Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
December 26, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 18

Buying a new telezoom-lens? (Canon)

:iconwiingzz:
wiingzz Featured By Owner Dec 26, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
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?
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconorangefruits:
orangefruits Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
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.

Just out of curiosity, what camera are you using?
Reply
:iconmichaelrowlandson:
MichaelRowlandson Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2012  Professional 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.

Hope this helps,
sincerely
Mikey :D
Reply
:iconorangefruits:
orangefruits Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
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. :)
Reply
:iconmichaelrowlandson:
MichaelRowlandson Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2012  Professional Photographer
i would recommend saving up for the f2.8 version if you plan on using a 2x converter. Or look at getting a 200mm prime 2.8 and converter
Reply
:iconorangefruits:
orangefruits Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
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.
Reply
:iconmichaelrowlandson:
MichaelRowlandson Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013  Professional Photographer
if your thinking of putting on a converter in the long run, i would deff save up for the 2.8 is ii
Reply
:iconwiingzz:
wiingzz Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
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 :D
Reply
:iconorangefruits:
orangefruits Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Watch out for the crop factor on that 600D, although, you'll effectively have a 320mm lens at full zoom.
Reply
:iconwiingzz:
wiingzz Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
I know :)
that's only a good thing for taking photography of animals
Reply
:icongeorgewjohnson:
georgewjohnson Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2012  Hobbyist 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.
Reply
:iconwiingzz:
wiingzz Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
OK, so you recommend me the 70-200mm f4 IS lens. actually, I would love to buy that lens, but is alot of money..
I'm only 17, so don't know f I can afford it XD. but thanks for the advice :)
Reply
:iconmichaelrowlandson:
MichaelRowlandson Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2012  Professional Photographer
keep saving, at your age I spent 5,000 on gear :D. If its your passion and you know you can make a living from it then invest in good glass. Just my 2 cents from experience. :)
Reply
:icongeorgewjohnson:
georgewjohnson Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2012  Hobbyist 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.
Reply
:iconrcooper102:
rcooper102 Featured By Owner Dec 26, 2012
What is your budget? What is your subject matter? What do you use now?
Reply
:iconwiingzz:
wiingzz Featured By Owner Dec 26, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
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?
Reply
:iconrcooper102:
rcooper102 Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2012
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 $$.
Reply
:iconwiingzz:
wiingzz Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Ok, thank you very much for your good advice.
maybe you're right, that I have to save more money :)
Reply
:iconrcooper102:
rcooper102 Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2012
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.
Reply
Add a Comment: