Sigma 50-500mm or Canon 70-200mm F/2.8 IS

[tdaugharty]

I've got $$ to buy another lens and went to wolf to try the Canon L 70-200mm 2.8 IS BUT while there I also tried the Sigma 50-500mm F/4 EX HSM.

I already have a Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 EX HSM that I love but get tired of the pro canon nuts saying it's not a Canon. I could really care less what others think b/c it's not their money but never the less I bought an L and have the fricken bug so has anyone worked lots with the Sigma 500?

The focal ring is tight and is certainly odd in that the back ring controls focus while the front ring control FL. The Canon with IS is great b/c I get low light usage and great action speed. Money aside which one?

Just b/c it's a canon need not reply ;) I'm considering Sigma for lenth and the Canon for speed and IS. Will the TC on the canon extend reach without largely degrading the image quality?

[fWord]

Not speaking from experience, but I don't think you'll get anywhere near the image quality of the Sigma if you're trying to duplicate the reach at the tele end with a 2X TC. A 1.4X TC will probably not degrade an image significantly, but the reach will be hardly enough if you want to take to photographing birds and wildlife. At the zoo however, it might be fine.

That being said, the Sigma probably won't fare well for indoor sports while the Canon will get you a faster shutter speed and increase the chances of a good shot.

If you absolutely wanted a setup to do everything, then a possibility is to keep your current Sigma 70-200mm, and buy the Sigma 50-500mm to complement it. I don't own the Sigma, but a fair few recommended it to me when I was looking for a longer telephoto zoom. If you need image stabilizer, look also at the Canon 100-400mm and the Sigma 80-400mm.

My gripe with all these super telezooms is that they're quite slow. I had issues even trying to get a focus on a small bird in my backyard today. Yes, it was cloudy, but it was annoying as hell to have the focus hunt back and forth all the time. That said, they don't cost anywhere near as much as the long primes, and they're way lighter...certainly handholdable. But not the Sigma though.

[tdaugharty]

fWord, thank you for the insight. I'll certainly take this into consideration.

[Steve Parr]

I didn't buy my 70-200mm f/2.8L because it's a Canon, I bought it because the IQ was better than other lenses I was considering.

I've not used the Sigma 50-500, but I would be oh-so-tempted by the reach of that lens. And, considering you've already got an excellent quality 70-200mm f/2.8...

Steve

[ScottE]

I have both a Canon 70-200/2.8 (non-IS) and a Sigma 50-500. For my purposes of wildlife and outdoor daytime sports I use the Sigma 50-500 much more than the Canon 70-200. However, I do not consider the lenses to be interchangeable. For dull days, evenings and indoor shots I need the 70-200 because of the larger aperture.

However, there have been times on indoor shoots that I wished the 70-200 had image stabilization.

If I had your Sigma 70-200 I would add the 50-500 for my purposes. If I did more indoor shooting I would be looking for the image stabilization.

You can add 1.4x and 2x teleconverters to a 70-200 to extend the focal length. From comparative shots that I have done the image quality of my 70-200 plus 1.4x teleconverter is similar to the Sigma 50-500. With the 2x teleconverter the 70-200 is not as sharp as the 50-500. That is shooting from a tripod in good light. If shooting handheld in low light the results would have been different.

[LightRules]

I also tried the Sigma 50-500mm F/4 EX HSM.

Wow, I'd get that lens in a second if it was f4 :D But seriously, the 70200+TC isnt as good as the Bigma, say at 400mm. The Bigma is so versatile a lens. You might want to consider also the 100400IS (in addition to your 70200EX). The bottom line is that the 70200 lenses are best up to 200mm, but once you go over, the Bigma or 100400 are better.

[cdifoto]

Since you already have the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, go for Bigma. Don't like the hype of others dictate what you purchase. L's are spectacular lenses but unless you're unsatisfied with what the Sigma 70-200 is producing, get some more reach in your bag and you won't regret it at all.

[condyk]

As mentioned ... the sensible option is to keep the nice 70-200 you have and add in a 100-400 IS L or Bigma. If you want IS go the former route and if you want an extra 100mm then go the Bigma route. Seems you're being influenced to go for the 70-200 IS L more than you think and adding a TCon is unlikely to please you much..