efs 55-250 4-5.6 is lens VS the ef 70-200 f4 fl usm. Which is better?

[kitkatkat]

Obviously these two lenses look like beginner and pro levels, I'm figuring the glass is better on the 2nd lens. But I'd like opinions from those who have used the "gorgeous" 70-200! 

Bigger is not always bettter. Lots of these "football" lenses are manual focus!  Fast and manual is not for one with glasses!

[cicopo]

Never owned that particular lens but have owned the IS version & the 2.8 non IS & IS version so my info isn't 100% accurate BUT there's more to a quality lens than the glass these days. AF speed & accuracy are very important & it's in the upper end of the charts, same with colour & contrast. If you want a very high quality lens in that range but don't think you need IS (nice to have but not a necessity in many uses) it's a VERY GOOD starting point to getting better images without adding much more weight to your camera & lens combo. .

[cale_kat]

---

@kitkatkat wrote:

Obviously these two lenses look like beginner and pro levels, I'm figuring the glass is better on the 2nd lens. But I'd like opinions from those who have used the "gorgeous" 70-200! 

Bigger is not always bettter. Lots of these "football" lenses are manual focus!  Fast and manual is not for one with glasses!

---

If you shoot mostly in daylight, the 55-250 will probably (I say this to give myself plenty of wiggle room) produce about the same number of keepers. The build quality of the 70-200 is better and your crop camera will always be shooting through the "sweet spot" in the lens so you can expect great autofocus performance even when lighting conditions are less than ideal.

Good luck.

[ebiggs1]

"... I'm figuring the glass is better on the 2nd lens."

A lens, any lens, is a sum of it's specs not a single one.  You must weight them all vs one or the other.

For me there is no question, as I would destroy the 55-250mm (flimsy construction) in short time for the kind of use I put equipment through.  So it is out of the question as a lens that works is better than a broken one.

But for the vast marjority of Rebel users the 55-250mm is fine.  What you would gain by spending the extra bucks is only for you to tell.

Bottom line is the 70-200mm f4 will out perform the 55-250mm, period.  But do you need that performance?

[cale_kat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"... I'm figuring the glass is better on the 2nd lens."

A lens, any lens, is a sum of it's specs not a single one.  You must weight them all vs one or the other.

For me there is no question, as I would destroy the 55-250mm (flimsy construction) in short time for the kind of use I put equipment through.  So it is out of the question as a lens that works is better than a broken one.

But for the vast marjority of Rebel users the 55-250mm is fine.  What you would gain by spending the extra bucks is only for you to tell.

Bottom line is the 70-200mm f4 will out perform the 55-250mm, period.  But do you need that performance?

---

Whoa, "A lens, any lens is a sum of it's specs not a single one...." That's deep.

"For me there is no question, as I would destroy the 55-250mm ..." Dang you're hard on equipment. Stay away from the china!

"For the vast marhority of Rebel users the 55-250mm is fine...." But not for the OP?

"Bottom line is the 70-200mm f4 will out perform the 55-250mm period." Wait a moment. I don't have psychic abilities. In what ways will the 70-200mm outperform the 55-250mm?

LOL,