Anyone have experience with SIGMA f/2.8 50mm-150mm?

[mom2rtk]

Yes.... I'm STILL toiling over what I want to do for my zoom. I was convinced I needed to sell the Tamron 18-270 to get the Sigma f2.8/70-200mm. But I am still put off a bit by the size.

I have seen that Sigma does a 2.8 50-150 that is a little smaller and am wondering if anyone here has one or experience with one and what they think.

I know I would miss the longer reach, but if it's not something I would want to carry into Disney with me, it might not suit my needs. I want the lens for my son's soccer games, but also for Disney, my other son's graduation next year, school functions, etc.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

I don't have any experience with the 50-150, but I do have the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. Let me preface this, I like a little heavier camera. I have a Pentax K10D with battery grip. Today I was on a 4 hour shoot with the Sigma 28-70 f2.8 on my camera and the 70-200 in my bag. I was going up and down hills, stairs and it never got that heavy. When its on the camera, the battery grip balances my camera very well, so I don't fight a balance problem. It just doesn't feel that heavy when its in my hands. It does feel heavy when its hanging around my neck, so I am looking for a solution for that. There are several out there. I also have the Sigma 100-300 f4. Now, that is a heavy lens, but it takes great images, so its worth it!!

 

[mom2rtk]

Thanks for your reply! I do get what you're saying. I am quite certain that when I sit down at my son's high school graduation in a year (in a large indoor auditorium), if I only have the 150 reach available, I'll be kicking myself.

Likewise, if I get the 70-200 but find myself not wanting to cart it around Disney, I'll regret that too.... My problem is that I'm usually carrying a bunch of other stuff around too. But my daughter is 9 and I'm sure I'll be carrying less and less stuff around the park very soon...

Still, it does help to hear what others think.

Has anyone had experience with this lens? I've heard that it can have some front-focusing issues, and I'm curious to hear some actual experience with it. In the end, if the photos are not decent, the weight and size issues are immaterial.

 

[Groucho]

I have wondered about that lens a few times and just saw it mentioned the other day in this article...

From our own experience, with some hesitation we recently tried a few copies of the Sigma 50-150 f2.8, tested them, rented them for 6 months, and decided we would stock them in quantity since they seemed great. We ordered 6 more copies and all 6 were horrible, incredibly soft, and went straight back. The Digital Picture found exactly the same thing. We assume (and assumptions are dangerous) that the second set of six came from a different assembly line run than the first few we bought. We’ve had similar experiences with other lenses we bought in batches. For example the initial dozen Sigma 150-500s we bought almost all failed very early and we stopped carrying them. Lots of people at that time reported similar things, but there’s a lot of folks saying that more recent copies don’t have those problems.

If you do get one, you will definitely want to give it a good test ASAP! (These guys have had a lot of bad luck with Sigmas which is why they mention hesitation in buying.)

I have to recommend looking at the Tokina 50-135mm... which should optically be about the same as the Pentax 50-135mm which is a really spectacular lens. Not sure about the Tokina's weight, but I remember comparing it to the Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS a couple years ago and it was half the weight and much, much smaller.

Other things to remember... you can always crop, but you can't go wider! 70mm is pretty narrow on a crop body... a 50-135mm is like a 75-202.5mm on a FF body, and the 70-200mm is like a 105-300mm. I like the 50-135mm a lot because 50mm is often wide enough to live with in many situations, so it's easier to "live with".

If you really needed the extra reach, my inclination would be to keep a cheaper consumer zoom to get real extra reach and the shorter one for the higher quality.

 

[mom2rtk]

Thanks for the links Groucho! It's giving me more to mull over.... I wasn't aware of that Tokina model. Its been discontinued, but there are some still out there.

I was still hoping for a little more reach at 2.8 though. I mostly wanted it for my son's high school soccer games. The season is in the fall, and last year I had my new Tamron 18-270, but it sat in my lap many games because it was overcast at twilight... just not enough light for that lens. When it was really sunny the Tamron was great, and offered great reach. Cutting back from 270 to 200 I was fine with.... and I was just adjusting down to the thought of 150.... the 135 will take some thought.....

 

[Groucho]

I don't think there's all that much difference between 135mm and 150mm... 15mm difference at those focal lengths is pretty paltry compared to, say, 35mm and 50mm! You can try taking a few test shots with your Tamron to get an idea of how much it is and if you'd be willing to live with a little less. Compare 200mm, too - it may be less difference than you'd expect!

 

[mom2rtk]

I don't think there's all that much difference between 135mm and 150mm... 15mm difference at those focal lengths is pretty paltry compared to, say, 35mm and 50mm! You can try taking a few test shots with your Tamron to get an idea of how much it is and if you'd be willing to live with a little less. Compare 200mm, too - it may be less difference than you'd expect!

That sounds like a great idea. I think I've decided not to get the 200 since I just think I would find myself avoiding carrying it into Disney, and around in general.

I still like the idea of getting that extra 15 mm, but you're right, it's probably not a big deal. And the mixed reviews on the focus of the Sigma have me hesitant on that one....

 

[handicap18]

I am renting one right now.... used it the other day for the first time and will use it a few more times this week including at a conference this weekend.

Here are some initial shots with it:

Indoors, f/5.6, ISO 800, 1/80th:

a few outdoor shots:

My initial impression is that I like it a lot. Its pretty sharp and I really like the focal length. I used it on Saturday for the whole day. I had 2 other lenses in my bag and didn't use them at all. The focus is pretty quick and quiet. I'm going to get a bunch more use out of it before I have to send it back. I really rented it for this coming Saturday at the conference. I wanted something with a decent reach, a wide aperture, but not real big. Its not much bigger than my 70-300mm VR lens and a lot smaller than the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR. I like the focal range of 50-150mm. I'm hoping that it will get me what I want at the conference. That is to stand at the back of the workshop rooms and get shots of the speakers without using the flash so as not to interfere with their presentations. I know the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR could do it, but its just to expensive for me to rent for the conference. Plus the 50-150mm is more affordable for me if I do decide to buy it down the road.

I'll post more as I take more shots.

 

[mom2rtk]

Many thanks Kyle! I'm glad to hear your positive report so far. Thanks for posting the photos. But then you have such adorable subjects to work with that they would probably make any lens look good!

I am hoping this continues to get good reports. I did some checking on the Tokina Groucho mentioned and couldn't find it available here in the states any more.

I'll hope you'll post back after the weekend and let me know your further thoughts!