MichaelRowlandsonFeatured By OwnerDec 30, 2012Professional Photographer
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.
georgewjohnsonFeatured By OwnerDec 27, 2012Hobbyist Photographer
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.
georgewjohnsonFeatured By OwnerDec 28, 2012Hobbyist Photographer
I only say that if you don't have IS or a wide aperture ( 2.8 ), especially on a deep tube where you're already losing a lot of light due to all the lens elements, then you may regret it when you actually need it and you don't have it. Off the top of my head you can claw back roughly 2-3 stops extra with IS on a lens than without and that buys back lot of speed, helps keep your ISO down and the quality up.
I bought my 70-200L second-hand off eBay, the guy was simply dumping stuff to make cash. Retailed at around £1000 at the time and I got it for £730 in near mint condition and he even chucked in a Hoya UV and circ-polarizer! It was only about 25 miles away, so I went over, he let me check it and I paid for it. I don't like buying lenses of eBay purely because it's such hard work to find the right item, it can take weeks of checking to ensure you don't get fleeced by some scumbag trying to flog broken kit.
My budget is around 600 euro's. The lens I'm using now is the 55-250mm IS My question is: I'm thinking of buying the 70-200mm f/4 non IS. But is this lens Munch better Then the 55-250mm lens. Are the quality of the photos better and is the autofocus Munch better?
The 70-200 is L glass so, yes, it will be noticeably sharper with less chromatic aberration. While auto focus can change a bit from lens to lens depending on how good the motor is and if the lens has good contrast, autofocus accuracy and speed is much more dependant on the camera body.
That said, a stabilized 55-250 will probably be as good or better in low light than a non stabilized 70-200 F4,
Looking at your gallery, it is clear that you are focused on equine photography so will benefit from a lens that is good in lower light. It might be better to just keep saving and get something like the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 OS when you have a bit more $$.
No problem, and ya, it is always a tough choice. My dad always likes to say: "Poor men stay poor because they have to buy everything twice". And what he means by that is that us people who have smaller budgets tend to go for the cheaper option first then we discover the cheaper option ends up being insufficient and having to save up for the more expensive one later anyway.