Just curious, I had the 70-200 F4 non-IS on my future list. I currently have the 75-300 IS. I'm using a T3i. To prevent blur, I understand that I need 1/320 of a second. That's relatively fast in certain lighting conditions. Looking back at some of my photos and thinking about it, I'm not sure I want to go without IS. So I thought it was an interesting comment that this 70-200 F4 non-IS is "better in every way" than the 55-250 IS. No doubt they're in different leagues, but in certain, maybe many, low light situations, wouldn't the IS out perform? Yes, the L is a sharper lens, but not if it blurs, right?
I just bought the 15-85 at the Canon refurb sale, so I'm out of the market for a little while, but I noticed the 70-200 F4 IS was under $900, so that looks more appealing the next time a refurb sale comes around.
Interestingly, I was actually wondering if I might be better off to sell the 75-300 IS for a used 55-250 in the short term, since I've never really liked the lens. Too soft, slow to focus and hunts frequently for focus. Probably better to just wait for the better lens, but just curious on opinions on my ramblings.
I'll probably end up with the 85 1.8 first, but the better telephoto is in my future plans.