View Full Version : Sigma APO 50-150mm F/2.8 EX DC HSM
It just got here...
First the picture whoring.
The Box
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/_DSC6980copy.jpg
Nifty little bag w/ strap
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/_DSC6981.jpg
Next to the VR 55-200mm
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/_DSC6982.jpg
On the camera
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/IMG_0413.jpg
Mmmm
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/IMG_0418.jpg
The feel of the lens is amazing especially since Im used to the plastic build of the VR 55-200mm. Im not sure what the material is but its soft and smooth but with grip and sturdy all at the same time. Of course its notically heavier and a bit bigger then it looks in pictures but nothing annoying. I plan on spending much time tomorrow shooting with it so if there are any requests (especially from my fellow D40 owners) lemmi know and Ill do it.
tim11
10-04-2007, 07:45 PM
That's the next lens on my list. How is it indoors? Is it hard to shoot at full tele as it doesn't have IS? It simply looks wicked on D80. :)
Please post some photos taken with this lens.
Here ya go!
150mm 1/25 F/2.8 ISO800 Hand Held , Shot in JPEG Fine and resized in photoshop
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/_DSC7022-1.jpg
Its pretty weird not having VR because Im so used to it but it works pretty well without it.
hankbeblazin
10-04-2007, 08:21 PM
that thing is massive on the d40 haha its great
post some more pics when you get outside at full zoom and at 50mm when you get a chance im curious
Will do tomorrow, it is pretty big lol. Also let me add that the lost 50mm of zoom (from the 55-200) isnt even noticeable.
achuang
10-04-2007, 08:54 PM
It finally got to you, it felt like you'd waited forever. So I guess it didn't end up being delivered to you on the tuesday like you'd expected. Good looking lens there, let's see some shots in when you get more time with your new toy. You're very steady to hold 1/25 and 150mm, are you sure your heart beats?
tim11
10-04-2007, 09:39 PM
D40? Dang I thought that was a D80. Okay then it wouldn't look too monstrous on my D80 then.
How long ago did they release this lens; does anyone know?
Talking about steady... is it only me who feels the shutter impact ruin whatever stability you try so hard to achieve?
LOL actually achuang I do hold my breath for those type of shots. Ive been screwing around here in my room with it and I imo the extra speed of the lens does not completely make up for the lack of VR. This really becomes apparent when I threw my 55-200 back on. F/2.8 is going to take some getting used to though because the field of focus (if thats what its even called) is so small. Im actually going to wake up early tomorrow morning and give this thing a good go. Also the Blue Angels are in SF for Fleet Week so Ill be attending that on saterday.
Oh yeah I almost forgot to mention.. If all of Sigmas HSM lenses focus as fast and quiet as this one then Nikon needs to take notes. I mean thing thing is lightning quick which will be very handy when shooting moving subjects.
150mm, F/2.8, ISO800
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/_DSC70.jpg
achuang
10-04-2007, 10:04 PM
That shot looks quite sharp, looks like you've got a good copy on your hands. And it looks very good for f2.8 considering the cases of people not using it below f4, etc. Enjoy the new lens, your indoor sport shots will be even better with this new lens.
tim11
10-04-2007, 10:06 PM
... I imo the extra speed of the lens does not completely make up for the lack of VR. ....
You will appreciate the F/2.8 more if you have to shoot moving objects. So far, you have only tested with still objects, something better handled by VR.
fionndruinne
10-04-2007, 10:09 PM
That depth-of-field looks sweet. Well, I'm just going to have to experience this lens vicariously for awhile.;) I'm thinking it will be my first glass investment, though.
Looks like the hand-shake-blur gods are just very kind to you, what with that sharp a shot at 150mm 1/25 sec. Keep us posted!
You will appreciate the F/2.8 more if you have to shoot moving objects. So far, you have only tested with still objects, something better handled by VR.
Yeah I figured that. Its very rare I shoot still subjects in low light.. Its just weird not having VR because Im so used to it. I push the shutter down at 150mm and shake doesnt go away and it makes me sad. LOL. I am still quite attached to my VR but I will only have it until I receive the payment then its gone.
fionndruinne
10-04-2007, 10:34 PM
1500mm!!!:eek::eek:
Sorry, I couldn't resist, that just sounds so awesome.:rolleyes:
1500mm!!!:eek::eek:
Sorry, I couldn't resist, that just sounds so awesome.:rolleyes:
Booo you whore. :D
TheObiJuan
10-04-2007, 11:10 PM
I sure would love the 50-200 f/2.8.
The extra range on the long end would be killer.
Or a 70-250 f/2.8!
I'm a sucker for focal length.
fionndruinne
10-05-2007, 12:43 AM
Ah, but what would you pay extra in size/weight for those lenses over and above the 50-150mm? As I understand it this lens manages to avoid the massiveness of a 70-200mm.
(and if we're talkin' real big, then why mention anything other than the fantastically costly 70-200mm f/2.8 VR Nikkor?)
TheObiJuan
10-05-2007, 12:48 AM
I absolutely would.
I don't feel the 70-200 f/2.8L is heavy for a zoom lens.
I don't look at if and compare it to the 50 f/1.8.
It is what it is.
Maybe if I had arthritis, only one arm, old, or a weak person, I could see the impact the slight weight gain would have.
The size and weight is one of the big pluses of the Sigma. Its not that big even compared to the 55-200 when you start zooming. Makes the 55-200 feel like a shell in comparison to weight but its nowhere near as heavy as the 70-200. I guess it all boils down to personal preference. I personally would try to avoid any lens heavier to this one at all costs... Would begin to get annoying to hold very fast.
fionndruinne
10-05-2007, 01:29 AM
Unless you had it on a D300.:D
I notice the weight of this lens is just a tad more than that of the D40 body itself; does it make for a decent balance? I'm supposing that being of near-equal weights will allow the whole package to handle fairly well? Although of course you can't get away with sloppier handling like you might with the 55-200mm... and live to tell the tale.
Even though they are of about the same weight the lens being heavier then the VR actually makes camera shake worst. The VR is pretty much weightless in comparison to the camera body so you only have to steady the body (without having to touch the lens). Different story with the Sigma, having that 2nd hand on the lens makes it harder to fight the shake.
Here ya go!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/_DSC7022-1.jpg
Nice self portrait. Interesting post processing of the skin tones. :D:D
Have fun with the new toy.
fionndruinne
10-05-2007, 01:41 AM
Heheh.
Hmm, I can see what you mean. Probably it'll get easier, just call for a complete change of how you habitually hold the camera while shooting.
Yeah. Im really curious to shoot the VR 70-200 though. I can only imagine how awesome having F/2.8 and VR is. But for the price of one Id rather get a D80 + more glass. :P
XaiLo
10-05-2007, 01:05 PM
Well r3g, it's probably as bad as putting a d200 in your hands, it is... an experience. It just about lives on my D40, for my needs and style even with a 17-55mm and it's range the 70-200mm gets me where I want to be fast (range wise). Yes at three plus pounds it does have some heft to it, it's really not bothersome. the zoom ring sits squarely in my left hand and balances quite well. The wieght of the camera is insignificant and feel like it just an extension of the lens, most weeks I shoot with it at least for a couple of hours and depending on th events smetimes all day.
F2.8 1/5sec 155mm no VR http://www.designsbyxailo.com/thepics/2007/10_oct/panda.jpg
F2.8 1/5sec 155mm with VR - taken a few minutes later when I decided to include a VR image
http://www.designsbyxailo.com/thepics/2007/10_oct/panda2.jpg
do either of you have a pulse ?:confused:
XaiLo
10-05-2007, 08:18 PM
Rooz, I must be getting slow in my old age. I read your statement and I was perplexed for a few moments, wondering what the heck you were talking about then a ligt bulb went 'duh deet de dee' now I'm lmao.
I must just be plain slow then cuz i still dont get it ofter reading it this morning :(
XaiLo
10-05-2007, 10:26 PM
He's referring to the lack of movement or blur without VR in our images. You know "no pulse" a couple of stiffs.
Rooz, a friend of mines was also taken back with some of my shots with the 18-55mm at an affair. Actually I turned VR off a while ago so as not to be dependent on it. Funny thing though a couple of weeks ago some infant images turned out blurry that I thought shouldn't have. I was busy at the time and thought nothing of it as I was leaving another friend who shoots Nikon wanted to check out my gear. He had said something I only heard in the back of my head, happens when you're having three conversations at once. He asked if I didn't use VR? I was puzzled by the question until that evening when I noticed VR was still turned off after two or three months. lol
Its so obvious now -_____-; lol
About the lens. One thing Ive noticed is it tends to over expose and I find myself using at least -1/3EV the majority of the time.
hankbeblazin
10-05-2007, 11:37 PM
Its so obvious now -_____-; lol
About the lens. One thing Ive noticed is it tends to over expose and I find myself using at least -1/3EV the majority of the time.
that seems to happen with alot of lenses....especially the 50mm 1.8d i constantly have to check my pictures it loves to over expose, i keep it on -2/3
Interesting. I dont have that problem with the kitlens or the VR 55-200mm. But its no biggy anywayz.
tim11
10-18-2007, 06:14 AM
...at 150 mm?
Just as long as I can get 1/25 sec. Both shot at 150 mm and 100% crop.
r3g: Do you find the lens kind of hunting in low light? It sorta make ACK, ACK, ACK.. sound?
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m116/tim11_2006/junk/n71018030.jpg
Boo!
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m116/tim11_2006/junk/n71018011.jpg
Every now and then but Ive found that if I fire during that clicking focus is still accurate. Here is one shot I remember firing on the hunt.
50mm , 1/320sec , f/2.8 , ISO1600
http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/5682/dsc7717ty6.jpg
tim11
10-18-2007, 08:40 PM
I test in again outdoors. In bright light it's very very fast and no sound.
As for indoors, despite the sound it still focuses and doesn't affect the image quality. Maybe that's to be expected since the light is so low?
Thanks r3g. I just want to confirm mine is working properly.
PS: I just saw your signature.... Are you going to get a SB600 as well as a SB800?
Your welcome. Yeah Im builting an off camera wireless flash system. I ordered the SB600 yesterday along with an ebay wireless trigger, Ill order the 800 in the next week or so. Any flash I buy after I have these 2 will be an SB800.
XaiLo
10-19-2007, 04:23 AM
r3g, what wireless trigger and how much was or is it?
r3g, what wireless trigger and how much was or is it?
Cheapy cheapy. Was watching a video on Strobist and the guy said the only downers about it is every now and then itll misfire and if you put them too close to each other they wont fire at all. Said out of 3000 shots maybe 20 of them misfired.
http://cgi.ebay.com/16-Channels-Wireless-Studio-Flash-Trigger_W0QQitemZ170158428496QQihZ007QQcategoryZ64 354QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.