Any thoughts on the Sigma 50-150?

divamum

I know Art likes it

Current lenses:
Tamron 17-50 2.8
Canon 50 1.4
Canon 100 2.0
Canon 200L 2.8

I have a nice range of lenses right now, but I do find the 70-100 gap sometimes a bit limiting, particularly for portraits; I've been speculating for some time how I want to go about filling that in and am still not decided. If I didn't love my Tam 17-50 so much I'd probably swap it out for the 28-75 since I don't use the wide end as often as I wish for something a bit longer, but the copy I have is so responsive and accurate that I hate to tempt fate. Sadly, a ff camera is not in my immediate future, so I don't have to worry about it on that score (yet )

I know that I DON'T want a 70-200 2.8 - they're too heavy. So... I'm trying to consider alternatives.

If I went with something like the Sigma, I'd probably revert to the 85mm 1.8 prime instead of the 100, with the long-term goal of adding a 135L in there so I would then have fast primes at 50/85/135/200 for low light shooting (ie theatrical), with the zoom for "everyday" use and to cover the missing focal lengths. The Sigma would be a pretty perfect focal range and is priced attractively, but the many reports of focus inconsistency are a bit off-putting.

Thoughts? Or any other possibilities I may have missed?

angevin1

Diva,

Thought. You've got what seems a stellar line up of primes.
Sigma has this lens here, a 70mm macro. My Sigma 105 macro is my first venture into Sigma territory...I can say that it is THE sharpest lens I own, lacking only the magic goo that manifests in my Nikkors as bokeh....every knip, bimp and twimp is visable! Otherwise that is a short range yer missin there~

cheers,

Art Scott

divamum wrote:

I know Art likes it

Current lenses:
Tamron 17-50 2.8
Canon 50 1.4
Canon 100 2.0
Canon 200L 2.8

I have a nice range of lenses right now, but I do find the 70-100 gap sometimes a bit limiting, particularly for portraits; I've been speculating for some time how I want to go about filling that in and am still not decided. If I didn't love my Tam 17-50 so much I'd probably swap it out for the 28-75 since I don't use the wide end as often as I wish for something a bit longer, but the copy I have is so responsive and accurate that I hate to tempt fate. Sadly, a ff camera is not in my immediate future, so I don't have to worry about it on that score (yet )

I know that I DON'T want a 70-200 2.8 - they're too heavy. So... I'm trying to consider alternatives.

If I went with something like the Sigma, I'd probably revert to the 85mm 1.8 prime instead of the 100, with the long-term goal of adding a 135L in there so I would then have fast primes at 50/85/135/200 for low light shooting (ie theatrical), with the zoom for "everyday" use and to cover the missing focal lengths. The Sigma would be a pretty perfect focal range and is priced attractively, but the many reports of focus inconsistency are a bit off-putting.

Thoughts? Or any other possibilities I may have missed?

You have a very good line up of primes....but I shoot zooms now and have for over 25+ yrs......the reason was the missed shots whilst changing lenses or the time lost shooting a wedding and changing lenses and the weight of my cam bag....so until I got a Nikon D300 with a 18-200 my lens line up had been for many years my go to lens for 99.9% of things.....my SIGMA 70-210F2.8 and my other lens was the SIGMA 28-70 the the Sigma24-70 f2.8.......I could hang the 70-210 on my neck all day and shoot a concert at night and be just a little sore the next day, but a little massage and capzasin rubbed in and all was good.........
I am learning to use the 18-200 for stage as well as other shooting but when out doors for wildlife I go to the BIGMA....have not even thought of shooting a human potrait with it...as it is definitley a tripod lens...I have shot it handheld but I was stabilizing against a tree or something.....mush like I would with my 70-210 in the wild.....but Kansas winds almost demand the use of a pod or other stabilizer most of the time:D
It is nice taht the D300 with Bigma fits the same bag as my Konica Minolta 7D with 70-210....and the D300 has a battery grip also................

So I guess I would suggest either a Sigma 150 F2.8 or the canon 135L since you shoot in the large apertures...........for concerts and wedding i will be getting once again a pair of SIGMAs the 24-70 f2.8 (or a 17-70 f2.8-4.50 & the 70-200f2.8.......I know I will at some point shoot some ceremony shots with the BIGMA just to say I have done it but I will have to rent a body and 2nd tripod for that, as I will want to keep my 70-200 up and going at the same time.....:D:D

BigAl

Art, as I read it, I think you're missing the lady's query, she's asking about the 50-150, not the 50-500

divamum

BigAl wrote:

Art, as I read it, I think you're missing the lady's query, she's asking about the 50-150, not the 50-500

Tom and Art, thanks for the responses. Tom, I did consider seeking out a 70ish prime (and will still consider that - I'd searched high and low online for one around 70mm but hadn't found this one, so thanks for that!!), but I have to confess that there are times when having a zoom would be a godsend - not so much for the convenience of foot zooming (although sometimes when it isn't possible to move primes can be frustrating), but the time lost lens-swapping. Seems to me that having a light, affordable mid-tele zoom AND the primes would pretty much cover all bases (well, until I get some other bee in my bonnet and figure out what else I'm missing ).

Anybody else? Would love some firsthand reports on the 50-150 from somebody who's used it Thanks!

ETA: Tom, have looked at that link in depth now. Sadly, the reports of slow AF would be a deal breaker for me - I don't need L-quality ueberfast focusing (nice though it is!), but I do need something that isn't going to hunt around in the dark on me. That was my only complaint with the 50 1.8 - the AF hunting in low light (which is, of course, where you want to use a fast aperture prime the most!)

ziggy53

I could only find one thread about this lens, but 2 users:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=50228

Mathew's review:

http://matthewsaville.smugmug.com/gallery/1998578

It looks like the lens can perform fairly well. It has fairly strong vignetting at f2.8 and 150mm, and it does not focus too closely at the longest length. I would also purchase from a vendor with good return privileges, just in case ...

craig_d

Is this the lens we're talking about?

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1156/cat/31

If so, the technical results don't look too impressive to me. The weird asymmetrical sharpness at the wider apertures seems like it would make it a pain to get really good pictures, and the geometric distortion doesn't look all that good either (especially the mix of barrel distortion in the center and pincushioning around the edges). Vignetting also looks to be a problem when shooting wide open.

Also see this review:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50-150mm-f-2.8-II-EX-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

which reports that three different copies of the lens all had front-focusing problems, and concludes, "Go forward with this lens purchase armed with the knowledge that repairs/returns are quite likely going to be necessary."

Tokina has a 50-135mm f/2.8 that may be worth checking out. I haven't used it, but other Tokina lenses I have used (12-24 f/4, 28-70 f/2.6-2.8, 80-400 f/4-5.6, 100mm f/2.8 macro) have been good performers.

There's also the new Canon EF-S 15-85mm and EF-S 18-135mm models, but they're f/3.5-5.6 and my guess is that you prefer to stick with fast glass. Reviews of these are thin on the ground so far, also.

angevin1

Diva,

I think the part I noticed most was your: "particularly for portraits." statement. And with those other primes....~

I noticed KEH has a 17-85 which for my DX body is a perfect range..
it is here.

From what little experience and knowledge I have, we tend to have to give something up; cash or quality.

Good Luck~

Art Scott

damn read it wrong........

BigAl wrote:

Art, as I read it, I think you're missing the lady's query, she's asking about the 50-150, not the 50-500

Tough nite.....have to sleep with a damn bi-pap machine and I fought with the hose and mask all night....I am sorry I read it wrong........and her opening line thru me....but then again smack me with a wet mop (as Justin Wilson used to say)....I can't be the only Art either:Drofl

Scott_Quier

If, as you say, you don't use the wide end of your 17-50, then sell it and get the Tamron 28-75. I think it might be the right trade for you. However, if you can't part with the shorter Tamron, then just buy the 28-75 and have some over-lap in your kit - it's not a sin

But, doing that will delay your acquisition of the 7D. Trade-off everywhere

Art Scott

NO NO NO NOOOOOO Tamron

Scott_Quier wrote:

If, as you say, you don't use the wide end of your 17-50, then sell it and get the Tamron 28-75. I think it might be the right trade for you. However, if you can't part with the shorter Tamron, then just buy the 28-75 and have some over-lap in your kit - it's not a sin

But, doing that will delay your acquisition of the 7D. Trade-off everywhere

No nO NO nono no no no NO NO N O NOOOOOOOO

Get the SIGMA 24-70F2.8 and it will move right over to that 7D:D:D:Droflrofl

divamum

Thanks for the input, everybody - very helpful. There's no "urgency" fortunately so I have plenty of time to ruminate over it all; I'm hardly lacking for lenses these days (I find it hard to figure out how I went from two slow consumer zooms to this lot in just over a year - YIKES, what have you done to me dgrin???!!???? rofl). Of course, I'm now running out of things to sell so additional kit is coming out of pocket instead of self-subsidized so it's getting trickier....

Scott_Quier

divamum wrote:

Thanks for the input, everybody - very helpful. There's no "urgency" fortunately so I have plenty of time to ruminate over it all; I'm hardly lacking for lenses these days (I find it hard to figure out how I went from two slow consumer zooms to this lot in just over a year - YIKES, what have you done to me dgrin???!!???? rofl). Of course, I'm now running out of things to sell so additional kit is coming out of pocket instead of self-subsidized so it's getting trickier....

Well, there's the left kidney, right kidney, left lung, right lung. Some see selling their first-born as justifiable. Lot's of resources! :lol

ziggy53

Scott_Quier wrote:

Well, there's the left kidney, right kidney, left lung, right lung. Some see selling their first-born as justifiable. Lot's of resources! :lol

I live not that far from 2 nuclear power plants, so I'm pretty sure I have a third kidney "somewhere".

Art Scott

Scott_Quier wrote:

Well, there's the left kidney, right kidney, left lung, right lung. Some see selling their first-born as justifiable. Lot's of resources! :lol

Selling Plasma alsowink:lol ...can get an exta couple hundred a month......as long as your not diabetic:cry

divamum

Scott_Quier wrote:

Well, there's the left kidney, right kidney, left lung, right lung. Some see selling their first-born as justifiable. Lot's of resources!

Yeah, but if I sell the firstborn, I lose the in-house model. Even that would be a compromise :lol4

craig_d

divamum wrote:

Yeah, but if I sell the firstborn, I lose the in-house model.

Well, it's good, at least, that you understand that this is a purely practical question and not an ethical or moral issue.

Toshido

I know a little off, but have you considered a 70-200 f/4 ?

The are light and sharp. Be nice for the portraits and stuff like that. Perfect if you are still considering getting the 85 1.8 and 135L in the future.

Just a thought.

Of course, you could just hit the gym and build the muscles to handle a 70-200 2.8

divamum

craig_d wrote:

Well, it's good, at least, that you understand that this is a purely practical question and not an ethical or moral issue.

There are moral and ethical issues with that? nah

Toshido wrote:

I know a little off, but have you considered a 70-200 f/4 ?

The are light and sharp. Be nice for the portraits and stuff like that. Perfect if you are still considering getting the 85 1.8 and 135L in the future.

Just a thought.

Of course, you could just hit the gym and build the muscles to handle a 70-200 2.8

Light and sharp = good, but I think I"ve become too reliant on fast glass to give up the extra stops. I actually still have my old (OLD) Canon 70-210 f4 which I'm keeping as backup until I've got some sort of longer zoom coverage, and I always find myself wanting to be able to open it up and can't. I'd have considered the 24-105L otherwise - perfect focal ranges, I just want those extra stops. Thanks for the suggestion, though!

Toshido

I understand about the fast glass. When I use the 17-40 F/4L I keep wanting faster as well.

Maybe the only real solution is a gym membership and new muscles

DsrtVW

Divamum, I cant speak of the Sigma you are looking at, but have many Sigma lenses and have been happy with them.
The lense I have in that range is the Tokina 50-135mm f2.8 ATX Pro which I have been very happy with. I shoot Nikon so I can not speak to the Canon copy.
Very well built and like the easy manual to AF activation

divamum

Well, I wound up reinventing the wheel since I DID buy a 135L (offer too good to pass up). This means

1. I'm now completely out of money
2. I'll be selling the 200L 2.8, and possibly the 100 2.0 (see 1 for details )

I'm planning to solve the long-end issue with the 135+1.4 TC (thoughts/recommendations on this?) which will give me about 200mm at 2.8 - I hate letting the primepipe go, but I don't "need" 200mm that often, especially since the 135 will give me all the bg blur I could ever want. At some point I'll replace the 100 with an 85, or I might now consider the Tokina 50-135 in there instead, which would give me GREAT coverage.

But for now..... I'm broke. And it was totally worth it - I swear the 135 is magic... even motion blur looks good with that thing!

Thanks for all the suggestions and input

craig_d

divamum wrote:

I'm planning to solve the long-end issue with the 135+1.4 TC (thoughts/recommendations on this?) which will give me about 200mm at 2.8 - I hate letting the primepipe go, but I don't "need" 200mm that often, especially since the 135 will give me all the bg blur I could ever want.

If you don't have a good f/2.8 zoom that covers 200mm, then I think the 135 f/2 L + 1.4x will do a pretty good job. I don't know if AF performance will suffer noticeably; sometimes I see slower AF with my 70-200 f/2.8 + 1.4x, but your setup would have one-stop aperture advantage over that, which might make a difference. IQ probably won't be quite as nice as the real 200mm prime, but the difference won't be all that much.

Btw, I assume by "1.4 TC" you mean the Canon EF 1.4x II Extender. I have no experience with the older model or third-party competition.