CI Photocommunity

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Sigma 50-150/2.8 VS 70-200/2.8


Well I must say that the bookeh is superb at close distances as well at longer distances. But at longer distances there is more depth of field which is to expect. But still enough to separate main object from background. Even from 20 or 30 meters and more there is stil visible blur of the backgrond. Realy this is great lens. At first I didn't thought that I will use this lens as much, simply due to wider angle lens ussage, but this lens is also great for portraits an even at f4 (where is very sharp) there is stil enough blur. Maybe someone will dissagree about using this lens for portraits, saying ''for portraits prime lenses must be used'', but for my ussage works great.

About the weight...yes it is heavy, but you get used to it. When you figure out how to handle with it, then it's ok. You have to get used to longer exposure times due to focal lenght, but luckily there is f2.8 which helps a lot. I was thinking about buying 50-500 but there is even longer focal length (which I don't need) and it isn't 2.8 (which I do need), well I realy don't imagine how I would shoot with that lens. Allways carrying tripod and so on. I'm realy glad I bought this lens. And about the weight? I'm having birthday soon, and hopefully I'll get a photo backpack, and all problems about the weight will simply dissaper :)