50-150 2.8 vs 70-200 2.8

Hello everyone, I would like to ask about the IQ and speed between comparing the Sigma 50-150 2.8 to the Canon 70-200 2.8 (Non IS)

Yes, I realize the focal length is different but let's say just looking at the 70-150 range? Which delivers better IQ? Which is faster?

Surely someone has owned both of these lens and can compare? Many thanks

I've had the 50-150 and now have the IS 70-200. Sharpness may be a wash, but color and contrast are definitely better with the canon. The 50-150 was way lighter and much less noticeable. If you can find a great copy of the 50-150 and are happy with that focal length (I liked it a lot), go for it. I ended up have some focus inconsistencies with mine at 150mm at a longer distance to subject and I needed IS so I switched.

I've been really happy with my Sigma EX 50-150mm F/2.8,,it's probably my most used lens and one of the nicest lenses I've owned/used in 30 years of photography.. Mine is the Version I..

With my 20D it focuses accurately but with my 50D it front focused until I did some AF Micro adjustment..All is good now..

Light, compact and probably the perfect focal length range for a APS-C sensor camera,,80-210mm in the old money.. I do a lot of street photography,, candids etc..What I like about the 50-150mm how well it renders skin tones..

I've had both and I still have the 70-200 2.8 IS now. I think the IS and non-IS version of the 70-200 2.8 has similar IQ so this should be a fair comparison for you. I think the Sigma 50-150 2.8 is a good lens if it's what you're looking for. It's small, light, and it's black. The HSM is quick to focus and the lens feels solid. The only thing I would suggest is to buy from a reputable dealer as they seem to have focusing variations between copies. My copy front focused quite a bit.

The Canon on the other hand is a great lens and the only one in it's class (for Canon shooters) to have 2.8 and IS together in this focal range. The build quality on the L is better than the Sigma and I would say the USM is a tad bit faster than the HSM. Color reproduction is also better on the Canon as the Sigma 50-150 has the usual yellowish tint that is found on many other Sigma lenses. This is an easy fix though if you shoot RAW.

For my copies, the Canon has a sharper image compared to the Sigma. This is considering the Sigma's front focus problem has already been corrected. If I had to choose again I would still pick the Canon over the Sigma. I like Sigma lenses but in this category, the Canon variants is just better than what Sigma has produced.


EDIT: I had Version II of the Sigma 50-150 2.8

I've owned both (original version of the Sigma) and think the Canon was a better lens too, although the Sigma was very close in IQ and speed. I liked the lighter load of the Sigma and the fact that it was black, but although I would choose the Canon if buying one again, I don't believe you'd be disappointed with either one.

Had the Sigma and loved it. Only sold it because I moved to FF. I now have the 70-200 f/4L IS and I'm kind of neutral on which was better. Certainly the 50-150 is easier to carry, but optically not too much difference. Many people say the f/4L is superior than the f/2.8L, but I've not done a side-by-side with them. Point is, choose your focal length and weight and go with whatever fits.

I have the 50-150mm 2.8 and tried and used a few of the Canon 70-200mm lens, both the 2.8's and f/4 lens(non IS version). I didn't feel the Canon's where any better in any way, not in AF speed or IQ. The plus side is the 50mm on the wide end, which I like better then 70mm of the canon's. Its weight makes it a great walk around lens.
I've used mine in all kinds of lighting and such and it's a champ. I would rate it as high as I would my 100-300mm f/4.

I forgot to mention that the Sigma takes a TC as well as the Canon. Here's a shot taken with a 30D, the Sigma 50-150 and a 2X TC.

1/500s f/5.6 at 300.0mm iso200

bob_r wrote in post #8489738
I forgot to mention that the Sigma takes a TC as well as the Canon.

My 50-150mm F/2.8 works well with my Tamron SP AF 1.4X TC (the white model)..

When I was in the market of buying a tele zoom I had the Canon 70-200mm F/4 and the Sigma EX 50-150mm F/2.8 under the radar.. Both priced similarly..It was the F/2.8 that got my attention over the Canon's F/4.. I already had the Tamron 1.4X TC..

Did the maths and the 50-150mm F/2.8 becomes a 80-210mm F/4,,very close to the Canon 70-200 F/4.

Any Canon 70-200 is a better investment IMO.

jrscls wrote in post #8490169
Any Canon 70-200 is a better investment IMO.

Please explain??

The Canon is probably a better investment in terms of holding a better resale vs. the Sigma.

I've used the Sigma for a few weeks (didn't have any focus issues) and was really impressed and would vote that the better value is the Siggy 50-150mm. If you have the cash and then go for the Canon.

barno wrote in post #8490744
The Canon is probably a better investment in terms of holding a better resale vs. the Sigma.

I've used the Sigma for a few weeks (didn't have any focus issues) and was really impressed and would vote that the better value is the Siggy 50-150mm. If you have the cash and then go for the Canon.

It really depends what you need. The Sigma is a nice fast lens with great IQ. Which makes a great walk around lens. While the Canon 2.8s are a tad heavy. The 2.8 is LENS IS lens is about the same weight as my 100-300mm lens. One just needs to decide if they want a little wider lens or more focal lenght, or lighter vs heavier.

barno wrote in post #8490744
The Canon is probably a better investment in terms of holding a better resale vs. the Sigma

FTR, this has not been my experience. Having had over 500 Canon and Sigma (and other lens makers) lenses go through my hands (new and used), my experience is it depends on the (1) condition of the lens at the time of sale, (2) how you market and sell the lens (e.g., great description, pictures, forthrightness, etc.), and (3) timing (e.g., all you need is that one person who wants that lens and wants it bad, newbie or seasoned photog).

I've made money on most of my sales, Canon or Sigma. But recently I've snagged some good Canon glass at massively low prices; that is, I wouldn't consider what I paid for them to be "better investments" for the people I bought them from. It really depends on some important factors. I don't buy for one bit the "Canon has better resale" mantra (even though most my lenses are Canon).

barno wrote in post #8490744
The Canon is probably a better investment in terms of holding a better resale vs. the Sigma.

I've used the Sigma for a few weeks (didn't have any focus issues) and was really impressed and would vote that the better value is the Siggy 50-150mm. If you have the cash and then go for the Canon.

I have never bought lenses for the purpose of resale so this is a mute point for me..