EF 70-200mm f/4L vs EF-S 55-250mm F4-5.6

Hi there! I’m looking to add a new lens to my camera bag. I’m really looking for something that will allow me to shoot outdoor sporting events, but ideally the lens will be versatile enough to use for portrait photography as well.

I’ve narrowed it down to two lenses:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
or
Canon EF-S 55-250mm F4-5.6 IS STM

Obviously 55-250mm is more cost effective, but will the auto focus speed keep up with fast paced sports? The 70-200mm is definitely a nice lens, but does it make sense for a hobby photographer using a crop sensor body?

I’d love to hear your thoughts!

- Alex

 

May I suggest that you take your camera along to your local camera store and ask to try the two lenses on your camera to get a feel for them (any good camera store, that wants your business will do this) this will let you know if they suit your needs and if you are happy with their weight and the way they work with your camera.

 

I only own and used the 70-200 f4 L IS. It is pretty well my go to lens. It's small. sharp, lightweight, and fast to focus. The only downside is that it is only a f4 lens, and not a f2.8. But then size and cost comes into this.

One of the things that is worth taking into consideration is that one is an apc-s lens, and the other is a full frame lens. If sometimes in the future you upgrade to a full frame body, your 70-200 will be the better choice.

Very much so. I use it on a 7D, and I have no issues with it at all.

Let us know what you decide on.

Gary

 

I know that there is a noticeable difference in price between the L-series 70-200 and the consumer level 55-200.
And that is because there is a noticeable difference in performance and quality. You can't lose by buying the better lens. And, as Gary points out, it also works on full frame in case you upgrade later.

 

I'll speak up for the advantages of the 55-250 IS STM! I'm sure everything said about the 70-200 is true, but I have no hands on experience with it. I do have the 55-250 and can tell you that it's a bargain for the great image quality it will produce. Autofocus is as fast as my SL3 will continuously click them. In practice, the options you choose in the camera menu may have more influence over the final sharpness and the autofocus speed. Although they are both listed at f4, actual low light and hand held performance will favor the 70-200 because of the differences in IS, however there are a few advantages, other than price, that makes the 55-250 a good choice: size, weight, and angles of view.
The 55-250 will be 2.5 inches less lens that you will be having to contend with when walking around or getting in and out of seats, and carrying around. If you have the camera on a strap around your neck, the 55-250 adds 13.2 ounces to the weight of the camera, the 70-200 adds one pound, 11.2 ounces - a significant difference after wearing around your neck or on your shoulder for a few hours.
The last items I will mention are the relative optical sizes - 55mm vs 70mm at the low end gives the 55-250 an extra 6 degrees wider field view - at sports event distances, that's a lot of territory on the other side of the field. The extra 50mm at the telephoto end will give you almost 6 degrees of extra zoom in capability over the 70-200.
For the camera you have, the 55-250 IS STM is well matched, reasonably priced, and I think you will find that it will work well for you.
There is no bad choice here, so good luck, and post us a couple sports photos when you try it out.

 

This isn't a sports photo, but an example of 55-250 image quality, this is an enlargement from a photo taken with a Rebel T5 in Raw format, the original was of the entire bird standing on a rail on my dock, preening in the morning sun after a stormy night..