Sigma 50-150 2.8 vs Canon 70-200 f4 L

[Rhyth]

Sigma 50-150 2.8 vs Canon 70-200 f4 L, for a 40d Body.

I'm stuck choosing between these two as they are around the same price at £500 ish. I'd gladly sacrifice 2.8 for f4, if the L quality was worth it..fe;focusing speed, bokeh, build etc

I don't suppose anyone here has tried both?

I hear they are both fairly evenly sized for carry around long zoom's.


Thanks R

[Bobster]

you can get a 70-200 2.8 siggy for 550

[brammers]

They're different lenses Rhyth - I'm always loathe to compare different lenses because it's apples and oranges and only you can decide whether Granny Smith would suit you better than Clementines.

One's shorter, APS-C only, goes wider and gives you an extra stop of light.

The other is darker, longer, not as wide, covers FF and is a Canon.

Ambitions towards FF? 70-200. Like width? 50-150. Need a degree of weatherproofing? Canon. Need to freeze motion? Sigma.

Sorry!

[Blastuk]

only the IS versions of the 70-200 are weatherproofed afaik
I'm considering the 70-200F4L cause everywhere I look, people are saying it's the best lens ever

[Saracen]

only the IS versions of the 70-200 are weatherproofed afaik
I'm considering the 70-200F4L cause everywhere I look, people are saying it's the best lens ever

..... except for the IS version.


Seriously though, anyone thinking about these lenses needs to be aware that the IS version is a complete rework, and not just the older version with IS bolted on. Treat them as significantly different.

[Bobster]

I'm considering the 70-200F4L cause everywhere I look, people are saying it's the best lens ever

until they start shooting dark venues that don't allow flash, then they sell it and get the 70-200 2.8 IS

[brammers]

until they start shooting dark venues that don't allow flash, then they sell it and get the 70-200 2.8 IS

But then they go backpacking to Nepal and and, cresting that ridge at 5000m with a week's worth of supplies on their back, they think back fondly to the time when telephoto zooms were small, light, f4 affairs.

That's the problem you face here - you've said you want a telephoto zoom, but we don't know why or how it'll be used. I think the Zeiss 135 1.8 is the best lens ever, but it's really not very good for underwater photography...

[kalniel]

But then they go backpacking to Nepal and and, cresting that ridge at 5000m with a week's worth of supplies on their back, they think back fondly to the time when telephoto zooms were small, light, f4 affairs.

14-42, 40-150 and 9-18

(18-300mm film equivalent)

Actually I didn't line them up very well and the angle makes them look bigger. On camera they seem smaller:

[brammers]

And then they get their pictures back of that once-in-a-lifetime shot of the sun cresting over the 5000m ridge, realise they were taken on an Olympus, and curse themselves for not dragging along the Sony

[kalniel]

And then they get their pictures back of that once-in-a-lifetime shot of the sun cresting over the 5000m ridge, realise they were taken on an Olympus, and curse themselves for not dragging along the Sony

Pffft

[Blastuk]

what's the focal length of that sprite?


well, the IS version also adds weight.. as does the larger 2.8 aperture.. I'm sure anyone who buys these lenses would carefully consider what they would use it for

[Rhyth]

Thanks.

Having given it some thought, I think I would predominantly be using this lens out-doors, so f4 wouldn't be a huge negative. Indoor gigs I shoot will see me close to the band and I tend to use a fisheye or ultra wa 2.8. I also have upto 50mm covered at 2.8.

Let me give you a lens set up that I think I'm moving to:

Sig 10mm 2.8 FEye

Tok 11-16mm 2.8
Sig 30mm 1.4
Can 50mm 1.8
Can 70-200mm f4 L USM ?

I was going to sell my Tamron 17-50 2.8, which has been great, I don't think I'll miss it with this set up though. Moving to a prime orientated mid range set up suits me personally.

[brammers]

That's a cool lineup, pretty similar to one I had myself for quite a while, although I didn't go so wide and used a 135mm 1.8 + 1.4x TC instead of the telezoom - I was doing a lot of events at the time.

The only thing I'd say is that the 50mm f1.8 looks really out of place in that lineup - it's sharp and good value but it is a budget lens, the AF and build are pretty pants and the bokkeh is awful. When I did all primes each lens was special - 20 1.8, 35 2, 50 1.4, 58 1.2, 135 1.8. I didn't cover focal lengths, I covered situations.

For me, looking at your lineup on a 1.6 crop the 50's gonna get a lot of use as a social/walkabout/portrait lens, (cause the 30 is quite short and the 70-200 'only' f4), and personally I'd want something a bit better there. I'd take a look at the Canon 50 1.4, or think about keeping the 17-50 instead - it hardly weighs a ton.

[Rhyth]

cause the 30 is quite short

Ah, I thought on the crop it would be a good walk around as its really hitting 50mm ish, were as the 50mm would be 90mm ish?

I appreciate the suggestion to look at a better quality bit of glass at 50mm.

Ok I've had a re think. I've decided if I'm going to start buying Canon L, I might as well get IS versions, they will hold their value better and potentially pay for themselves quicker.. However I'm not going to go and splash that now. I'm going to create a good quiver of lens appropriate for what I have now in terms of crop body. Having the versatility of the 50-150 2.8 will inevitably allow me the opportunity to use it more. I guess it comes down to either building a bag of top end lens slower whilst missing potentially key focal ranges or having a more complete range of serviceable lens that can be replaced to top end in a sensible order as and when; with funds predominantly raised through the trade. I think this would also produce less guilt (regardless of whether I have funds immediately available or not) and inspire a sense of self achievement as well... always good.

50mm 1.8 II
Sig 10mm 2.8 FEye

Tok 11-16mm 2.8
Sig 30mm 1.4
Tamron 17-50 2.8
Sigma 50-150 2.8

[Blastuk]

I absolutely love my sig 30 1.4, it's my most used and loved lens.. the only problem with it is it doesn't quite have the reach but for most of the stuff i shoot it just works.
I've seen the bokeh on the can 50 1.8 and I usually don't care about bokeh but it really does look horrible on that thing.

I'm gonna add the can 85 1.8 and can 50 1.4 to my collection in that order soon

[brammers]

Ah, I thought on the crop it would be a good walk around as its really hitting 50mm ish, were as the 50mm would be 90mm ish?

Depends on your preference. I've always had a preference for the 70-90mm FoV as a walkaround:





If I had to go with one prime lens for the rest of my life it'd be Canon's 85mm f1.8 on full frame. Just takes you back a bit, a bit of zoom but still intimate.

For me a the 50mm FoV is quite dull, and things start to get interesting again when we get to 35mm:



That's what I meant about having lenses for situations rather than focal lengths. I've now got a Zeiss 24-70, but I use it almost exclusively from 24-40mm and 60-70mm. I bought it because it's 2 lenses in one (a wide and a short tele), not because it's a 24-70. Some people might have bought it because it's 3 lenses in one (a wide, a normal and a short tele)

However, if you're a 50mm FoV lover, then by all means go for it!

50mm 1.8 II
Sig 10mm 2.8 FEye

Tok 11-16mm 2.8
Sig 30mm 1.4
Tamron 17-50 2.8
Sigma 50-150 2.8

That looks an excellent lineup, and a Siggy 1.4x TC will give you a 112-336mm FoV f4 lens - very useful.

Having said that, the Canon 70-200 F4 also slots in there very nicely!