Sigma 50-150 or Canon 70-200 F4?

Can't decide between 70-200 f4 (non IS) and Sigma 50-150mm 2.8

I'm gonna be shooting portraits and static objects, but mardi gras is nearly here in Sydney so I'm looking forward to bringing my camera (20D) to that event.

I've read reviews again and again and again about the two, but I just want to know what everybody else would choose given my situation. Basically my budget is limited so it's those two.

Sigma's 50-150 is faster, has HSM, great design, and IQ seems to be good, but has build issues: internet hype maybe? If I do get a lemon somehow I don't know how I would go about sending it in for calibration. I just don't want to be bothered. Truth be told I had to return a 17-70 once. Actually this is the only thing that's making me go for the slower 70-200. Please knock some sense into me.

Canon's 70-200 is perfect but just F4. Would I be happier with this in the long run or would I be looking for 2.8? Would it even matter? I'm not a pro anyway.

Aghh if only I could get my hands on a used 200mm 2.8! I was just outbid on Ebay

Fire away!

I have a feeling a big majority will go for the 70-200.. Oh well, Canon it is

*delete*

*delete*

go for the 50-150. You will like the 2.8

I had the same decision. I went with the Sigma because of the f/2.8 aperture. It's been a great lens for me. Either way, you should be happy.

The Canon will have much higer resale value. There is a reason.

The reason for resale value is simply because of people who think Canon only, and think all third party lenses stink. Don't buy the hype. Canon's best lenses are spectacular, but Sigma, Tamron and Tokina makes some seriously good glass.

Heck, look at me...I'm selling my 135L and I replaced it with a Sigma 150 EX. To be honest with you, the Sigma is better built. Optically, they are very, very close, with the 135 have a very, very slight edge. With the money saved from the trade (and a bit from other sales), I'm able to get a 100 f/2 or 85 f/1.8 with the leftover.

The truth is, both are excellent lenses. Between the 2.8 and the f/4 non-IS, I'd probably get the Sigma 50-150, or the Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 (which I have heard fantastic things about). Me, I opted for the f/4 IS (after selling my 80-200 f/2.8L due to weight).

I tried both and went with the 50-150mm .There's no "build issue" with mine. Since I have no plans on saleing it, resale value is a no issue for me. Both are good lens. Do you want the extra 20 on the wide end (plus 2.8) or the extra 50 on the long end ?

Thanks guys.Your inputs are greatly appreciated. You are right, I shouldn't go with the hype and just because a few people have said negative things about 3rd party lenses it doesn't mean all copies are bound to be lemons- I should know better.

gasrocks wrote in post #4972059
The Canon will have much higer resale value. There is a reason.

The reason is because it says Canon on it.

I recently had an opportunity to try both the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 Mk1 and a Canon 70-200 f/4L IS at the local camera store recently. I'd personally get the the Sigma for the f/2.8
It was strange that at 150 and 200mm focused on something ~40' away I didn't find a huge difference in FOV.

Jman13 wrote in post #4972280
The reason for resale value is simply because of people who think Canon only, and think all third party lenses stink. Don't buy the hype. Canon's best lenses are spectacular, but Sigma, Tamron and Tokina makes some seriously good glass.

And the 70-200 f/4 is arguably some of Canon's best glass.

QED. Buy the 70-200 f/4.

Besides that, it is just about the most useful tele range there is.

J

Strong arguments there Johnj80. I could've been the owner of a used 70-200 f4 had I not been beaten again on Ebay. Geez.
But now I've finally decided to sell all my gear to be able to afford a new 200 2.8. Tough decision!

Sigma 50-150 over the 70-200 f/4 on a cropped body any day.

The 70-200 f/4 is one of the most overhyped lenses I've ever seen for cropped bodies. Sure for some people it's perfect, but too often I see it pushed just because it's the cheapest L. 70mm = too long on the wide end. 200mm = too short on the long end. f/4 = slow. There are better options. You can go prime, you can go third party (like in this case), etc. I never, never understood why I would ever want a 70-200 f/4 when I had a cropped camera.

50-150 f/2.8 is perfect. 50mm is a perfect focal length for portraiture and closer shots of people, and constant f/2.8 is a dream. The 50-150 range on a cropped body is how a 70-200 lens is supposed to feel like, when mounted on a full frame body. If you're shooting longer focal lengths without IS, the f/2.8 will be real handy.

But if you can get your hands on that 200L man, let me tell you, that's one hell of a piece of glass. Zoom might be more versatile for a festival though.