70-200 vs 55-250

<p>Hello guys. I was unbelievably crazy this morning and bought myself a 70-200 4.0 IS. <br /><br />In my lens collection, I am thinking that this lens will replace my current 55-250 IS II, what do you think?<br /><br /><br />Additionally I have one question, will this in fact at my ASP-C sensor be like 112-320 mm (multiplied by 1.6) and will there be a huge difference? And is in fact my 55-250 ACTUALLY 55-250 on my ASP-C too, or is there some kind of conversion going on there too? </p>

<p>The crop factor of 1.6 applies to both your lenses the same as far as focal length goes. So they cover fairly similar ranges but the 70-200 is a full frame lens so works on the FF and APS-C size cameras while the 55-250 only works on APS-C size. The 70-200 f4 IS is a magnificent lens and you should see an improvement over your 55-250 IS. I might though still be tempted to keep the 55-250 for when you want something lighter and smaller and less white.</p>

<p>The 55-250 will still be a 55-250 on the shelf collecting dust (as in there will be an OMG gasp when you compare the results).</p>

<p>Thanks for you answers guys.<br /><br /><br /><br />I too, think that the 55-250 in fact will be collecting dust... I REALLY am excited about this lens, but I am also very curious about how big the difference is. The 70-200 cost 5 times more, so I hope it is worth it!<br /><br /><br />I am a hobby photographer, but still I think it's time for a pro lens. I acknowledge that it's me who is doing the job, and not the lenses.. That's why I at first bought cheap lenses.. I LOVE the white look, so don't think that will be a problem.<br /><br /><br />I really hope the 4.0 was the right choice(?), I am a handshooter, and I think the 2.8 is overweight for that(?)... I have a 50MM f 1.8, so I will use that one for indoors photography anyways.. </p>

You can see some of the differences here:

 

http://goo.gl/nMaHQ

 

I shoot handheld with a gripped 7D, and the 100-400L, a lens in the same size and weight class of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS,

and while its not light, I don't have a problem with the weight. But the 2.8 does make your wallet a lot lighter!

 

Another bonus to the L lens is you can use it with a 1.4 extender III for a range of 98-280 mm and the IQ will still be an improvement over the 55-250.

<p>To be honest, I do not understand those "pictures" you linked to.</p>

<p>ah, know I see, you hold over the arrow, and see the difference.. Shot with two different systems, but looks like a AWESOME difference? </p>

Or, hover the mouse over the image to get the lens on the right.

Just really hope I did the right choice

<blockquote>

<p>Just really hope I did the right choice</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You made the "right choice" by moving up to Canon's second best 70-200 family of lenses. I used to own that lens. I miss it's lightweight and lost $500 selling it to upgrade to the better 70-200/2.8 II.</p>

<p>I've had the 70-200 for years and I use it a lot at races and for wildlife. Easily handheld, not overly heavy and very sharp. I haven't used the 55-250, but I have a friend who has shot races alongside me and I prefer the 70-200 results. Have fun.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone. </p>

<p>The 55-250 is not worth a lot of money, and if it were me, like Colin, I'd keep it for things where the other lens is too heavy and too noticeable. I have the 100-400mm lens and remaining inconspicuous with it is not on. Comments from subjects like, "Whoa, is that a rocket launcher?" come to mind.<br>

The L lens is better, but the kit lens has its uses, so long as you use it when its virtues are needed.</p>

<p>Of course, if you are a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetishism">fetishist</a>, you might as well dump the kit lens now. ;)</p>

<p>I never believed any of the stories about owners/users of white L lenses being approached by other people, being curious and having both flattering and not so flattering comments, until I got one myself. I couldn't stand it and when my 70-200/4L had collected dust for four-five years I finally sold it and got the 55-250. Interestingly, I've used the new lens more in a few months than I used the big one in all those years! I'd say that for casual shooting the 55-250 isn't bad at all and it's sometimes useful that it goes a bit wider. Vignetting comes to mind as the most obvious weekness. The 70-200/4L is outstanding unless, of course, it stays in the bag.</p>

<p>That's probably individually, if you want a coolness factor or not. But I love the look of the white L lenses, and I know I will wear it proud!<br /><br />I can agree that the 55-250 is more discrete. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can agree that the 55-250 is more discrete.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If anyone is worried about discretion with a "big white lens", <a href="http://www.lenscoat.com/lenscoatreg-canon-70200is-p-307.html">LensCoat has a variety of neoprene covers for your investment</a>, including basic black. I have some of their camo covers for my 100-400, 1.4x III, et. al.. Not that the birds I stalk won't notice a six-foot photographer with tripod & gear, but with the lens decked out in camo, it isn't nearly as noticeable to them when I move it. As an added bonus, the neoprene bears the brunt of the bumps and scrapes of normal use, so the white finish remains intact.</p>

 

You will not regret the f4IS. I have this lens and the f2.8 version. For sports and some indoor events the F2.8 lens is a big

advantage as you can keep the ISO lower. For almost all ther purposes I use the F4 lens - the fact that it is smaller and

lighter is a big advantage for me as it is easier to carry it. You will not regret getting the F4IS as it is a great lens

Thank you mate. Really hope that , as it was a huge investment, I hope to see a huge difference !

<p>Congrats on buying an exceptional lens.</p>

<p>If you don't already own an EF 1.4X TC, buy it to use in combination with this lens for extra reach and/or extra multiplication when used as a macro. Come to think of it, buy a 25ET also for the macro work.</p>

<p>This is a super sharp, workhorse lens. You're not going to want your 55-250mm after using this lens, I suspect. Wait until you have both and decide for yourself.</p>

<p>Even in khaki, instead of "white" (cross-word word comes to mind: <em>ecru</em>), these are just large lenses and will not pass unnoticed for most people.<br /> I'm waiting until enough people have gone to "L" for the price of the kit 55-250mm to drop in used condition, and I will get one, just for those street and people situations. Need to upgrade my APS-C camera first, however.</p>

<p><br /> In my experience, the wildlife reaction to the large, white lens is minimal. In fact just the other day some danged duck came up to me and didn't mention the lens at all. "Aflak" or some such was all it would say.</p><div></div>

<p>How good are those TC's? Do you loose any quality? Usually when I meet "pro" press photographers at car races, they have these HUGE glass extenders at the end of the these 70-200 lenses, what's that really? </p>

<p>I too have upgraded from a 55-250 to a 70-200 f4 IS this year. I have found that images from the latter are definitely crisper. I recently bought a 60D and took a set of standard images using my set of lenses, on a tripod, all of the same view, and among these were images from both these lenses at 70mm and at 200mm. The 70-200 images were noticeably more detailed. I would also say that that the 70-200 + 1.4 TC (Mark II) was better than the 55-250, though not quite as good as those from the 70-200 on its own.</p>

<p>(As an aside, the surprise from this set of testing was how good my 35mm f2 was; definitely better than either of the standard zooms I've got, an 18-55 EF-S IS kit lens and a Sigma 17-70. The Sigma was better than the kit lens, but the 35mm f2 was better than both. Just at 35mm, of course... I also tested a 50mm f2.5 macro and that was very sharp, and also an old 28-105 Mk1 from nearly 20 years ago. This was actually quite poor, poorer than I'd expected, and showed me just how much zoom lenses have improved over that time as this lens was quite well-regarded in the mid-90s.)</p>

<p>Eskil, by "huge glass extenders" do you mean the lens hoods? They are just there to reduce light flare/glare (and also help protect the glass if you think about it).....</p>

<p>Not the lens hood, I dont know actually. Was at a car race, and the dude had one L lens, but the glass at "the end of the lens" was probably as big as my laptop monitor! </p>

<p>Even though this doesn't really contribute to the OP's original question... the thread has altered course...<br>

I use a 70-200/2.8L IS and have a backup Sigma 70-200/2.8 (I don't own a 70-200/4), they are roughly equivalent is size (length/width/weight), and with the hood on, both are obviously sizable. However, I vastly prefer shooting w/ the Sigma in crowds, and at birthday parties, out socially, and such... pretty much whenever I'm not getting paid to be 'the' photographer (the IQ is very nearly the same). The simple reason is that the Black on White color scheme draws <em>everyone's</em> eye... shooting 'subtley' is <em>far</em> more difficult, because nobody misses the fact that a rocket launcher is pointed at them and it's painted glaringly white... I used to <em>miss</em> shots simply because a subject noticed me moving into position. If I didn't have the Sig, I'd definetly have a cover to cover the darn white... but since the IQ diff is negligeable, I never bothered... Now I have vastly more good and great candid portraits - 90% shot w/ the Sig... and as a result have somewhat mixed feelings about the L... </p>