PDA

View Full Version : Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 EX HSM opinions?



fionndruinne
08-06-2007, 02:18 PM
I just came across this lens on Amazon, where it goes for $600. Not cheap by any means, but this sounds like a very juicy piece of glass. Anyone here used it?

herc182
08-06-2007, 02:26 PM
but he seems to like it!

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_50150_28_nikon/index.htm

jcon
08-06-2007, 03:07 PM
I haven't used it myself but from what i've seen and heard, it's a quality piece of glass.

r3g
08-06-2007, 04:12 PM
Seems like it would be a nice lens to have for indoor sports that dont have the best lighting.

mugsisme
08-06-2007, 08:12 PM
Andrew, do a search of the forum. I was seriously thinking of it a few months ago. (Then I saw how heavy it was, and decided against it.) Pop photo did a review of it recently, and it said it was a great lens. I think that is what sort of pushed me to think about it. Good luck with your decision. No one carries it locally, which is also why I decided not to get it now. I really want to try it out first without paying for it. LOL.

aparmley
08-06-2007, 08:23 PM
I just came across this lens on Amazon, where it goes for $600. Not cheap by any means, but this sounds like a very juicy piece of glass. Anyone here used it?

What would your primary use be? Also, at that price point, would you not consider their 70-200 2.8 HSM? Now that we are up around $850 Nikon's 80-200 becomes an option. Maybe this is why the price point of the 50-150 is attractive, it rules out the (7)80-200 2.8s?

I think, strategically, Sigma released this lens because it would pair well with (now both version of) their 18-50 2.8 zoom(s).

I'm interested in learning how this range fairs on the lens market.

Rooz
08-06-2007, 08:23 PM
leah, pretty much any f2.8 lens is gonna be heavy unfortunately. its teh price you pay for fast glass.

mugsisme
08-06-2007, 08:33 PM
Rooz, I know. That is what is keeping away from it. I was moaning when I got the 18-200, and now I see how "light" it is compared to the others! My hands are small. I did a favor for my kids school in June. I took pictures of the school play, and then a week later I took pictures at grandparents days. Boy, did my hand hurt. I am just not used to holding a camera for that long, and certainly not that much weight (when you add the flash as well). But then again, thinking out loud here ... if you have a lens that can work in low light, you wouldn't need the flash. Hmm, didn't think of that.

So Andrew, what are you going to do?

LR Max
08-06-2007, 08:43 PM
Just thought I'd throw in my two cents on the subject.

It might be a pretty good basketball lense. When I shot basketball, I used my 50mm and my friend used her 70-200. Up close, she didn't have squat and I was able to get some awesome photos. Once the boys commenced down the court, I put my camera down and she got all the good shots.

fionndruinne
08-06-2007, 08:47 PM
Heavy, aye, as it has to be, but didn't the reviewer herc linked find it comparatively somewhat light?
"Due to the reduced image circle the Sigma has a comparatively lesser need for large diameter glass elements so it is a comparatively compact and light weight lens."

I'd think this would be a great lens for indoor portraits and candids using available light - and that's something I quite enjoy doing. If I do get into portraits, I might go for outdoors/available light as opposed to studio lighting, as well. Plus a general zoom lens could benefit from the f/2.8 aperture quite often I am sure.

Obviously, since I don't have $600 sitting around, I'm not going to be picking this up anytime soon, but it sounds like a good option, and I'm attempting to get my options together.

aparmley, do you know what the weight comparison is for the 70-200mm? Also the extra $250 for the Nikkor would be a little crippling, even while we're talking about a lens that cost $50 more than my camera body.

DonSchap
08-06-2007, 09:18 PM
There is a point where money consideration vs glass-quality becomes arbitrary. You simply will have to pay for better glass ... and it does get up there quick.

I would say comparing the cost of your camera body to the glass you put on it is ... well ... like apples and watermelons.

Most lenses will transfer up to whatever camera you choose, as long as they are NOT APS-C sensor specific. The camera body will change, through upgrading alone, if you desire, every year or so, but your glass will stay constant. So ... when you buy a pricey lens ... have no fear ... they hold their value quite well ... and it is reusable for years and years, as long as you take care of it.

I have had my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM for a full year ... it still is at the same price, used or new. The desire for this piece is incredible. That's pretty cool, when you think about it. Not that it is all that important, but it is hard to go wrong with GOOD GLASS, as someone will always usually want it. :cool:

Now, as far as the camera body goes ... they start losing their value as soon as they hit the street. My EOS 20D, great camera, even today, cost $1200 when I bought it new, in Oct 2005. Today, even if it only had one single shot on it, $450 trade-in ... and dropping fast. That's the big difference.

'Nuff said. ;)

Rooz
08-06-2007, 10:21 PM
do you know what the weight comparison is for the 70-200mm?.

the 70-200VR is double the weight of that sigma.

aparmley
08-07-2007, 07:08 AM
Sigma 50-150 - 1.7 lbs
Nikon 80-200 - 2.84 lbs
Sigma 70-200 - 3.0 lbs
Nikon 70-200 - 3.4 lbs

Just for comparison your 18-55 is 0.4 lbs and the 70-300 VR is 1.6 lbs

mugsisme
08-07-2007, 08:01 AM
Go to B & H photo. They have the specs.
Nikon 70-200 Weight 3 lb (1.380 kg)
Sigma 50-150 Weight 1.7 lb (780 g)

Yikes, big difference there.

Kellie
08-07-2007, 10:25 AM
And another 70-200/2.8 to add to the mix (but won't AF on the D40):
http://www.tamron.com/news/35mm/70200.asp

I love my other two Tamrons so much that I'm holding out on getting a fast zoom until this thing is released. If it's more than $700, I'll probably go with the Nikon 80-200/2.8 AF-D. I've tested it a few times and really like it. It's a bit lighter than the 70-200/VR, too.

The 50-150/2.8 looks nice, but I'm afraid I would miss the extra 50mm on the long end.

fionndruinne
08-07-2007, 01:56 PM
I think for my purposes, as a general purpose/indoor/candid/portrait/street zoom lens, the 50-150mm range sounds rather nice. There are times, I'd think, when having 20mm more on the wide-angle end would be useful over the 70-200mm. Plus that sounds like a heck of a heavy lens to use handheld. This Sigma is heavier than my camera, but not by a whole lot.

The more I think on it, the more I'd like to have this lens, and it doesn't sound too heavy to deal with. Plus, the 2.8 aperture should make for the easy addition of a teleconverter, no? With a 2x converter, the lens becomes a handy 100-300mm telephoto.

We'll see. I've definitely got some saving up to do.

PHeller
08-08-2007, 02:27 AM
I tell ya what I think in two weeks after I field test my new 50-150 on vacation.

aparmley
08-08-2007, 06:15 AM
I think for my purposes, as a general purpose/indoor/candid/portrait/street zoom lens, the 50-150mm range sounds rather nice. There are times, I'd think, when having 20mm more on the wide-angle end would be useful over the 70-200mm. Plus that sounds like a heck of a heavy lens to use handheld. This Sigma is heavier than my camera, but not by a whole lot.

The more I think on it, the more I'd like to have this lens, and it doesn't sound too heavy to deal with. Plus, the 2.8 aperture should make for the easy addition of a teleconverter, no? With a 2x converter, the lens becomes a handy 100-300mm telephoto.

We'll see. I've definitely got some saving up to do.

I think you may be on to something there. . . ;) Will you be tempted to pair it with the recently announced 18-50 2.8 HSM?

e_dawg
08-08-2007, 07:27 AM
Hmm... looks like a decent alternative to the 18-135 too, although it's heavier and more $. I might consider it to be threat to the 18-200/VR in conjunction with the 18-50, depending on whether you are willing to use 2 lenses or need 1 lens only (although it would be more $).

While it does not have the f/2.8 speed of the Sigma, the VR makes up for it in most (non-action) situations. Where the 50-150 would shine, it seems, is for action photography like at a basketball game. Hmm... tempting.

fionndruinne
08-08-2007, 07:36 PM
It is tempting, isn't it? To tell the truth, this lens has me a little excited, even though I'm still a ways from being able to afford it. There seems to be much to like, from the (relatively) compact size and the fact that the lens length remains constant through the focal range (handy), to the multitude of uses which occur to me. PHeller, I'm looking forward to hearing what you think of it.

I had not heard of an 18-50mm f/2.8 HSM, though; that sounds plenty good - although I think I'll let my kit lens cover that range as it may for awhile. A telephoto comes first (and I kinda think I know which one;)). Sounds like a good plan, though.

aparmley
08-08-2007, 08:12 PM
Hmm... looks like a decent alternative to the 18-135 too, although it's heavier and more $. I might consider it to be threat to the 18-200/VR in conjunction with the 18-50, depending on whether you are willing to use 2 lenses or need 1 lens only (although it would be more $).

While it does not have the f/2.8 speed of the Sigma, the VR makes up for it in most (non-action) situations. Where the 50-150 would shine, it seems, is for action photography like at a basketball game. Hmm... tempting.

Not all fast (large aperture) lenses are only for action sports. There are plenty of other uses. One would be the requirement for a larger aperture to blur out the background and to make the subject pop - VR can't do that. Sports, while sometimes requiring large apertures, does not always mean photogs are shooting wide open with their fast glass, in most instances the photog is choosing an aperture that will produce the look they want. Only the real dim venues (typically highschool gyms and athletic fields) are going to push the need for max ISO and wide open fast glass. One very important aspect for sports photogs - which usually trumps max aperture but is rarely discussed as frequently is AF speed, accuracy, and reliability.

e_dawg
08-09-2007, 10:34 AM
Not all fast (large aperture) lenses are only for action sports. There are plenty of other uses. One would be the requirement for a larger aperture to blur out the background and to make the subject pop - VR can't do that.[...] One very important aspect for sports photogs - which usually trumps max aperture but is rarely discussed as frequently is AF speed, accuracy, and reliability.

Good points. DoF is a consideration for sure. As for AF, the faster glass makes it easier for the AF to work with more light, all other things equal, but definitely not the only factor. As for AF speed, I am wary of non-SWM/USM/HSM AF on med/big zooms.