Canon 70-200 2.8 L vs Sigma 50-150 2.8 and 17-55 2.8 IS vs 24-105 4 IS

Started Sep 28, 2006 | Discussions thread
Flat view
Summit Regular Member • Posts: 101
Canon 70-200 2.8 L vs Sigma 50-150 2.8 and 17-55 2.8 IS vs 24-105 4 IS

I am debating the 24-105 vs the 17-55 and my 70-200 2.8 against the Sigma 50-150

With the exception of the 10-22 I had to buy when I got my 20D a year ago to replace my venerable EOS 3, I haven't purchased a lens in SIX YEARS

Canon 10-22mm 3.5-4.5 USM
Canon 17-35mm 2.8 L USM
Canon 50mm 1.8 Mk I
Canon 70-200mm 2.8 L USM

Additional: 550EX, Sigma 2X EX, Sigma 105mm 2.8 EX 1:1

When I bought all my gear 8 years ago, I was shooting much differently: portraits, food still life, cityscapes, team sports

NOW I AM SHOOTING: Ski action, mountain landscapes, wildflowers


IMPORTANT NOTE: I am hiking/climbing/skinning/skiing distance for all of these (and possibly skiing off the same cliffs WITH my gear). Weight , size, and quality are important.


My 17-35mm is not the optimal general zoom. Seeing as how I own the 70-200 2.8 and 10-22 already, it is very hard for me to choose between the 17-55 and 24-105. The 10-22/24-105 and 17-55/70-200 are such obvious combinations.

Does ANYONE use these combos for my shooting areas?

I have no worry for IQ diff between the 17-55 and the 24-105. It's all about the 2.8 vs 4, the 3.25x vs 4.4x, and the wide vs long. I'm near indecision although I keep leaning towards that idealistic 28-90 2.8 offered by the 17-55 (long ago I had a 28-105 3.5-4.5 I've missed ever since selling, Side note: I cursed my 20D upon the release of the 24-105 as it is m PERFECT everyday lens.) 2.8 would help my AF

I'm having trouble balancing the pros and cons... HELP?

CANON 70-200MM L 2.8 VS SIGMA 50-150MM EX 2.8

If I end up with the 17-55, I have a new quandry. The Canon 70-200 2.8 L is an incredibly well built tac sharp versatile lens fast focusing, but it is HUGE and it is HEAVY. It has been left behind many a hike because of its size and weight, often taking the 105 macro instead (may still be the case).

Sigma's announcement of an 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM is intruiging (80-240mm evquiv in 35mm FOV vs 112-320mm). It would complement the 17-55 nicely, I could sell the 70-200 and have money left over after buying one, and BY FAR AND AWAY the most attractive quality: it is 35% smaller and 40% lighter (1.1lbs lighter!) than the 70-200! The cost is 25% less reach (I have a TC) but there is a negligable 5% incrase in zoom range.

But I don't know how the IQ, focus speed, and build quality stack (never used a Sigma HSM or DC before). Plus, though my Sigma EX lenses have performed extremely well, I had a very negative experience with Sigma's customer service dept when trying to get them rechipped. I can't find any reviews on this lens.


-- hide signature --

9300ft above sea level

Flat view
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow