YAL(Lens)T: Canon 55-250 IS vs 70-200 f/4L vs 70-300 IS

[bondboy]

Budget of around $560 max. Looking for a telephoto for walkaround with XTi.

Which would you choose?

55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS
Pros:
-very cheap (~$280)
-IS
-slightly longer reach (250mm)
-small & light
Cons:
-image quality not as good as 70-200 f/4L
-build quality

70-200mm f/4 L
Pros:
-image quality the best out of these options
-build quality (L)
-constant f/4 aperture
Cons:
-no IS
-heavier & larger
-more expensive (~$560)

70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS
Pros:
-IS
-longer reach (300mm)
Cons:
-image quality not as good as 70-200 f/4L
-build quality
-heavier & larger
-more expensive (~$540)

 

[yllus]

In my books? The 70-200mm f/4 L, no contest. It's simply the best "budget" zoom lens around for the Canon line.

For a not-inconsiderably bit more money, you could drop that aperture to f/2.8 across the entire zoom range and get the Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO HSM Macro for $734.95.

 

[ElFenix]

what are you taking pictures of? that white pringles can attracts attention.

 

[bondboy]

I know the 70-200mm f/4L is definitely a winner, but I wanted to see if anyone had any good words for the other 2 that could possibly sway me in that direction...

Budget is a concern here, so dropping ~$550 or so really is the max I want to spend.

f/2.8 would be nice, but it's also a heavier lens. Without IS, I'm afraid for camera shake because it will be used mostly handheld. Also, it's over the budget.

The lens will be used for travel photography, a lot of sightseeing, etc. Right now, I'm missing that telephoto range, so I'm looking to get closer.

Thanks for the responses.

 

[Kelvrick]

The F4 70-200 sounds like a winner for you though. If you go to sporting events and other things where a lot of people are round, the white body attracts too much attention. I would prefer either the 70-300 IS or the sigma 2.8 (as long as you get a good version).

I don't know why you're worried about blurry pictures with a 2.8 when you're considering a slower f4 without IS as well.

I say head to fredmiranda and pick up a nice used f4. Sell it when you're ready to upgrade and just lose out on shipping costs.

 

[corkyg]

I tried the 70-300 IS on a trip to the Amazon. It was a bothersome lens in that the barrel jiggled like it was loose when I walked. I took it back when I got home, and found that was generally true of all that lens. So - I replaced it with the 70-300 IS DO - sweet! Nice and tight, and it had a barrel lock to boot.

 

[Jawo]

I have loved my 70-300 IS USM since I got it a year ago. Theres nothing better than having in-lens IS on a telephoto. It certainly attracts less attention since it is smaller than the f/4 L, but you have a good breakdown of the pros/cons. I wanted IS for <$600 and it was the only lens that fit the bill. Its able to take a fair amount of use as well. There is a barrel lock (lock it when changing lenses).

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: corkyg
I tried the 70-300 IS on a trip to the Amazon. It was a bothersome lens in that the barrel jiggled like it was loose when I walked. I took it back when I got home, and found that was generally true of all that lens. So - I replaced it with the 70-300 IS DO - sweet! Nice and tight, and it had a barrel lock to boot.

and it's also well over $550.


go for the lightweight zoom. it's a little bit softer wide open and on the short end than the 70-300, gives up a tiny bit at 200, and then at the longest length there isn't much in it at all. CAs are a little better controlled on the 55-250 as well. the only major optical difference is about a stop of corner shading wide open. 50 mm isn't really much on top of 250. focus accuracy and speed will be a bit better on the 70-300. despite not being white, the 70-300 is a pretty decent sized lens, 6 inches zoomed out, probably 9 zoomed in, and that's without a hood. they wouldn't let me into reliant stadium with that lens. but they would let me in with the 55-250 (no lenses longer than 4 inches allowed without press passes).

 

[foghorn67]

Don't worry about attracting too much attention with a white L lens. If you are that concerned about it, buy a lens coat.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: bondboy
Budget of around $560 max. Looking for a telephoto for walkaround with XTi.

Which would you choose?

55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS
Pros:
-very cheap (~$280)
-IS
-slightly longer reach (250mm)
-small & light
Cons:
-image quality not as good as 70-200 f/4L
-build quality

70-200mm f/4 L
Pros:
-image quality the best out of these options
-build quality (L)
-constant f/4 aperture
Cons:
-no IS
-heavier & larger
-more expensive (~$560)

70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS
Pros:
-IS
-longer reach (300mm)
Cons:
-image quality not as good as 70-200 f/4L
-build quality
-heavier & larger
-more expensive (~$540)

You forgot to list focusing pros and cons.

There's not much reason to choose the 55-250mm if you are willing to spend up to your maximum budget to get the best you can afford, even though it is the budget champion.

Between the other two lenses, the best choice for you would probably be the 70-300mm IS. You are a consumer on a budget, not a pro where the 70-200 f/4L would not be the first choice in this range either. The 70-300mm IS offers a better range and nearly equal image quality, plus stabilization.