Sigma 50 150 Vs. Canon 70 200
Sigma's reputation as the cheap alternative to Canon camera equipment seems to extend to the price tags of the Sigma 50-150mm and the Canon 70-200mm lenses. But does the Sigma lens really stand up to the robust features of the Canon equivalent? If you compare the lenses' features and construction, is the roughly $500 extra you'd pay for the Canon really worth the money?
Other People Are Reading
-
Specifications
-
The technical specs on these lenses are similar, because when the Sigma lens is attached to a Canon camera body, its actual focal length is 80-240mm instead of the 50-150mm advertised. Each has an f/2.8 aperture setting, and each uses a proprietary motor system to provide fast and silent autofocus through the full range of focal distances. Where the Canon uses L glass for low dispersion, the Sigma matches with SLD (Special Low Dispersion) glass. Both can be used with teleconverters to extend their range.
Where they differ is in the fact that the Canon can range up to an f/32 aperture setting. The Sigma lens weighs in at just under 1.75 lbs., while the Canon lens nears 3 lbs. The Sigma lens is just over 5 inches long, while the Canon tops 7 inches. The Canon comes with a tripod collar to help you stabilize it; the Sigma does not. The Sigma lens has a 3-foot, 6-inch minimum focusing distance; the Canon has a 5-foot minimum.
Uses
-
With their similar focal length, these lenses are both suited for outdoor and wildlife photography as well as sports, action, portraits and cross-party candids. The aperture settings allow them to work for night photography as well. Both are suited for a variety of situations and seem to be near-matches in their use. The only difference might be that the Sigma lens' lighter weight makes it more portable and therefore better for wildlife work.
-
Pros of Each
-
The Sigma lens is heralded as having an extremely sharp autofocus. Its more compact design and lighter weight also makes it attractive to the photographer who is always carrying his equipment on his back. Its rugged construction also makes this lens a more durable candidate then some of the cheaper options with this focal range. The price of the Sigma lens is certainly better.
Canon is known for its consistent output. This lens is of very high quality, part of Canon's Luxury glass line. Its quick focus is an important feature for the sports photographer or for anyone needing a very fast lens. The sleek white body design is attractive.
Cons of Each
-
With the Sigma lens, complaints tend to center on autofocus issues after extended use, calibration difficulties and the width of the lens.
The primary complaint about the Canon lens seems to be its weight.
Summary
-
While these two lenses might match up in their technical specs, there is a definite difference in quality between the two builds and their durability. The Sigma lens may be cheaper and oftentimes as reliable, but the autofocus issue seems to be pretty common with this lens and some of Sigma's other telephoto lenses. If you need a lens of this length and quality, it would be best to bite the bullet and spend the extra money on the Canon.
-
