boBQuincy
<font color=green>I am not carrying three pods<br>
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2002
I have a Canon 55-200 (older version of the much better 55-250) and a Canon 70-200 f/4 (no IS). To start with there is not a 2x difference in image quality between the $1100 lens and the $550 lens, nor is there even a 2x difference between the $1100 lens and the $250 lens. The law of diminishing returns works here, and the improvements in image quality get smaller as the price goes up.
However... There are big differences in: build quality, focus speed, sealing, handling, etc. The L lens is of course built very well, the length of the lens does not change with zooming or focusing (eliminating a major cause of dust in the lens), the front element does not rotate, a tripod collar is available, focusing is *very* fast (even faster with the minimum focus distance select switch), image quality is excellent even wide open.
If all of these, and the extra stop of light are important, the extra $$$ is probably worth it. And don't forget the "free" lens hood!
However... There are big differences in: build quality, focus speed, sealing, handling, etc. The L lens is of course built very well, the length of the lens does not change with zooming or focusing (eliminating a major cause of dust in the lens), the front element does not rotate, a tripod collar is available, focusing is *very* fast (even faster with the minimum focus distance select switch), image quality is excellent even wide open.
If all of these, and the extra stop of light are important, the extra $$$ is probably worth it. And don't forget the "free" lens hood!