Dear Canonrumors Forum,
I've been spending a great deal of time trying to decide between these two lenses, which on the first look couldn't be more different in their features, but somehow both match the requirements for the usage I intend:
I'm searching for a small(ish) and relative light telephoto of at least 200mm, mainly for still photography, that is black and inconspicuous to the layman's eye while traveling in "adventurous" offbeat areas in eastern Europe, Africa and South America, and photographing musicians and performers during concerts/festivals.
The main gear I currently own:
is a Canon 100D/SL1 camera, which I intend to keep for a few years to come, as well as getting a full frame model of the next generation roster, to be hopefully announced soon this year.
My lenses are the unique Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 Art,
40mm f2.8 Pancake lens, the 100 f2.8L Macro lens and the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II, with a 2x Extender III.
Often I find myself reaching for the 100L Macro, because it's smaller and lighter than the big white drainpipe for longer hikes.
I'm aware there is no 'perfect' lens and I try to be as objective and extensive in listing the following pros and cons:
The EF-S 55-250mm IS STM zoom lens:
+fantastic Image Stabilization
+lightweight
+one of the sharpest and snappiest EF-S lenses, with only a little bit of a quality compromise
+convenient normal and telephoto zoom range, reducing lens swaps, and 250mm beats 200 by a little
+price wise it's hard to beat, also allows smaller and cheaper filters, but there is neither lens hood nor storage pouch included
+the STM motor for a smooth(er) video shooting, not that important to me
=color is black and doesn't look imitating or drawing attention like Canon's white lens elite
= Size wise approx the same as the 200mm prime, retracted a little shorter, when fully extended longer...
=both lenses are handholdable and do not include a tripod collar
-it's Variable and smaller aperture
-the built quality in general is not par L glass standards
-the retracting design is a dust sucker - proven under harsh conditions such as the Coachella Music and Arts festival
-250mm is the longest possible since its incompatible with Canon extenders
-despite being one of the sharpest EFS-lenses, the prime has the edge in quality, plus I guess I'm a bit spoiled with the 70-200 IS II
-it's APSC only and therefore less future proof and incompatible with full frame models
The EF 200mm 2.8L II prime lens:
+sharp, fast aperture and great picture quality that matches the quality of my 70-200 zoom, no quality compromise here!
+strong built quality
+it's not changing its size, hence getting dust and moisture inside the mechanics is less of an issue
+it's full frame compatible
+allows the use if teleconverters, even if a cumbersome hassle to do so sometimes
=it's color is black and doesn't look intimidating or drawing as much attention as Canon's white lens elite, despite the red ring, which insiders are going to recognize, alongside the slightly bell-shaped front element
=size wise approximately the same as the zoom
=both lenses are handholdable and don't include a tripod collar
-lack of IS, especially for such a long focal length on a crop body
-less versatile and having to change lenses more often increases the amount of dust your sensor and lens mount contacts are exposed to to
-heavier than the EF-S zoom
-let's be honest, this lens is a living fossil and compared to modern lenses completley outdated
-it feels like I'm spending more cash on a quality lens that I essentially have in the 70-200 IS II, but this decision here is a compromise rather than a absolute solution
-it's pretty expensive compared to the EF-S model, filter size is larger, ergo more expensive too
After writing this I'm wondering
Am I missing anything?
To me it seems a pretty tough decision.
I have faith in the many smart and experienced minds of this great online community to gather feedback and look forward to an interesting discussion and debate. Would a poll be an applicable additional option?
PS: yes, I have tried out both lenses at a local camera store a few times and it did not help me much either...
I've been spending a great deal of time trying to decide between these two lenses, which on the first look couldn't be more different in their features, but somehow both match the requirements for the usage I intend:
I'm searching for a small(ish) and relative light telephoto of at least 200mm, mainly for still photography, that is black and inconspicuous to the layman's eye while traveling in "adventurous" offbeat areas in eastern Europe, Africa and South America, and photographing musicians and performers during concerts/festivals.
The main gear I currently own:
is a Canon 100D/SL1 camera, which I intend to keep for a few years to come, as well as getting a full frame model of the next generation roster, to be hopefully announced soon this year.
My lenses are the unique Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 Art,
40mm f2.8 Pancake lens, the 100 f2.8L Macro lens and the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II, with a 2x Extender III.
Often I find myself reaching for the 100L Macro, because it's smaller and lighter than the big white drainpipe for longer hikes.
I'm aware there is no 'perfect' lens and I try to be as objective and extensive in listing the following pros and cons:
The EF-S 55-250mm IS STM zoom lens:
+fantastic Image Stabilization
+lightweight
+one of the sharpest and snappiest EF-S lenses, with only a little bit of a quality compromise
+convenient normal and telephoto zoom range, reducing lens swaps, and 250mm beats 200 by a little
+price wise it's hard to beat, also allows smaller and cheaper filters, but there is neither lens hood nor storage pouch included
+the STM motor for a smooth(er) video shooting, not that important to me
=color is black and doesn't look imitating or drawing attention like Canon's white lens elite
= Size wise approx the same as the 200mm prime, retracted a little shorter, when fully extended longer...
=both lenses are handholdable and do not include a tripod collar
-it's Variable and smaller aperture
-the built quality in general is not par L glass standards
-the retracting design is a dust sucker - proven under harsh conditions such as the Coachella Music and Arts festival
-250mm is the longest possible since its incompatible with Canon extenders
-despite being one of the sharpest EFS-lenses, the prime has the edge in quality, plus I guess I'm a bit spoiled with the 70-200 IS II
-it's APSC only and therefore less future proof and incompatible with full frame models
The EF 200mm 2.8L II prime lens:
+sharp, fast aperture and great picture quality that matches the quality of my 70-200 zoom, no quality compromise here!
+strong built quality
+it's not changing its size, hence getting dust and moisture inside the mechanics is less of an issue
+it's full frame compatible
+allows the use if teleconverters, even if a cumbersome hassle to do so sometimes
=it's color is black and doesn't look intimidating or drawing as much attention as Canon's white lens elite, despite the red ring, which insiders are going to recognize, alongside the slightly bell-shaped front element
=size wise approximately the same as the zoom
=both lenses are handholdable and don't include a tripod collar
-lack of IS, especially for such a long focal length on a crop body
-less versatile and having to change lenses more often increases the amount of dust your sensor and lens mount contacts are exposed to to
-heavier than the EF-S zoom
-let's be honest, this lens is a living fossil and compared to modern lenses completley outdated
-it feels like I'm spending more cash on a quality lens that I essentially have in the 70-200 IS II, but this decision here is a compromise rather than a absolute solution
-it's pretty expensive compared to the EF-S model, filter size is larger, ergo more expensive too
After writing this I'm wondering
Am I missing anything?
To me it seems a pretty tough decision.
I have faith in the many smart and experienced minds of this great online community to gather feedback and look forward to an interesting discussion and debate. Would a poll be an applicable additional option?
PS: yes, I have tried out both lenses at a local camera store a few times and it did not help me much either...