Sigma 50-150 2.8 OS vs Canon 70-700 2.8 IS II for crop cameras

[unxpectederror]

so its been boggling my mind lately as to why there have not been more reviews of the new Sigma 50-150 2.8 OS.. this lens is some serious piece of kit that rivals the image quality of canons flag ship lens that cost more then twice as much.

i think for anyone who uses a crop cameras that this lens is a no brainier over the canon lens especially if you don't need the extra 50mm reach of the canon.

I recently sold my 70-200 2.8 is II and bought both the Sigma 50-150 2.8 OS and the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS ... both which are fantastic lenses with basically L quality glass. This makes me think that sigma is finally starting to come into its own... it also shows how over priced the canon lenses really are... after selling the canon 70-200 and buying the Sigma lenses i was still left with close to $400 lol.

does anyone else have any other input on this matter?

[Ewinter]

Only that it's all  gravy until sigma ship you a dud. Where I am there's a lot more canon support. Also, I know my canon lenses won't have compatibility issues in 5 years. Sigma's so called ' quality control' isn't very aptly named

[TexPhoto]

In my early days of photography I often went with 2 sigmas instead of one Name brand.  My first SLR was actually a Minolta, and i had a 28-70, and a 70-210.  Loved my lenses and shot a ton with them.

Now that time is shorter than money, I have 10 Canon Lenses, and one Sigma 50mm f1.4.  Great little lens, way ahead of the tired Canon equivalent.  Sigma has made some dogs (170-500mm was  stinker.)  But overall, they make good stuff.  When i needed service, my local show is a Sigma Shop (and Canon and Nikon, and...)  All factory warrantee authorized.

Some of the new stuff from Sigma is top rate.

Buy what makes you happy. 

[unfocused]

Interesting. I've thought about this lens, as well as the sigma 150 macro OS. Glad to hear from someone who owns one and likes it. Sigma takes a lot of grief on these forums for inconsistency. I honestly don't know how much of that is real and how much urban myth or past lack of quality control.

It does seem as though Sigma announces lenses and then seems to have a hard time getting them to market. (Although lately, Canon's record hasn't been so great on that front either.)

I'm glad to see any manufacturer producing quality lenses, as it forces Canon and Nikon to be more competitive.

[darrellrhodesmiller]

i rented both and tried them out.. canon focused much faster, images seemed crisper too. its more expensive.. felt sturdier.. the sigma was a good lens.. i got some good shots out of it.. but the canon is a better lens.. but you pay for the "better."

[dslrdummy]

A 70-700 2.8 IS II would cost a bit I reckon. 

[RAKAMRAK]

A 70-700 2.8 IS II would cost a bit I reckon. 

and think about the size and weight!!!!! No handholding possible I guess.... 

[birtembuk]

In my early days of photography I often went with 2 sigmas instead of one Name brand.  My first SLR was actually a Minolta, and i had a 28-70, and a 70-210.  Loved my lenses and shot a ton with them.

Now that time is shorter than money, I have 10 Canon Lenses, and one Sigma 50mm f1.4.  Great little lens, way ahead of the tired Canon equivalent.  Sigma has made some dogs (170-500mm was  stinker.)  But overall, they make good stuff.  When i needed service, my local show is a Sigma Shop (and Canon and Nikon, and...)  All factory warrantee authorized.

Some of the new stuff from Sigma is top rate.

Buy what makes you happy.

+10

[anden]

I have been lurking this board for some time but this thread had me register to reply.

Since you have been using both, do you think the difference in the ranges 50-150 vs 70-200 for crop (neglecting other differences) had practical effect in some way?

I am using a 60D with 10-22 / 17-55 / 60 macro / 18-200 IS / 50 1.8, and have been looking hard for a good stabilized 2.8 telezoom to complement the set for indoor sports, portraits, and general travel.

While the 70-200 2.8 IS is expensive, it hasn't been the price only which has held me away from that one - it has just as much been the zoom range. I have borrowed that lens from a friend but didn't totally like the long 70 mm starting point. I can imagine why 70-200 is a de facto standard short telezoom range: it's a great portrait range - on FF. It wasn't indoor sports season when I had that lens so I don't have experience of the range there. Otherwise, 50-150 seems to make much sense on a crop camera.

About the 50-150 OS not being FF compatible, for me that just sounds like a good thing. I have no plans to change to FF, and like the thought of having lenses designed for the type of camera I have and not carrying around unneccessary and unused glass volume.

The few reports I have found on the 50-150 OS indeed gives the impression of a premium grade lens. As much as I like the Canon brand and its lenses I already have, it looks like I have found the missing link I have been looking for in another brand. If Canon doesn't soon announce an EF-S 50-150 2.8 IS...

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I have been lurking this board for some time but this thread had me register to reply.


The few reports I have found on the 50-150 OS indeed gives the impression of a premium grade lens. As much as I like the Canon brand and its lenses I already have, it looks like I have found the missing link I have been looking for in another brand. If Canon doesn't soon announce an EF-S 50-150 2.8 IS...

Canon is not going to release one soon, probably never.  So buy the Sigma and hope it works on future Canon models unlike some of the older ones that won't.