This is a question for all Canon users who are using the lenses below here or know more about these lenses.
I'm thinking of buying a new tele-zoom lens, the 70-200mm f/4.0 USM. The lens that I'm now using is a 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS.
My question is: Is the quality of the 70-200mm lens much better and is the autofocus faster? Is this lens worth my money and (alot) better than the 55-250mm lens?
I'm in the same boat, thinking about the 70-200 f4 non-IS lens. I think before I spend the big bucks on the IS version or even the f2.8 version I'll stick with the basic 70-200 to see if I need it.
70-200 is a great focal range!, Im currently using the 2.8 is ii version and a 2x converter for wildlife. Its still tack sharp at 400mm 5.6
the 70-200 f4 non is is also a really good lens very sharp at f4 and hell of a lot lighter than the 2.8is ii, If you planning on shooting in snow storms and monsoon rains i would opt for the is version because its weather resistant.
It's good to know the IS is weather resistant, we get a lot of rain her in the UK. I am thinking of doing something very similar, with the 2x convertor effectively giving me a 400mm lens.
I am a fan of primes but I really am looking for a zoom lens for a telephoto and just can't yet justify the money on a 2.8. We'll see, tbh I probably wont both with the convertor, not yet anyway.
totally the same here! It's such a diffucicult choice because your throwing away alot of money if you're not happy with your new lens. I'm now using a canon 600D, great body
When I was looking at getting a 70-200L, I thought about getting the non-IS version as I shoot most of my stuff from a tripod. I read few articles that said if you can afford it, either get a wider variation of the lens or get IS because light can change very rapidly and all of a sudden you find you can't secure the speed you need to make the shot. IS buys back quite a few stops and I am very glad I spent a little bit more and got the IS version of 70-200 f/4 as I found I use that lens far more off the tripod that I ever thought I would and without IS I would be pushing up the ISO or worse losing opportunities.
I'm thinking of buying a new tele-zoom lens, the 70-200mm f/4.0 USM.
The lens that I'm now using is a 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS.
My question is: Is the quality of the 70-200mm lens much better and is the autofocus faster? Is this lens worth my money and (alot) better than the 55-250mm lens?