50-150 2.8 vs 70-200 2.8

I sold both the Sigma 50-150 and the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 on Fred Miranda the first day I offered them so don't see problems reselling either one. Unlike LightRules, I didn't make any money, but sold them for the price I asked.

I am not interested in resell value as I never sell my gear anyway.

I am looking to get a 2.8 lens soon and I do like the smaller size of the 50-150 for a walk around, on ship cruise ship lens. But if the speed of the Canon 70-200 or the IQ of it was a lot better, it would justify getting something that size. (the cost isn't a factor, just the size but that is even a trade off if need be).

I would be pairing this lens on a 40D with my tamron 17-50 2.8 on a second body. If I went with the 70-200 2.8. there would be a gap between the 50-70 range with that setup, but honestly that would not bother me the least.

ClickClick wrote in post #8493639
I am not interested in resell value as I never sell my gear anyway.

I am looking to get a 2.8 lens soon and I do like the smaller size of the 50-150 for a walk around, on ship cruise ship lens. But if the speed of the Canon 70-200 or the IQ of it was a lot better, it would justify getting something that size. (the cost isn't a factor, just the size but that is even a trade off if need be).

I would be pairing this lens on a 40D with my tamron 17-50 2.8 on a second body. If I went with the 70-200 2.8. there would be a gap between the 50-70 range with that setup, but honestly that would not bother me the least.

It's not !

nice post, but i would like to try a 50-150 sigma, i dont use to buy lenses that are not Canon, but this is really not expensive,heh

I had the siggy 50-150 that I just sold, and now own the 70-200 2.8 IS - the weight difference is unbelievable.

I got great images with my sigma, and I loved it - it was perfect to walk around with, but I do find that the 70-200 gives me a tad better results, so far - but for the price difference, I certainly expect it to. I also am enjoying the benefits of the IS.

Another benefit of the 70-200 is the exercise. When I'm feeling fat and lazy I just do a couple laps around the block holding it.

LMAO dawnkyung. I want the 70-200 2.8 IS but the weight and size is just not for me. Beside I am only a buck twenty lbs -

dawnkyung wrote in post #9679455
I had the siggy 50-150 that I just sold, and now own the 70-200 2.8 IS - the weight difference is unbelievable.

I got great images with my sigma, and I loved it - it was perfect to walk around with, but I do find that the 70-200 gives me a tad better results, so far - but for the price difference, I certainly expect it to. I also am enjoying the benefits of the IS.

Another benefit of the 70-200 is the exercise. When I'm feeling fat and lazy I just do a couple laps around the block holding it.