Toronto Photography Meetup Group

Am I kr@zy?

I have a 40D with 17-55 2.8 IS as my workhorse. I also have a 50 and 85 1.8 and am looking at a Sigma 50/1.4.

I am considering trading down my pristine 70-200 f4 IS for a 55-250 IS. Why you ask? I rarely need the reach of the longer telephoto and when I do, I am generally in decent light. I am not a sports shooter so I don't need the speed of the L glass focus. I know it is a step down but the L sits at home again and again collecting dust.

I have considered the 70-300 IS which IMO is very nice but if I buy one new, it will almost be a wash financially once I sell the the 70-200.

I know the 55-250 is ef-s only but glass can always be re-sold.

I suppose I could always offer up a trade or sell mine outright and buy a 55-250 at Blacks which is offering them for 299 until Jan 31st.

If anyone cares to comment on the above, please feel free!

The 55-250 is a pretty terrible lens sharpness and picture quality wise. You own what is considered to be the sharpest zoom ever made by any manufacturer. Photozone.de gave it the highest marks for sharpness straight from F4 down, throughout the entire zoom range. It's also weather sealed, internal focusing and most important of all, produces that L look that you'll never get in a cheapo zoom like the 55-250.

Yes you can always sell the lens, but buying and selling on the used market almost always equals at least a bit of a net loss, and you already have a fine lens that will serve you well for years to come. You're not using it now, but you may some day. Maybe you'll get a full frame body and then the L lens would really shine as it will be in a much more useful focal range.

My 70-200 is of my most used and cherished lenses, albeit on a FF body. You can also use a teleconverter with it, which you can't with the EF-S lens. At least not the Canon ones.

Your call, but I'd keep that L.

erm, James, if you're going to sell your

Dope-A-Lot - You make a pretty compelling argument - I am definetly doing some soul searching on the matter, hence the post - thanks for your input.

Mike - I will keep that in mind if I break down and decide to unload it, at least I would know it is going to a good home!

Keep in mind the amount of people trying to get rid of the terrible 55-250, as opposed to people doing the same with L. The latter will always keep its value on the used market, while the former will greatly decrease in it.

I don't know if you ever shot with 18-55 lens before you got used to the quality of your 17-55. If you had, look back at images taken with it.

Now, if you don't shoot at long end, then why do you even need a lens in this range? For me it's either all or nothing in image quality. Don't know about you. I am also in line for your 70-200 if you ever decide to part ways.

Don't do it James .. that's all I have to say.

PE/SD: Thanks for the input.

When I owned the 18-55, it was on a 300D so I can't really compare apples to apples but I do hear you about IQ.

When I look back over the past year I can count on one hand the times I used my 70-200 or 85, both of which are super sharp and well performing glass. I have been shooting the majority of the time with the 17-55.
I have started looking at a change up and am considering the Sigma 50/1.4 (considered by many to be much better than the Canon but that is OT here). In the course of the evaluation, my thoughts turned to what I am shooting and what gets used and what does not.

I vowed I would never buy any more EF-S glass for obvious reasons but the 55-250 seemed like a OK alternative for the 15 seconds of research I did on Fredmiranda. The only time I used the 70-200 last year was a goofy ball tournament and my rationale was "I could get by with the 55-250 in this case". Thats said, perhaps my P&S would be a better alternative.

As you can see, I am doing some soul searching on the topic and I appreciate the input received thus far.

If anyone else wants to give me a smack in the head, please feel free! James (SD), BTW, you only get to smack me once!

Have you considered the 50-135/2.8 or 50-150/2.8 by either Tokina or Sigma? Both are about the same size as the 70-200/4 and gives you f2.8 from 18mm al the way to 150mm.

I wouldn't downgrade to the 55-250. I'd rather let the 70-200L collect dust in a closet than to use the 55-250 one day and remember "this could've been a 70-200L".

Since you mentioned you don't need a telephoto, consider upgrading another part of your kit. You like the 17-55, so how about a wide / normal prime to compliment it? Selling your 70-200L for something like a 35L or 50L / Sigma 50mm at least feels like you've accomplished something.

Frankly I don't see the point of getting a lens already covered by one of the great lenses Canon's made (17-55 2.8 IS). i.e 50mm, unless you always shoot gigs and indoor nights
on the topic of forums and reviews of 55-250, the key is "for its price"
It doesn't ever mean it's a decent lens for a photographer, especially one who's got quite a bit of lenses, like you
It only means it's good for those bestbuy and future shop buyers, who don't even bother turning the green section of the dial on top of the camera

i'm in similar situation. i just use 50mm and 100mm and never really touch the 70-300mm IS. i am thinking of selling it back and picking up something like 200mm wayyy later down the line.

if i were in your position i would just keep the lens or sell it and keep the cash, no point on downgrading since you don't really need the reach. it is nice to have the option of longer reach but you can always borrow one if need be.

Again, I appreciate the insight and suggestions - all well placed. I would never want to be without the focal length covered, so intial thoughts were sell the 70-200L and buy the 55-250 and Sigma 50/1.4 - which would end up being a wash financially but not optically.

I think if I look at the 50 then I should divorce it from the 70-200L discussion. Upgrade the nifty-fifty to either a Canon or Sigma 50/1.4 to allow more creative stuff or low-light work.

Thanks again everyone!

If you want to try the 55-200 in direct comparison with your 70-200, someone's selling:

http://tpmg.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?p=131869#131869

Thanks for the heads up but I think I may hang onto the L. If you have sellers remorse and you haven't sold anything - that is probably a sign.

I have a 55-250 IS that mostly sits at home. Used only a hand full of times. The thing with that is, I'm not sure if the reason it sits at home is because I don't use the length, or if it's cause of the quality.
I'd be happy to send you sample shots with the lens if you want. Or if you want to test it out, let me know.

Thanks for the offer but I think I am going to stick with my L for now. I appreciate it!

I didn't know there are so much interest on the 70-200 f4 IS, where were you guys when I had mine listed for sale? I just sold it because I need money to buy the new 70-200. It was a REALLY sharp lens. I hope the new 2.8 IS is at least just as sharp.
As for trading down to a 55-250 to get some extra reach? That is just un-imaginable and make no sense at all, I hope you have killed that idea.