Any experiences with the Sigma 50-200mm f/4.0-5.6 DC IF SLD OS lens

MntnKarie

I'd like to hear feedback on this lens if anyone has used it extensively.
I have pro glass, but I've heard some interesting things on this little lens.
I'd like a compact mid zoom and don't care for the Canon 55-250 and I don't
use super zooms.

This is not a "need this lens", it's more of a "wouldn't this be a great little
lens for a throw in if I have the room" kind of thing. I do some travel photography
to pad the wallet from time to time and thought it might be a good back up to my other
lenses if it's decent. Decent means no bigger than 8x10 published, not art print quality.

Any input would be great as it would be nice to save my back somewhat. Obviously, I shoot
Canon, but if you've got this lens I'd like to hear regardless of it's mount.

thanks so much.

ziggy53

Optically I think you would find the Canon EF-S 55-250mm, f4.0-5.6 IS slightly better than the Sigma 50-200mm, f4.0-5.6 DC IF SLD OS HSM, but the Sigma HSM has the potential for slightly faster focus and better focus accuracy. (I do believe that the Sigma AF motor is a micro-motor HSM, meaning that focus speed should not be dramatically better than the Canon, but potentially more accurate because the Canon is the older micro-motor (not USM).)

When I want to use an inexpensive lens in this range I often choose my Tamron 70-300mm, f4.5-f5.6 LD and use it as a 70-200mm, f5.6-f8. While it's not much use in low-light or indoors, in good light it can be fine stopped down a bit and staying away from the 200-300mm end of the zoom. The 300mm is OK for simple subjects however.

You might consider reviewing your images to see what focal length you normally shoot at and, if possible, use a prime lens instead. If you are shooting a lot around 100mm, for instance, the Canon 100mm, f2 USM is a major upgrade in image quality over anything we've discussed and it's not terribly expensive compared to a high-quality zoom lens.

If you really desire a zoom then I suggest saving for a Canon EF 70-200mm, f4"L" USM (non-IS). This is an excellent "value" "L" lens and very high quality for its cost.

Matthew Saville

MntnKarie wrote: »

This is not a "need this lens", it's more of a "wouldn't this be a great little
lens for a throw in if I have the room" kind of thing. I do some travel photography
to pad the wallet from time to time and thought it might be a good back up to my other
lenses if it's decent. Decent means no bigger than 8x10 published, not art print quality.

Any input would be great as it would be nice to save my back somewhat. Obviously, I shoot
Canon, but if you've got this lens I'd like to hear regardless of it's mount.

thanks so much.

For me, that lens is the Sigma 50-150 2.8 EX DC.

Small and light enough to "toss in your bag" for casual shooting, but well-constructed and sharp enough to use even for professional jobs if I need, especially when the job is minimalist...

Sure, it's way more expensive and less zoom than a f/4.5-5.6 lens, but I just love, love, love mine as both a reliable pro tool and a casual walk-around lens... :-)

=Matt=