250 to part fund the 70-200 too.
 
Obviously a higher quality lens, but the lack of IS may negate the optical advantage judging by your use of the 55-250mm
 
55-250 EFs is a nice lens and if go to a 70-200 you will not be disappointed. The available ambient light out doors and the fact that the 70-200 is out side the on body flash and the 500D's ISO handling at 1600 or higher you'd might be better off with a IS lens at this length. For portraits not a problem but at the zoo or sports event.....
 
tijuana taxi said:
Obviously a higher quality lens, but the lack of IS may negate the optical advantage judging by your use of the 55-250mm
Click to expand...

Think i might have too try a few pics with and without is on to see how sturdy my holding is.

arad85 said:
Have a look at: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx and the bit beginning "Comparing the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Lens with a couple of other Canon tele-zoom lenses"

This was the reason I bought my 70-200 F4...
Click to expand...

Awesome will read all that in a sec



I understand being a L it is going to give better results just wondering if its worth it and weather or not i would miss the extra 50mm of the 250.
Thinking not after a little crop maybe?
 
The 70-200 is considerably heavier too, had both of these lenses or at least the IS version and the smaller lens is great for travelling light, especially good on smaller cameras like yours

My daughter has it now and would ask to borrow it for certain occasions, wouldn't have swapped for the non-IS version, not even weather sealed for the extra money
 
Last edited:
Run a few test shots with your 50mm against your zoom at the same length i.e. 55mm and same apertures, compare the results, the results of the 50mm will be comparable to the 70/200 f4 zoom, if you think the jump in quality is worth it then have a good look at the 70/200. I have 70/200 IS because I need the IS at the longer lengths, its a lot heavier than the 55/250 but in my view it has far better IQ.
Have a go with both IS on and off when you compare your zoom to your 50mm.
I doubt you'll significantly notice the difference in image size between the 55/250 and the 70/200, bear in mind the 70/200 does give you the option of getting a teleconverter (x1.4) later on if you want even more reach (and without loss of quality).

Matt
 
The 70 - 200 is a great lens and the first "L" lens I owned, excellent pq but the f4 is a bit limiting later on in the afternoon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top