70-200 2.8 IS or Sigma 50-500 ?

[Mark Rodrigues]

Shutter, what you have described, is the my basic reasoning as well - I think I would make much more use of the 70-200.

So here's the thing. Do you like to shoot handheld in lowlight?
If so, there is no question which lens you should get - it's the
70-200. If you're shooting wildlife at mid-day, then the 50-500
will be just fine for you. But at it's widest, the 50-500 is f4...
the 2.8 gains three additional stops with the IS. That's what? 6
stops faster????

Anyway, don't just get a lens because it has a wide range. Get a
lens, and the best lens you can afford, that will allow you to get
the shots that you like to shoot most often.

But with image quality and speed, it's not even a close fight.

Jim

Well, I am in a dilemma, I can't decide what is best for me...

70-200 2.8 IS or Sigma 50-500 ?

I really, really want a white lens , but the samples I have seen
from the Sigma, clearly rival it in terms of sharpness, although
obviously in low light the Canon will blow it away, but yet, I
still really, really want a white lens...

Have any of you been faced with this predicament ??

What should I do...I mean the Sigma is half the price...but it's
not white...


Mark.

--
Jim Fuglestad
http://www.fuglestadphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/366

• You're not in third grade anymore. Take as many recesses as you

want!

• Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.

 

[ASeventhSign]

Really take a look at the 70-200L. It really is an amazing lens.

 

[lawdog]

And even if you're not - get the Canon. That lens is amazing. And if you're using the 20D, the 2.8 will reportedly give you wicked AF response. You have not seen what you're Canon camera can do until you shoot with the 70-200 2.8. I'm sure there are some primes that are marginally sharper (like maybe my 100 2.8 macro ;-), but as far as zooms go, its tough to beat.

J

Well, I am in a dilemma, I can't decide what is best for me...

70-200 2.8 IS or Sigma 50-500 ?

I really, really want a white lens , but the samples I have seen
from the Sigma, clearly rival it in terms of sharpness, although
obviously in low light the Canon will blow it away, but yet, I
still really, really want a white lens...

Have any of you been faced with this predicament ??

What should I do...I mean the Sigma is half the price...but it's
not white...


Mark.

 

[Kiran P]

I thought we were comparing just the Sigma 50-500 to the Canon 70-200. Although one overlaps the other in terms of focal length, that really is the only similarity so that is why they can't be compared. Now if we are looking at the Sigma 70-200 versus the Canon version, well then.... you've got tons of threads on that one.

Kiran

While I haven't owned the 50-500 I have owned and used the Sigma
70-200 and now own the Canon 70-200 IS. While I felt the Sigma was
veryyyy close in optical quality it was slower to focus and a bit
noisey. I was motivated to get the Canon because of it's IS
capability and to be honest... so I WOULD attract some attention.
My first time out with it I scored a photo job, taking pictures for
a local town's annual calendar. People may ask about the lens but
if the attraction can eventually pay for itself then I think it's
worth it.

I really enjoyedthe results from my Sigma (see below... all taken
with it) it never elicited the response I get from the Canon white.
--
Gary USA
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=2583

 

[Tomash Bednarz]

Well, I am in a dilemma, I can't decide what is best for me...

70-200 2.8 IS or Sigma 50-500 ?

I really, really want a white lens , but the samples I have seen
from the Sigma, clearly rival it in terms of sharpness, although
obviously in low light the Canon will blow it away, but yet, I
still really, really want a white lens...

Have any of you been faced with this predicament ??

What should I do...I mean the Sigma is half the price...but it's
not white...


Mark.

 

[quadra950]

You've got decide what you want - the reach of the Bigma or a shorter range with better (or more) performance options.

Lenses are a tool, pick the right tool for the job. If this is just a casual lense for everyday type of stuff, go buy the Canon F4 70-200L. Want a brighter lens, get the Sigma F2.8 70-200 EX. Need to push low light even further and want IS, get the Canon 70-200 IS. And then there's the Bigma's range - hardly fits in this discussion.

Look at how you like to use lenses (do you like F2.8, or are most of your shorts at F5.6 and up?). Are you always needing more reach? Or, do most of shots seem to be in the 100 to 150mm range? Decide what criteria you need and then figure out which lenses are good candidates.

And don't feel like you have to an "L". There are other good lenses out there which rival "L" performance and often for much less money.

Again, decide what performance aspects you need then work towards a lens choice. Trying to find a reason to justify buying 70-200 IS just because you want a white lens it probably going to lead to some buyer remorse.

 

[Alekhine]

The 70-200L 2.8 IS is by faaaaaar better than the bigma at that FL

 

[Jim Durham]

Mark,

It all depends on what your use of the lens is going to be. If you need the reach of the Bigma, get it. Otherwise, get the 70-200. I own a Bigma and love it and it is very sharp at 500mm. I shoot a lot of birds and I need the reach. In fact, I could use a lot more reach.

I'm going to get the 70-200 to use when I don't need the reach of the Bigma. There are definitely times when I am using a shorter focal length and would love both the f2.8 and the IS.

Again, it all depends on the use. The 70-200 would never replace my Bigma because it doesn't have the reach for my bird shots.

Good luck,
Jim

Well, I am in a dilemma, I can't decide what is best for me...

70-200 2.8 IS or Sigma 50-500 ?

I really, really want a white lens , but the samples I have seen
from the Sigma, clearly rival it in terms of sharpness, although
obviously in low light the Canon will blow it away, but yet, I
still really, really want a white lens...

Have any of you been faced with this predicament ??

What should I do...I mean the Sigma is half the price...but it's
not white...


Mark.

 

[greentank]

Well, I am in a dilemma, I can't decide what is best for me...

70-200 2.8 IS or Sigma 50-500 ?

I really, really want a white lens , but the samples I have seen
from the Sigma, clearly rival it in terms of sharpness, although
obviously in low light the Canon will blow it away, but yet, I
still really, really want a white lens...

Have any of you been faced with this predicament ??

What should I do...I mean the Sigma is half the price...but it's
not white...


Mark.

I've got the 70-200 and use the 1.4 with it often...without any real noticeable loss in image quality. You lose a little speed, but you're starting from 2.8, and have IS, so its still good.

It's a heavy lens....but its build quality is not to be believed. I'm sure I'll eventually have a 20D (or a 30D??), which I'd love to use the 70-200 on.

Anyway, you'll find yourself just looking for reasons to use this lens....it's a great motivator. In fact, I'm now wanting to go home and take some pics!
--
http://www.pbase.com/greentank
10D, 17-40L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 50 1.4, 28-135 IS

 

[LDunn1]

I have the 70-200 f2.8 IS - it is a fantastic lens (if a bit big & heavy). Greta sharpness, great speed & the IS really helps with hand hold shots - I leave it turned on all the time.

I also use it with the 1.4x & 2x (both mk2) converters either individually or together when i really need something long, & the results are more than acceptable for my needs (I blow up to 8x12 max).

However, when travelling around the world I sometimes find myself is areas which don't feel quite as safe as home - getting a big white lens out is the last thing I want to do but equally I don't want to miss the shot either. So I whacked a load of black 'duck' tape around my big L series lens - not only does black stick out less, the kit also looks like its on it's last legs & only being held together with the tape......I'm then not such an attractive subject to mug for my camera gear!

Well, I am in a dilemma, I can't decide what is best for me...

70-200 2.8 IS or Sigma 50-500 ?

I really, really want a white lens , but the samples I have seen
from the Sigma, clearly rival it in terms of sharpness, although
obviously in low light the Canon will blow it away, but yet, I
still really, really want a white lens...

Have any of you been faced with this predicament ??

What should I do...I mean the Sigma is half the price...but it's
not white...


Mark.

 

[thebardteacher]

Mark,

I own both these lenses. I bought the Sigma 50-500 first and it has been a terrific lens in terms of sharpness and speed of focus. However, for sports photography and portrait work, I needed the extra light gathering ability of the Canon 70-200. I also enjoy the image stabilization--although it is more hype than necessity.

I too suffer from lens lust from time to time. Canon had a great marketing idea when they made their longer lenses white. I would say to you, "Go for it!" if you can afford the 70-200, but they really are two very different lenses. The 50-500 is used a lot less than the Canon lens, but it is indespensible for wildlife and birds. And don't let anyone tell you it is not a sharp lens. I have taken hand held pictures of dragonflies at 500mm from about 15 feet away, and printed out gorgeous 13x19 prints where every vein in the dragonfly's wing is visible.

Most importantly, have fun!

 

[Mel S]

Hi, just wanna tell how happy I am with my Canon 100-400mm...... I take lot's of sportshots with it, and every time I get back home I can kiss this lens!! A few samples:

http://www.marck.nl/melissa/hippisch/groot/duindigt5.jpg

http://www.marck.nl/melissa/hippisch/groot/duindigt2.jpg

http://www.marck.nl/melissa/hippisch/groot/duindigt7.jpg

http://www.marck.nl/melissa/hippisch/groot/arab3.jpg

You see.... horse fan.....

I would say: buy!!! Good luck with your dessicion!

Mike, I actually was thinking about the 100-400, but read some
reviews that seemed to indicate that it was just average - to be
frank, i think i would probably make more use of the 2.8 on the
canon than i would the 500mm on the sigma, but....

The reason i suggested the 100 400 is I had the 50-500 first
although and awesome lens I found the Canon to be quite a bit
better as far as images goes. A short time ago I was thinking boy
it would be nice to have that extra reach and thinking of selling
the 100-400 but I took a look at my pictures and it was clear that
I would have been making a mistake.
I don't know what reviews you are reading but the ones I have
looked at it is rated rather high I rate it higher than the Sigma.

Tanglefoot47
Tulalip Wa.
Canon 10D 100-400 L IS, Canon 50 1.8, Canon 85 1.8, Canon 100
macro, Canon 28-135 IS, Sony 828, W-1b

--
Mel S