Reading mode: Light Dark

70-200 f/4 or 50-150 f/2.8 ?

Go to last post
I

idrive

New member
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Location
Torino, IT
After a few trips with my 40D and Tokina 16-50 f/2.8, I'm looking for a longer zoom lens.
I've been looking at both Canon 70-200 f/4 and Sigma 50-150 f/2.8.
From all reviews the Canon seems to be a much better lens, but the question is:
would I miss the 20mm length between my 16-50 and the 70-200?
What's your experience?

Thank you
 
I don't think you will, you should be able to back up to get the 20mm back. If not, don't worry about it - different tools for different jobs, and the gap will help you decide.
--
Canon 30D, some lenses, Canon P&S and my Mac
http://www.boora.ca
 
You're worried about missing 20mm????
idrive said:
After a few trips with my 40D and Tokina 16-50 f/2.8, I'm looking for
a longer zoom lens.
I've been looking at both Canon 70-200 f/4 and Sigma 50-150 f/2.8.
From all reviews the Canon seems to be a much better lens, but the
question is:
would I miss the 20mm length between my 16-50 and the 70-200?
What's your experience?

Thank you
Click to expand...
 
I own a 70-200 f4, and have a 50-150 2.8 at work (company owned). I definately miss the 50 mm when using the 50-150 2.8, and have yet to care about that extra 20 mm on the short side (except once when shooting indoor volleyball, until as someone else mentioned, i just backed up/changed from my usual position)

Canon is sharper, has better contrast/color, and faster focus. That said, I can only tell the difference if I do actual testing. Real world use produces fairly indiscernible results.

Good Luck!
idrive said:
I've been looking at both Canon 70-200 f/4 and Sigma 50-150 f/2.8.
Click to expand...
--
Espejo
http://www.albertayardworks.com
 
there is also the tamron 70-200 2.8, a great optic if you don't care that much about AF
 
You seem to be focusing on the zoom ranges - that's mostly a matter of taste depending on your complementary lenses. Personally for a tele zoom I would go for the one with the longer tele range (i.e. the Canon in this case). However - the real appeal of the Sigma is the f/2.8 in a lightweight package. You can always crop a bit your 150mm shot to reach the effect of 200mm, but you can't make up the loss of a stop. So if you plan on any indoor/late afternoon sports for example - go for the Sigma. In general most action shots will benefit from the larger aperture. For portraits on the shorter end the f/2.8 will also give you desired thinner DOF, on the longer end the f/4 provides DOF that is "thin enough".
 
Mokes said:
You seem to be focusing on the zoom ranges - that's mostly a matter
of taste depending on your complementary lenses. Personally for a
tele zoom I would go for the one with the longer tele range (i.e. the
Canon in this case). However - the real appeal of the Sigma is the
f/2.8 in a lightweight package. You can always crop a bit your 150mm
shot to reach the effect of 200mm, but you can't make up the loss of
a stop. So if you plan on any indoor/late afternoon sports for
example - go for the Sigma. In general most action shots will benefit
from the larger aperture. For portraits on the shorter end the f/2.8
will also give you desired thinner DOF, on the longer end the f/4
provides DOF that is "thin enough".
Click to expand...
 
I have the 70-200 f4 L IS and the 18-55 IS. I am not missing the 15 mm betweeen.

The 70-200 f4 L IS is a dream. You will not miss the 2.8, but you will enjoy the 200mm f4 with IS, that allows you to shoot at very low time settings and that is very small, so you can have it with you all the time.

And I strongly believe that the sharpest lens is not helping you , when the AF is not working properly. The 70-200 f4 L IS gives you a very good AF-performance.

I also use an Kenco TC 1.4 converter and the picture quality is still good with having the 280mm(with f5.6)

best regards -Peter
 
BTW - the 50-150's issues that people were complaining about are at 150mm, f/2.8 close to the minimum focus distance - i.e. not something you would pick up in a typical real-life shoot. See the reviews - it's a terrific lens (as is the Canon of course).
 
... including the 50-150, which I promptly returned. The lens is unusable in AF mode for portraits, and hence useless for me.
Mokes said:
BTW - the 50-150's issues that people were complaining about are at
150mm, f/2.8 close to the minimum focus distance - i.e. not something
you would pick up in a typical real-life shoot. See the reviews -
it's a terrific lens (as is the Canon of course).
Click to expand...
 
You won't miss the 20mm gap, really... I have the tamron 17-50 and the canon 70-200 and I'm an happy hobbyist!

The 70-200 4 is an awesome lens, sharp, fast focusing, great colors and a pleasure to handle: go for it!

--
Andrea Vaccaro
 
The 70-200 seems to be a little cheaper too, and thanks to your opinions I'm really leaning towards it.
I read it's about 4cm longer than the 50-150. How's it to be carried around?

Thank you
 
Well, it's not a compact lens, but it doesn't weigh much and hand-holdable in most situations. I surely recommend this lens!

--
Andrea Vaccaro
 
No, I did not try to have it calibrated; that would have destroyed my ability to return it to the retailer for a full refund. The issue could not have been calibration anyway, as it was not consistently off by a similar amount, and it was not off at all ranges. The same problem exists for both I and II versions of this lens, as many reports attest. I really wanted to like it, as it was optically very solid.
Mokes said:
The Mark I or II of this lens? Did you try to have it calibrated?
Click to expand...
 
I used this range almost exclusively for sport shooting, I use to own the canon 70-200 f2.8 and sold that to pick up the Sigma 50-150 + some extras. The canon lens was great, don't get me wrong, but if you are going to be hand holding it for hours at a time it becomes very heavy in your hand! the sigma is much lighter and smaller than the canon and is much more hand holdable! The other plus is you get a f2.8 lens over a f4 lens.

My 50-150 mk2 had a front focus issue and a quick trip to sigma with my 40D solved that problem! now it is tack sharp! and dead on every time. Even Canon lenses can be off focus a little, that is why you see more new cameras with adjustments in camera to adjust the focus! canon is getting tired of having to calibrate there own lenses too.

Good luck with whatever you choose.
--
check out my pics...
http://www.northactionshots.com
http://www.northphoto.net
 
I had the 50-150 with my Nikon bodies as it was the only one available of your choices. Pretty good performer and a nice size as compared to my 70-200VR.The range was nice but I always felt like I needed another lens in my kit. So instead of the longer heavier 70-200, I had two lenses. Not an optimum solution for me.

Now I have the 70-200F4IS and love it. It handles better. Performs better and has IS. On my 5D the range is perfect for candids/portraits. On the 40D it works great for soccer/baseball.

I wouldn't base it upon focal length as much as if you really need the F2.8. If not, then there is no question in my mind.
 
Ditto. I have the same 2 lenses as Andrea...the 50-70 gap has presented zero problems for me.

Roger B.
Andrea Vaccaro said:
You won't miss the 20mm gap, really... I have the tamron 17-50 and
the canon 70-200 and I'm an happy hobbyist!
The 70-200 4 is an awesome lens, sharp, fast focusing, great colors
and a pleasure to handle: go for it!

--
Andrea Vaccaro
Click to expand...
 
I read somewhere (perhaps in the lens testing section) that Sigma lenses (70-200) have a slight yellowish cast.

I use that Sigma lens (on a 1DS3) and i dont really care whether this is true or not, as i shoot raw ,and change everything there.

GR
 
I note you live in Northern Italy where the light is not always sparkling SoCal clearhigh .I live in the UK and while the 70-200 F4 non iS is a stunner ,its an f4 with all that implies.Many people who advocate this lens live in sunny parts of the world where this lens must be brilliant. A bit of dull weather and sharpness drops off .A 2.8 lens will usually get a shot in most weathers and also for interiors etc .My 200 mm Canon 2.8 never failed to get a usable shot but the F4 often failed me .I sold it in the end .Its the one lens that really needs IS .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top