Sigma 50-200mm OS HSM vs Canon EF-S 55-250mm

[tears2040]

Sigma
$200

Canon
$225

* They both have Image Stabilization which is important for handheld at a distance.
* The Sigma has a silent motor the Canon does not ( This feature is not really important to me)
* Both have the same F/stops 4.0/5.6
* Canon has a further zoom 250mm vs 200mm , but in reality 200mm is MORE than enough for me.
* Sigma weighs 14.8oz. vs Canon 13.8 ounces
* Lens Construction , Sigma = 14 Elements in 12 Groups (SLD). Canon = 12 elements in 10 groups, including one UD-glass element



Correct image now
----------
----------

 

[shaocaholica]

Your sigma image is the wrong lens.

Have you considered a manual focus 70-200/4? Those are dirt cheap.

 

[tears2040]

Your sigma image is the wrong lens.

Have you considered a manual focus 70-200/4? Those are dirt cheap.

Fixed.

For a Zoom lens I need IS, that's the problem. Ideally if I could afford the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM then I would not have a headache right now. But my budget is $150-300 and I need some type of zoom.


So yeah it's either the Sigma or Canon for me, now I know these are not the best lenses but maybe with good lighting and great story those problems can be overcome.

 

[shaocaholica]

What about something like this:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=280471147916

Sigma 70-300 OS. Gets you all the way to 300mm and is reasonably inexpensive.

 

[tears2040]

What about something like this:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=280471147916

Sigma 70-300 OS. Gets you all the way to 300mm and is reasonably inexpensive.

I see no benefit to that lens than the ones I provided in my original post. I do not need 300mm as 200mm is more than enough.

In reality all I need is about a 150mm and to cover the range after 50mm

 

[shaocaholica]

Here are 2 reviews from the same place of both lenses. Take them for what they're worth:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1113/cat/11

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1248/cat/31

 

[tears2040]

Here are 2 reviews from the same place of both lenses. Take them for what they're worth:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1113/cat/11

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1248/cat/31

Thanks for your time, I read those reviews already. The Canon seems to be sharper at the 200mm range than the Sigma. The price difference is less than $50 so that was not the deciding factor in my purchase. Basically the Sigma has a metal mount as opposed to the Canon which has a plastic one and think that overtime the Sigma at least constructively would be the better option. I know Canon is the better company and holds it value better but for whatever reason I am not following the crowd.


WITH THAT SAID:

Since no one on this God Green earth has the Sigma 50-200 for video I thought I would be the first and report back. Regardless to much time is being spent here with the tech and not enough in the field. I'm gone and will only come back when I need to, time to get to work...........


peace

 

[ROCKMORE]

Canon seems to be sharper

Go for sharper