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

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?
Anecdotally, I've found that Canon 70-200 to be lighter then the 50-150, but you're right, it is quite a bit longer (as to be expected).

Again, both lenses I've found to be great. I just preferred the slightly better sharpness & contrast, as well as the longer focal length.

--
Espejo
http://www.albertayardworks.com
 
On the focal range, it depends on what you're shooting and how willing you are to foot zoom compensate for the missing 50-70mm range.

First hand experience in an outdoor family-friend get together, I found 70mm too long for getting snaps of friends and the kids unless I got up and moved from my picnic spot (which by then, the moment had passed). If I could go to 50mm I would've had those shots.

I personally don't find 150 and 200mm a large enough difference.

(I have an XTI. I decided to go with the Canon 55-250mm as a travel telephoto.)

Now if you plan to shoot distant objects then the 70-200 would be a better fit (or even 70-300 or 100-400, etc.)

Good luck!
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
--
Peter Chung
 
Have you tried shots at short distances? Try taking a pic at less than 2m distance, at 150mm and f/2.8 - that seems to be where the problem is at its worst.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top