Please help with lens selection

[D23]

First, let me thank all of you for the help you unknowingly gave me over the last couple of months while I was reading the forums. Your knowledge definately helped me capture better pictures.

With that said, I will be purchasing a canon T2i or T3i later this week. I am currently shoot with a Nikon Coolpix 8800 that has the articulating screen and I am trying to decide if the articulating screen is worth the extra money. I am comfortable shooting in A, S, and M, but use A/S more than full manual.

I have used my nieces Cannon XTi(with the kit 18-55 and 75-300 lenses) and like the cannon layout. My neice will also use the lenses I buy when she wants. She is a Senior in High School and has been into photography since she was a freshman. My 8 yr. old loves taking pictures and uses my current camera as well as my nieces. She is gentile with the equipment so I have no issues with her using the new setup.

Below is a list of what I photograph the most listed in the order of importance.

1)Pics of my daughters Indoor school events (plays etc.)
1b) pics of my daughters Indoor Basketball games and Cheerleading
1c) Pics of my daughters Outdoor Soccer Games

2)Family events (Vacations,holidays etc.)

3) Portrait. Just casual ones of my daughter for memories and to hand out to family at Christmas.

4) Macro. This is less important than the above but I enjoy it. I have ok results with the coolpix, better with the XTi. A lens for this would make it even more enjoyable.

5) Wildlife. Mostly Birds and animals me and my daughter encounter on walks in the woods and at camping.

So here is my question. Given the above information. What lenses would you buy to get the job done? What I am trying to avoid is buying the kit lenses only to regret the purchase and upgrading a lens in a couple months. A example is buying the kit 18-55 at first, then buying a lens like the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8-4.5 later for a everyday lens(I'm not settled on this lens, it's just the example that came to mind). I have done this with other hobbies and have finally learned my lesson.

I will not be purchasing all the lenses at once so I have time to save more money if needed. My current lens budget is $1000 but my daughters school events are done for the school year and do not start up again until arround October. I have no problem buying 3-4 lenses if needed. I don't think I need L class lenses at this point.

After I get some responses I will post the lenses I was considering, I just would like your opinions without my novice input.

Like I said, I do not mind spending a couple hundred dollars more per lens if need be to get it right the first time. Betweem My Daughter, Niece and Me they will get their use and im sick of not getting the desired results because of not having the right equiptment (I'm mostly talking indoor sports here as my camera is horrible at this and the Cannon kit lenses are not that much better).

I'm so sorry if this is long winded but like I said, I would like to avoid a bag full of unused lenses because I thought saving $50 or $100 at the time of purchase was a good idea.

Thank You

 

[CouncilmanDoug]

35/50mm!

 

[jaomul]

I recommend the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (I have non vc, the one with vc is a little more expensive). This is imo a good walk around lens and has a fast enough aperture to be useful in the first 3 of your preferences. A 50mm fast lens is always nice to have and there are a few, more expensive ones being better but nothing wrong with the EF50 f1.8. The EF 85mm f1.8 is a nice affordable lens and even though I have never shot a basketball event I have read it is a very good choice on a crop camera, I only really use it for outdoor portraits.
Without being smart macro is best done with a macro lens and there are so many. I haven't seen a bad review of a macro. I had the sigma 105mm and it was great but I didn't like the clutch plus switch to go from manual focus to auto.
Wildlife-Cant help you here. I used a canon 100-400l a few times.I dont have a real good telephoto and other than the few goes off a sigma 120-400 and 150-500 as well as the canon I haven't used any enough to judge, though I liked them all

 

[hukim0531]

Flash and 70-200mm

 

[D23]

35/50mm!

Thanks for the suggestions CouncilmanDoug. I never really considered the prime lenses for this. I assume you are talking about a lens like the EF 50mm F1.4 USM or EF 50mm F1.8 and the EF 35mm f2.0. The school plays are in the gym and I get there early to sit twards the front. If you are in the back they let you walk up the middle isle to take pics. I guess the pics are normally taken at a distance of 20-25 ft. The basketball pics range from 10-40. Would the 35 or 50 be better for the plays?

 

[D23]

I recommend the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (I have non vc, the one with vc is a little more expensive). This is imo a good walk around lens and has a fast enough aperture to be useful in the first 3 of your preferences. A 50mm fast lens is always nice to have and there are a few, more expensive ones being better but nothing wrong with the EF50 f1.8. The EF 85mm f1.8 is a nice affordable lens and even though I have never shot a basketball event I have read it is a very good choice on a crop camera, I only really use it for outdoor portraits.
Without being smart macro is best done with a macro lens and there are so many. I haven't seen a bad review of a macro. I had the sigma 105mm and it was great but I didn't like the clutch plus switch to go from manual focus to auto.
Wildlife-Cant help you here. I used a canon 100-400l a few times.I dont have a real good telephoto and other than the few goes off a sigma 120-400 and 150-500 as well as the canon I haven't used any enough to judge, though I liked them all

Jaomul,
The Tamron non VC was the lens I considered most instead of the kit 18-55 IS. I wonder if the 85mm would be to much zoom for the basketball pics in the 10-15ft range. For the outdoor soccer games I was considering something like the Canon 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS because the distance of the shots can be anywhere from 15-150 ft. or more. The EF 70mm f4 usm also looks good if I wait and save a little (I have not researched the Tamron or Sigma versions). I think these two zooms would do OK for wildlife also and of course the 8 yr old loves to zoom.

 

[D23]

Flash and 70-200mm

I plan on getting a flash. Flash is allowed during the plays (maybe not all, but most) but not the sporting events. Does this change your mind in lens selection?

 

[sovietdoc]

Judging from most of the things you shoot as your top priority, you need some sort of tele zoom. like 70-200 or 70-300 of good quality. Don't be turned off by "L" glass. You can pick up 'L" glass for 700-800 bucks..

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200m...3HH5/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337297599&sr=8-1

 

[TCampbell]

Below is a list of what I photograph the most listed in the order of importance.

1)Pics of my daughters Indoor school events (plays etc.)
1b) pics of my daughters Indoor Basketball games and Cheerleading
1c) Pics of my daughters Outdoor Soccer Games

This is the toughest one to handle.
1a - "plays" are a challenge due to the low lighting, but usually not due to the need to "freeze" action. Usually the actors aren't actually "running" in the play.

1b - this is going to be the toughest challenge to satisfy out of everything you've listed. You've got an indoor event, in poor lighting (even gyms that think they have great lighting are usually not that great to a camera) AND you've got fast moving action. That means you NEED to maintain a fast minimum shutter speed (usually 1/500th), but the lighting is poor. You _really_ want a lens that collects a lot more light and delivers it to the sensor. That means you want a zoom with an f/2.8 focal ratio or a prime (non-zoom) lens with an f/2 or faster focal ratio. Additionally, you need to be able to follow the action and that means the camera needs to be in "AI Servo" mode. This means the lens should have quick focusing motors. On Canon, they call these "USM" (ultra-sonic motor). Every brand (e.g. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc.) call it something different but you want the fast-focusing feature. Lenses with the standard slow motors often cannot keep up -- so a huge percentage of the shots result in missed focus.

1c - The outdoor soccer game (presumably played during the daytime under natural sunlight) is not so much of a challenge. You need a focal length to capture the action but there's enough natural light that you'll be able to use fast enough shutter speeds to freeze action (1/500th). Even a consumer-grade zoom (the sort of zoom that might cost $200) would be able to handle most of these shots... but as the action is continuously moving, you will want those fast focusing motors I mentioned above.

Image Stabilization won't directly help with 1b or 1c. This is because image stabilization helps eliminate or at least reduce the effect of "motion blur" caused by camera movement while taking the shot. Since the shutter speed needs to be pretty fast when shooting sports, you'll always have a fast enough shutter speed that camera movement won't be a problem.

You probably want an 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom. I could suggest a fast prime ("fast" meaning a lens with a very low focal ratio) for the play, a different fast prime for the basketball, and then a zoom for the soccer games that doesn't have to "fast" (it can be variable focal ratio and doesn't need to be particularly low). BUT... by the time you buy all three lenses, you COULD have picked up one pretty nice 70-200mm f/2.8 lens that would handle all of these situations.

"THE" lens to have is the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II -- but that's a VERY expensive lens (over $2000). You didn't mention a budget. If you have the means to afford this lens, go for it. Otherwise... there's the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM -- note it doesn't include "IS", but it costs quite a bit less (I think it'll still run about $1300.)

Sigma makes an 70-200mm f/2.8 with image stabilization (they call it "OS" for "optical stabilization") and fast focusing motors (they call it "HSM" instead of "USM") It's about $1300.

Generally speaking... a fast zoom lens capable of providing an f/2.8 focal ratio all through the zoom range is going to be more than $1000 no matter who makes it. I think either Tokina or Tamron makes a lens that's below $1000 but my understanding is that lens has slow focus motors and doesn't do well trying to follow focus for sports -- so it's not a realistic option to consider.

2)Family events (Vacations,holidays etc.)

No problem. Any "standard zoom" (by "standard" zoom I mean a zoom which offers a mild wild-angle through mild telephoto length... nothing extreme. This is basically what most "kit" lenses are.) The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC is probably a great choice. Image stabilization in practically a marketing gimmick in short focal length ranges. There's a formula that serves as a guideline for the minimum shutter speed to use if you want to avoid blur in the photo caused by camera motion (inability to hold the camera steady while taking the shot.) The formula says the minimum speed should be 1/(focal length) x (crop factor). The crop factor of your camera is 1.6. So if you take a focal length of 200mm, the minimum shutter speed should be 1/320th sec. But at 50mm it's only 1/80th. At 17mm it's only 1/27th. You'll usually be able to get faster shutter speeds -- especially with an f/2.8 lens. As a result, image stabilization isn't needed so much.

3) Portrait. Just casual ones of my daughter for memories and to hand out to family at Christmas.

Any lens that can shoot at about 50mm ... maybe a little longer if you'd like (e.g. 80mm) would do this nicely. A low focal ratio isn't critical but it's nice to have because it can force a very shallow depth-of-field and that means objects in the background will be softly blurred. You end up with a tack-sharp subject and a beautifully blurred background. If you had the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (or any standard zoom at f/2.8) then you'd have this covered already. You could buy a prime lens such as the 50mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4.

4) Macro. This is less important than the above but I enjoy it. I have ok results with the coolpix, better with the XTi. A lens for this would make it even more enjoyable.

There are a lot of ways to create "close-up" shots without using something that technically qualifies as a "macro" lens. A true macro will allow such a close focusing distance that it's possible to create a 1:1 "life size" image "on the sensor". I like to use a penny as an analogy. A penny has a diameter of about 19mm. The sensor on the Canon T2i & T3i bodies is an APS-C with a width/height of about 22mm wide by about 15mm high. Given that the penny is 19mm in diameter, that means a "life size" image of the penny won't actually fit in your frame of view ... the width will barely fit, but the height will not. Imaging making a print of that penny as an 8x10 or 16x20. That'd be a HUGE penny. That's "true" macro.

You can use close-up lenses which thread onto the end of a standard lens. With respect to optical quality, this is the weakest "close-up" option, but it's also the cheapest. You can also use "extension tubes" which is just a hollow barrel. There is no glass in it. You mount it on the camera body as if it were a lens, then you mount the lens to the other side. It servers to increase the distance between the lens and the focal plane of the camera. This has the effect of reducing all focus distances of the lens (the lens will now focus much closer at minimum focus, but maximum focus will no longer go to "infinity").

Lastly (well not really... I left out things like adapters that let you mount lenses backwards) there's the "true" macro lens. The EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM is an outstanding lens from an optical perspective. It's probably the highest quality of any Canon EF-S lens made. I think it's about $400 last I checked. It is a "true" macro. There's a 50mm "compact macro" which will appear cheaper BUT it's not a true 1:1 scale macro. It can only produce half-size images (1:2 scale). They then make a "life size converter" for the 50mm compact macro which lets it shoot true 1:1. The problem is, once you buy the 50mm compact macro and then buy the life size converter, you've spent quite a bit more than what you would have spent on the 60mm macro.

If the reason you want macro is to shoot bugs and tiny critters, a longer focal length is usually desired (e.g. 100mm or longer). This due to the fact that with a shorter focal length you have to get so close to the subject that it may decide to scurry away.

5) Wildlife. Mostly Birds and animals me and my daughter encounter on walks in the woods and at camping.

The favored focal length for shooting birds is usually around 400mm... give or take. You will probably feel that the 70-200mm lens that works great for sports isn't so great for birds because they're (a) small and (b) usually not particularly close. So where 200mm is a great focal length for shooting people... people are a LOT bigger than most birds. You could buy a 2x teleconverter IF you really have an f/2.8 zoom (do not attempt to use a 2x teleconverter on a lens that isn't f/2.8) The teleconverter doubles the focal length of the lens, but it ALSO doubles the focal ratio of the lens. So you end up with a lens that can do 400mm... but at f/5.6. That's fine in daylight. The camera can still focus. But if you had a 70-200mm f/4 lens and tried to use a 2x adapter you'd end up with an f/8 lens. At f/8 the camera will not be able to focus.

Be warned that teleconverters do not universally work with just any lens. If you're thinking about using one, you need to make sure the lens you plan to buy will work with the adapter you plan to buy.

Most people will strongly prefer the lens of the proper focal length over the option of using a shorter lens with an adapter. You lose a little optical quality with the adapter as well.

But as you've got quite a list, I'm trying to prevent you from having to buy a different lens for every purpose. You will likely EVENTUALLY decide to get a lens for birding if this were to become a serious use of your camera.


In summary: you could probably do everything with the 17-50mm f/2.8 and a 70-200mm f/2.8 and a 2x converter.

 

[D23]

Below is a list of what I photograph the most listed in the order of importance.

1)Pics of my daughters Indoor school events (plays etc.)
1b) pics of my daughters Indoor Basketball games and Cheerleading
1c) Pics of my daughters Outdoor Soccer Games

This is the toughest one to handle.
1a - "plays" are a challenge due to the low lighting, but usually not due to the need to "freeze" action. Usually the actors aren't actually "running" in the play.

1b - this is going to be the toughest challenge to satisfy out of everything you've listed. You've got an indoor event, in poor lighting (even gyms that think they have great lighting are usually not that great to a camera) AND you've got fast moving action. That means you NEED to maintain a fast minimum shutter speed (usually 1/500th), but the lighting is poor. You _really_ want a lens that collects a lot more light and delivers it to the sensor. That means you want a zoom with an f/2.8 focal ratio or a prime (non-zoom) lens with an f/2 or faster focal ratio. Additionally, you need to be able to follow the action and that means the camera needs to be in "AI Servo" mode. This means the lens should have quick focusing motors. On Canon, they call these "USM" (ultra-sonic motor). Every brand (e.g. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc.) call it something different but you want the fast-focusing feature. Lenses with the standard slow motors often cannot keep up -- so a huge percentage of the shots result in missed focus.

1c - The outdoor soccer game (presumably played during the daytime under natural sunlight) is not so much of a challenge. You need a focal length to capture the action but there's enough natural light that you'll be able to use fast enough shutter speeds to freeze action (1/500th). Even a consumer-grade zoom (the sort of zoom that might cost $200) would be able to handle most of these shots... but as the action is continuously moving, you will want those fast focusing motors I mentioned above.

Image Stabilization won't directly help with 1b or 1c. This is because image stabilization helps eliminate or at least reduce the effect of "motion blur" caused by camera movement while taking the shot. Since the shutter speed needs to be pretty fast when shooting sports, you'll always have a fast enough shutter speed that camera movement won't be a problem.

You probably want an 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom. I could suggest a fast prime ("fast" meaning a lens with a very low focal ratio) for the play, a different fast prime for the basketball, and then a zoom for the soccer games that doesn't have to "fast" (it can be variable focal ratio and doesn't need to be particularly low). BUT... by the time you buy all three lenses, you COULD have picked up one pretty nice 70-200mm f/2.8 lens that would handle all of these situations.

"THE" lens to have is the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II -- but that's a VERY expensive lens (over $2000). You didn't mention a budget. If you have the means to afford this lens, go for it. Otherwise... there's the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM -- note it doesn't include "IS", but it costs quite a bit less (I think it'll still run about $1300.)

Sigma makes an 70-200mm f/2.8 with image stabilization (they call it "OS" for "optical stabilization") and fast focusing motors (they call it "HSM" instead of "USM") It's about $1300.

Generally speaking... a fast zoom lens capable of providing an f/2.8 focal ratio all through the zoom range is going to be more than $1000 no matter who makes it. I think either Tokina or Tamron makes a lens that's below $1000 but my understanding is that lens has slow focus motors and doesn't do well trying to follow focus for sports -- so it's not a realistic option to consider.

2)Family events (Vacations,holidays etc.)

No problem. Any "standard zoom" (by "standard" zoom I mean a zoom which offers a mild wild-angle through mild telephoto length... nothing extreme. This is basically what most "kit" lenses are.) The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC is probably a great choice. Image stabilization in practically a marketing gimmick in short focal length ranges. There's a formula that serves as a guideline for the minimum shutter speed to use if you want to avoid blur in the photo caused by camera motion (inability to hold the camera steady while taking the shot.) The formula says the minimum speed should be 1/(focal length) x (crop factor). The crop factor of your camera is 1.6. So if you take a focal length of 200mm, the minimum shutter speed should be 1/320th sec. But at 50mm it's only 1/80th. At 17mm it's only 1/27th. You'll usually be able to get faster shutter speeds -- especially with an f/2.8 lens. As a result, image stabilization isn't needed so much.




Any lens that can shoot at about 50mm ... maybe a little longer if you'd like (e.g. 80mm) would do this nicely. A low focal ratio isn't critical but it's nice to have because it can force a very shallow depth-of-field and that means objects in the background will be softly blurred. You end up with a tack-sharp subject and a beautifully blurred background. If you had the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (or any standard zoom at f/2.8) then you'd have this covered already. You could buy a prime lens such as the 50mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4.

4) Macro. This is less important than the above but I enjoy it. I have ok results with the coolpix, better with the XTi. A lens for this would make it even more enjoyable.

There are a lot of ways to create "close-up" shots without using something that technically qualifies as a "macro" lens. A true macro will allow such a close focusing distance that it's possible to create a 1:1 "life size" image "on the sensor". I like to use a penny as an analogy. A penny has a diameter of about 19mm. The sensor on the Canon T2i & T3i bodies is an APS-C with a width/height of about 22mm wide by about 15mm high. Given that the penny is 19mm in diameter, that means a "life size" image of the penny won't actually fit in your frame of view ... the width will barely fit, but the height will not. Imaging making a print of that penny as an 8x10 or 16x20. That'd be a HUGE penny. That's "true" macro.

You can use close-up lenses which thread onto the end of a standard lens. With respect to optical quality, this is the weakest "close-up" option, but it's also the cheapest. You can also use "extension tubes" which is just a hollow barrel. There is no glass in it. You mount it on the camera body as if it were a lens, then you mount the lens to the other side. It servers to increase the distance between the lens and the focal plane of the camera. This has the effect of reducing all focus distances of the lens (the lens will now focus much closer at minimum focus, but maximum focus will no longer go to "infinity").

Lastly (well not really... I left out things like adapters that let you mount lenses backwards) there's the "true" macro lens. The EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM is an outstanding lens from an optical perspective. It's probably the highest quality of any Canon EF-S lens made. I think it's about $400 last I checked. It is a "true" macro. There's a 50mm "compact macro" which will appear cheaper BUT it's not a true 1:1 scale macro. It can only produce half-size images (1:2 scale). They then make a "life size converter" for the 50mm compact macro which lets it shoot true 1:1. The problem is, once you buy the 50mm compact macro and then buy the life size converter, you've spent quite a bit more than what you would have spent on the 60mm macro.

If the reason you want macro is to shoot bugs and tiny critters, a longer focal length is usually desired (e.g. 100mm or longer). This due to the fact that with a shorter focal length you have to get so close to the subject that it may decide to scurry away.

5) Wildlife. Mostly Birds and animals me and my daughter encounter on walks in the woods and at camping.

The favored focal length for shooting birds is usually around 400mm... give or take. You will probably feel that the 70-200mm lens that works great for sports isn't so great for birds because they're (a) small and (b) usually not particularly close. So where 200mm is a great focal length for shooting people... people are a LOT bigger than most birds. You could buy a 2x teleconverter IF you really have an f/2.8 zoom (do not attempt to use a 2x teleconverter on a lens that isn't f/2.8) The teleconverter doubles the focal length of the lens, but it ALSO doubles the focal ratio of the lens. So you end up with a lens that can do 400mm... but at f/5.6. That's fine in daylight. The camera can still focus. But if you had a 70-200mm f/4 lens and tried to use a 2x adapter you'd end up with an f/8 lens. At f/8 the camera will not be able to focus.

Be warned that teleconverters do not universally work with just any lens. If you're thinking about using one, you need to make sure the lens you plan to buy will work with the adapter you plan to buy.

Most people will strongly prefer the lens of the proper focal length over the option of using a shorter lens with an adapter. You lose a little optical quality with the adapter as well.

But as you've got quite a list, I'm trying to prevent you from having to buy a different lens for every purpose. You will likely EVENTUALLY decide to get a lens for birding if this were to become a serious use of your camera.


In summary: you could probably do everything with the 17-50mm f/2.8 and a 70-200mm f/2.8 and a 2x converter.

Thank you for taking the time to respond in this much detail. Your summary recommendations are what I was thinking so I guess a little research did pay off. I have to admit as much as I try to convince myself otherwise, I am really drawn to the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM. For about $200, I will probably pick up the Canon 55-250mm f4-5.6 for a walkaround zoom because of the weight of the EF 70-200mm. The 55-250 seems to have favorable reviews and will be easier for my daughter to handle (and for me to carry because she likes taking pics but carrying the camera is another story:lmao. I think the 2x converter may be the way to go but I have this down the list. The lenses and a flash will come first. Thank You again. It's posts like yours that made me register as a member.

 

[TheBiles]

I would not go with the 55-250. Not only is it severely lacking in image quality and build quality, its focal range is not very good for a "walkaround" lens. You usually want something there that can do wide and telephoto, like a 17-55 or 24-105. Plus, when you compare the photos with those from the 70-200, you will magically get stronger.

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201

 

[thestereoeffect]

I would not go with the 55-250. Not only is it severely lacking in image quality and build quality, its focal range is not very good for a "walkaround" lens. You usually want something there that can do wide and telephoto, like a 17-55 or 24-105. Plus, when you compare the photos with those from the 70-200, you will magically get stronger.

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201

"severely" lacking in image quality? I take issue with that.. If you're constantly comparing photos to L glass, ok.. But the 55-250 *does* take pretty nice photos. The IQ really isn't that bad, you can get some quite nice photos out of it if you aren't hung up on L lenses and taking "pro" shots. Also.. Every lens doesn't need to be built like a tank. Not everyone is a wartime correspondent or shooting @ the X Games.

 

[hukim0531]

As long as 55-250 has plenty of lights to work with, it focuses well and takes decent (may be not "pro" quality) photos. Here's a picture of my daughter taken with nifty 250 wide open & Canon T2i.
ISO-400,
f/5,
1/640,
109mm,
0 bias

First Snow by Dohan_appa, on Flickr

 

[TheBiles]

I would not go with the 55-250. Not only is it severely lacking in image quality and build quality, its focal range is not very good for a "walkaround" lens. You usually want something there that can do wide and telephoto, like a 17-55 or 24-105. Plus, when you compare the photos with those from the 70-200, you will magically get stronger.

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201

"severely" lacking in image quality? I take issue with that.. If you're constantly comparing photos to L glass, ok.. But the 55-250 *does* take pretty nice photos. The IQ really isn't that bad, you can get some quite nice photos out of it if you aren't hung up on L lenses and taking "pro" shots. Also.. Every lens doesn't need to be built like a tank. Not everyone is a wartime correspondent or shooting @ the X Games.

I was comparing it to the 70-200 f/2.8, which was one of the finest pieces of glass I ever used.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

 

[sovietdoc]

I guess it depends on the photographer, but once I've seen IQ from 70-200 f/2.8 I would never come back to 55-250 doesn't matter how big it is or how heavy. I still take my 70-200 to all my hiking trips and this isn't a very light lens to carry around and shoot handheld for an entire day, just because I can't let that IQ go.