Xenon From Belgium, joined Aug 2001, 494 posts, RR: 13 Posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3010 times:
I'm looking for a new lens.
* Canon 70-200 2.8 non IS
* or the Sigma 50-500
2 great lenses in my view!
But witch one to choose? What lens will be most used??
The Canon is for sure pure quality but lacks the mm's.
(so probably when using a converter you need often to take of
The Sigma is also good and had lots of range. When using it
you probably don't need to switch it..
Dehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1055 posts, RR: 35
Reply 1, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2978 times:
Well having owned a 50-500 and now owning a 70-200L IS and 100-400L IS i think i can comment pretty fairly.
The Sigma 50-500 is a truly awesome lens in every respect.
Its sharpness at all focal lengths over a massive range is pretty unmatched by any lens made by anyone at the moment.
I sold mine as i was finding my wastage rate was to high caused mainly by shake at the longer end and the lighting conditions i was experimenting in.
This is better now with the 100-400L but the difference in quality is pretty slim and i am missing the 400-500 bracket which comes in handy in Sydney.
I really wouldn't be comparing it to the 70-200 as it cannot compete with the Sigma for sharpness with a 2x TC attached outside 200mm and you are still short 100mm worth of zoom even with the TC attached.
I am considering buying another to get back the 500mm reach its that good for shooting in good light.
However technique,wind etc play a big part in your shots at those lengths and lots of practice is required.Using my 10D its effectively a 785mm lens and sharp as to boot.
The Sigma 50-500 is an awesome lens for its price,hey its simply awesome.
Many shots on this site will attest and it will give you a lot more flexibility than the 70-200 assuming you do NEED the length.
If you don't need the 200mm+ range i'd go with the Canon but if its long range sharpness your after the 50-500 is exceptional value and then some.