New Sigma 50-150 f2.8 EX DC HSM

[LightRules]

Looks like it hits the US market later this month (August 28th):

http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/news/50_150_28_dc.htm

Fairly lightweight too at 770 grams, and takes 67mm filters. Should be a fine lens and probably very popular. MSRP looks like $916 USD, but it'll be much lower than that at stores.

16 days away...

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/static/image/2006/08/11/sigma.jpg

[grego]

Interesting.

[Lightstream]

Wow, very impressive - for the size and weight!

If Sigma can match the 70-200 f/4L in terms of IQ and 'good copies', this could be a serious contender. 80-240mm (equiv.) f/2.8 for a fraction of the weight of a real 70-200 f/2.8 zoom.

[grego]

Wow, very impressive - for the size and weight!

If Sigma can match the 70-200 f/4L in terms of IQ and 'good copies', this could be a serious contender. 80-240mm (equiv.) f/2.8 for a fraction of the weight of a real 70-200 f/2.8 zoom.

Well you already have Sigma's 70-200 f/2.8 which is pretty damn good already. There isn't that big a difference between the Sigma and Canon.

This lens will give a more accurate at least at the wide end, field of view of 70-200(if they were on full frame).

[farrukh]

English version : http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/news/50_150_28_dc.htm

An FF version of this lens would be more interesting though.

[grego]

English version : http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/news/50_150_28_dc.htm

An FF version of this lens would be more interesting though.

But that's where the 70-200 would come back into play, one, if not the best zoom out there(with respect to all its features).

[farrukh]

But that's where the 70-200 would come back into play, one, if not the best zoom out there(with respect to all its features).

Classic 50mm to 150 with such aperture on FF body would be great for walkaround.

[Lightstream]

Well you already have Sigma's 70-200 f/2.8 which is pretty damn good already. There isn't that big a difference between the Sigma and Canon.

This lens will give a more accurate at least at the wide end, field of view of 70-200(if they were on full frame).

Naah, despite my random lens buying madness recently, I will not be buying this one, precisely because of the reasons you said. :) However, if I had a 30D instead (and none of my current collection of glass) I would be very interested. It will be good to have in the market though, that's what I'm saying.

[Nikolas]

It's a DC which means it can only fit on the non FF cameras.

[Rumjungle]

Looks like it'll go nicely with the 120-300. Now if they only had a good wide 2.8 zoom...

[Rhinotherunt]

It's a DC which means it can only fit on the non FF cameras.

No, DG would mean it is able to be used on FF. DC is for crop cameras.

[Mr. Clean]

sh*t
I'm trying to figure out if I really need this. I'm thinking no and my money would be better spent on a 70-200 or 120 - 300? Or, sell the nifty fifty and the 85 1.8...
Nah - It's tempting though!

*Edit* You know, after cquiringmore primes and loving the quality, I think a 135 would be a better addition for me if I felt the need. BUt if I was starting from scratch this lens would for sure make the group. Image a 10-20, Tamron 17-50, and this new lens with a couple tc's! You'd be set!

[LightRules]

It's a DC which means it can only fit on the non FF cameras.

Actually, it will "fit" on any body. But it will vignette on FF and 1.3x bodies. Also, it looks like it will probably sell for about $700 USD.

[LightRules]

No, DG would mean it is able to be used on FF. DC is for crop cameras.

I think that's what he said.

[Rhinotherunt]

LOL! You are right... I misread. Sorry Nikolas...

[Hellashot]

Well you already have Sigma's 70-200 f/2.8 which is pretty damn good already. There isn't that big a difference between the Sigma and Canon.

This lens will give a more accurate at least at the wide end, field of view of 70-200(if they were on full frame).

I agree. Too similar a focal length. Why do they keep putting out DC lenses instead of DG which will work on more bodies? Buying a DC lens is throwing money away.

[In2Photos]

I agree. Too similar a focal length. Why do they keep putting out DC lenses instead of DG which will work on more bodies? Buying a DC lens is throwing money away.

Not if you never plan to go FF.

Jojo. This lens or the Toki 50-135?

[JCDoss]

Buying a DC lens is throwing money away.

What may be true for you is not true for everyone.

[Tony-S]

I've been keeping my eyes open for more info on this lens after seeing a post here a few weeks ago. I found this link today, but no price listing:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06081101sigma50-150dc.asp

I don't see anything on Sigma USA's web site, though, which seems a bit unusual?

[tommykjensen]

Check here

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=202338

[Tony-S]

Check here

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=202338

Hmm. How the heck did I miss that post...

So it looks like it'll probably be sub-US$700.

[Overkill]

Looks like a good deal ! Light weight great specs! But ill stick to the 70-400 4L!

[jojohohanon]

This looks like it doesn't extend while zooming, right?

[JCDoss]

It doesn't *look* like it extends, but there's no mention of it in the description that I can find.

[steved110]

Hmmm - there are so many nice little goodies out there - but I feel this competes too closely with the 70-200 range.

[CorruptedPhotographer]

I wish it were a DG lens. Then it would have been perfect.

[sboerup]

Good focal length, 50% lighter than the 70-200, and slightly better focusing distance. What I don't like about these longer lenses is you cant focus on anything within 5 feet (70-200), but this one looks better at 1:5.8 magnification, whereas the 70-200 is 1:7.8. Too bad its a DC lens, wasted it.

Now if there was even a 50-135 f2 lens out there, that would be something worth talking about.

[LightRules]

Jojo. This lens or the Toki 50-135?

If I were getting one of the two, it'd be the EX. More range...and it has HSM/FTM.

[LightRules]

Looks like a good deal ! Light weight great specs! But ill stick to the 70-400 4L!

On a crop body, the new EX is definitely serious competition. They are about the same weight (710g v 770g), but we're talking f2.8 with the EX.

[LightRules]

This looks like it doesn't extend while zooming, right?

I'm fairly confident this one does not extend while zooming.

[MrChad]

Loosing 50mm on the long end is worse then gaining 20mm on the short end IMO.

I agree with the other's, a 50-150mm f2.8 (FF) would have made a neat portrait zoom.
Or a 50-200mm f2.8 DC (EF-s) would have made a great tele mate for most kit lens/crop only fast zooms like the 17-50mm Tamron.

But a crop only 50-150mm? Maybe if it had a macro function or something, else as is it's a lens better covered by so many others.

I guess I've never found my 70-200mm too long on my crop body?

[DocFrankenstein]

I'll stick with my 70-200 thank you.

[grego]

I agree. Too similar a focal length. Why do they keep putting out DC lenses instead of DG which will work on more bodies? Buying a DC lens is throwing money away.

These are geared at the 1.6 crop owners, which are the majority. These lens are made easier since they don't need to cover as much area.

Most people aren't using a 1D or a 5D. And then if you are on the full frame, you can use the traditional and get pretty much what you want.

[marka123]

Howdy,

I could see getting rid of my 24-70 f/2.8 and going with a 18/17-50 f/2.8 and this new lens as a duo... Then I've got the 100-300 f/4 at the longer end (and perhaps the 120-300 replacing that in the future). Then perhaps the 10-20 on the short end. Makes a pretty large commitment to the crop form factor though... Not sure I'm comfortable with that.

It'll be interesting to see what the price is actually set to.

Mark

[form]

I don't think the zoom range is very good because it is neither a standard zoom or a telephoto lens with as much reach as the 70-200.

It isn't AS telephoto as the 70-200 telephotos, and it's certainly not wide enough to be anything except a telephoto...making it a half-way hybrid which seems to fill neither the telephoto or wide angle ranges as effectively as already existing designs.

Of what use is this focal length range compared to a 70-200? Just because the 70-200 range was made initially for full-frame 35mm doesn't mean that an equivalent should be made for the APS-C crop factor.

What I mean is...We have 17-50, 17-70, 28-75. We also have 70-200, 70-300, etc. Based on the price, it's surely not supposed to compete with the various consumer 55-200 lenses...So what would be the purpose of a 50-150, since those others exist?

If I wanted to get a good telephoto zoom lens, I'd get a 70-200 variant, because if I'm getting a telephoto lens, I want the most reach possible without loss of quality. I also wonder what kind of vignetting the 50-150 has (which other models don't), since it's a DC model.

[SimonG]

... What I mean is...We have 17-50, 17-70, 28-75. We also have 70-200, 70-300, etc. Based on the price, it's surely not supposed to compete with the various consumer 55-200 lenses...So what would be the purpose of a 50-150, since those others exist? ...
I think it's meant to act as a 70-200 mm f/2.8 style lens without the size and weight penalties. If 70-200 is fine on FF, why not have a lens that delivers 70-240 mm equivalent for a 1.6 crop, particularly if such a design saves you a full half kilo in weight? Sure, it's not for everyone, but at this price I would surely take a long look if I were in the market for such a lens, particularly if it's half as good as their 150 macro or 100-300 f/4. I'm sure that lots of others will consider it too, given that lenses and cameras in general seem to be shrinking in size these days.

[DocFrankenstein]

It is a viable alternative for people who never plan going full frame... ie noink shooters. haha

You have 2 bodies and say a 10-22 and this 50-150. With such a small setup you can shoot everything you want as a photojournalist without spending 15K on full frame bodies.

Of course the quality won't be the same... but you do pay less.

[SimonG]

... Of course the quality won't be the same... but you do pay less.
What's to say that the quality will be any worse than the equivalent lens on a FF body? Fact is, Sigma makes some damn fine lenses, and in this case both would be on equal footing since the full image circle is being recorded (i.e. 50-150 on a 1.6 crop vs. a 70-200 on FF).

[Overkill]

Want light weight! Go for 70-200 4L!

[SimonG]

Want light weight! Go for 70-200 4L!
Sure... that's one option, and you'd gain a bit of reach while giving up a stop. Personally, I think that the 50-150 f/2.8 is a more attractive solution.

[LightRules]

Want light weight! Go for 70-200 4L!

The weight difference is a non-issue (65 grams). The main issue is the 150mm v 200mm and f2.8 v f4, and possibly the price (maybe $100 difference).

[CorruptedPhotographer]

The weight difference is a non-issue (65 grams). The main issue is the 150mm v 200mm and f2.8 v f4, and possibly the price (maybe $100 difference).

I think DC vs DG is also a "main issue". It shot me down from a potential buyer.

[gcogger]

For me the main issue is the 50mm vs 70mm (and f2.8 v f4). Everyone is different in how and what they shoot. My main portrait lens is a Tamron 28-75/2.8 but I tend to try and take candid shots. This means that I am usually a little further from the subject than if people were posing for them. I do know that I am often shooting at 75mm (and wishing for more) and, when I look at the pics on my PC, I find that I am hardly ever below 50mm. I think the ideal lens for me woul be about a 40-120, but this is close and I'll almost certainly be getting one :)

[DocFrankenstein]

What's to say that the quality will be any worse than the equivalent lens on a FF body?
Just laws of physics.

[SimonG]

Just laws of physics.
Well, that's not a very constructive answer. :confused:

[form]

Weight isn't such an issue to me, so that's not a good reason to like the lens. DC is a turnoff, 150 as opposed to 200 is a turnoff. The only thing it has going for it is f/2.8, which doesn't make up for the rest, and will surely have rather bad vignetting, I expect. Also, having a 50mm f/1.8 already, I don't need a telephoto zoom lens to begin there with a smaller aperture. And having a Tamron 90mm f/2.8, I don't feel that 150 is a big enough jump.

[SimonG]

Weight isn't such an issue to me, so that's not a good reason to like the lens. DC is a turnoff, 150 as opposed to 200 is a turnoff. The only thing it has going for it is f/2.8, which doesn't make up for the rest, and will surely have rather bad vignetting, I expect. Also, having a 50mm f/1.8 already, I don't need a telephoto zoom lens to begin there with a smaller aperture. And having a Tamron 90mm f/2.8, I don't feel that 150 is a big enough jump.
Well, that's one take on it. Then again, weight is an issue to many; look at all the people who prefer the 70-200 f/4 over its larger siblings. Who's to say that some of them wouldn't love to have f/2.8 at the cost of a tiny bit of reach. Seems that this lens is quite a bit more compact than the 70-200 f/4 as well. This looks like one half of a great one-two punch for 1.6 crop cameras (with your favourite 16/17-50 odd lens as the other half).

[Lightstream]

Well, that's one take on it. Then again, weight is an issue to many; look at all the people who prefer the 70-200 f/4 over its larger siblings. Who's to say that some of them wouldn't love to have f/2.8 at the cost of a tiny bit of reach. Seems that this lens is quite a bit more compact than the 70-200 f/4 as well. This looks like one half of a great one-two punch for 1.6 crop cameras (with your favourite 16/17-50 odd lens as the other half).
Precisely. I went FF and took advantage of a TRUE 70-200 focal length. Being able to do this on a crop camera and receive 80-240 would give me enough wide, plus a bit more reach, without the substantial weight penalty and cost of the big zooms. I was thinking about a Canon 70-200 and the price was a huge turn-off. The Sigma 70-200 is nice, but taking half a kilo off my shoulders is even nicer. It's ALMOST enough to make me wonder if I should have stayed APS-C instead..... :(

[SimonG]

... It's ALMOST enough to make me wonder if I should have stayed APS-C instead..... :(
The same thought crossed my mind... for about two seconds. I'm over it now. ;)

[Lightstream]

The same thought crossed my mind... for about two seconds. I'm over it now. ;)

Help meeeeeee! There is a 30D and 17-55 f/2.8 IS calling my name! :D

[blonde]

^^^ i'll save you!!!!

*grabs the credit card out of lighstream wallet and presses the submit order for him*

[Lightstream]

^^^ i'll save you!!!!

*grabs the credit card out of lighstream wallet and presses the submit order for him*
Woooohoo! Now off to wait for the tracking number!! http://pix.lightrefineries.org/img/crackup.gif

Oh wait, what's this about "DECLINED"? :shock::cry::cry::cry::cry:

[Tee Why]

I think we're starting to see the benefits, yes, I said benefits of cropped sensors.
Smaller lens...
Compared to a 70-200 f2.8 lens for a FF, this lens mimics the same range for a lot less weight. Compare the size difference between the Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS and a somwhat comparable FF version Canon 24-70 f2.8. Also consider lenses like the ultrawides for cropped vs ultrawides for FF like the Sigma 12-24 and Canon 16-35.

Cropped sensors allow, generally, for similar rfocal length ange of lenses with similar speed to built lighter.
As for me?, I like the range of the 70-200 on a crop and don't mind the weight, so I'll be keeping my 70-200 f2.8L lens. But this is a nice option for everyone to have, especially for those that don't like carrying heavy lenses.

[Tony-S]

There's a press release on the Sigma USA web site for this lens now:

http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3318&navigator=6

[MrChad]

I'd definately wait on reviews of this lens first. Sigma can sometimes be hit or miss on lens design. If this f/2.8 DC doesn't get sharp, or loose corner effect until you stop it down a bit, it might not be more useful to many then the 70-200 f/4L which is sharp even wide open.

[CorruptedPhotographer]

I'd definately wait on reviews of this lens first. Sigma can sometimes be hit or miss on lens design.

Ive never seen a Sigma EX be a hit or miss.

What Sigma EX lenses were hit and miss?

[Rhinotherunt]

Ive never seen a Sigma EX be a hit or miss.

What Sigma EX lenses were hit and miss?

Some people have had issues with the 10-20mm. Mine is SWEET! I did test out a 24-70mm 2.8 EX and was disappointed. It was a bad copy. I have also seen bad copies of Canon lenses. It happens...

[CorruptedPhotographer]

Bad copies of a product is one thing, classifying the whole product as hit or miss is another.

My friend's Porsche Cayyene Turbo is faulty. One of the ac's (pointing at him only blows out hot air, not normal temp. air, hot like heater turned on air) while the other is frosty cold. he paid $110,000. It happens. But that doesnt mean Cayyenne line of Porsche is hit or miss.

[MrChad]

Ive never seen a Sigma EX be a hit or miss.

What Sigma EX lenses were hit and miss?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-Lens-Reviews.aspx

He's somewhat Canon biased but I'd say his test charts tend to back his opinions.
He wasn't too impressed with the Sigma 20mm prime, or the 70-200mm. He's also rated the 28-70 and 24-70, the rest are too come.

I haven't really found any lens reviews as detailed as this sites.

[Mr. Clean]

That's not hit and miss though. Reading his 24-70 review, there are assumptions that are personal preference based and fact based and others that are just plain wierd. I've never had flare problems with my 24-70. But then again, what would you expect when comparing a 400 dollar EX lens to a 1200 L? Doesn't mean the Sigma is hit and miss. I personally love my 24-70 EX.
I still think that with today's XX-50(55) lenses that are coming out, the 50-150 would be a great partner to these lenses!

[Dorman]

There's no point in bickering about "if only it was full frame" or "I'm going full-frame SOMEDAY so I'll never buy this lens"... It's not full frame, get over it, appreciate it for what it is, a promising lens for the MASSES of crop camera users. Sure we all might go full-frame someday, if that's the case we can sell APS only lenses.

So it's the same weight as the 70-200 F/4 and a bit smaller...........NICE

It has the equivalent fov/focal length that 70-200 lenses were originally designed for...... NICE

Since alot of users end their wide zoom at 40/50mm it pairs nicely and continues that on WITH speed, yes 2.8 aperture where it counts.....NICE

With a 1.4 or 2x TC you get back the reach you lost over the Canon lenses and do so at F/4.......NICE

Constant Aperture, internal focusing, EX Build Quality, good price point....NICE

The truth is there's nothing NOT to like about this lens if you have a crop sensor camera. It'll provide some much needed competition for the Canon 70-200 offerings at one heck of a price. I think it's pretty exciting.

[grego]

Well full frame is not only excluded, but so is 1.3 cropped users. So some cropped users actually are excluded, technically.

The truth is there's nothing NOT to like about this lens if you have a crop sensor camera. It'll provide some much needed competition for the Canon 70-200 offerings at one heck of a price. I think it's pretty exciting.

But then it already does. The Sigma 70-200 is already quality lens at a great price and fits the same focal length range as the 70-200's by Canon.

[DocFrankenstein]

There's no point in bickering about "if only it was full frame" or "I'm going full-frame SOMEDAY so I'll never buy this lens"... It's not full frame, get over it, appreciate it for what it is, a promising lens for the MASSES of crop camera users.
Now that you've told me what I should do, it's all clear.

What if half of my shooting is still done with film?

[ed rader]

Looks like it hits the US market later this month (August 28th):

http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/news/50_150_28_dc.htm

Fairly lightweight too at 770 grams, and takes 67mm filters. Should be a fine lens and probably very popular. MSRP looks like $916 USD, but it'll be much lower than that at stores.

16 days away...

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/static/image/2006/08/11/sigma.jpg

boy we got the pom-poms going already on this one :D .

what an oddball length.

ed rader

[LightRules]

boy we got the pom-poms going already on this one :D .

what an oddball length.

ed rader

Ahh, I knew you couldn't resist for too long. There will always be a few "haters"... :cry:

[Lightstream]

There's no point in bickering about "if only it was full frame" or "I'm going full-frame SOMEDAY so I'll never buy this lens"... It's not full frame, get over it, appreciate it for what it is, a promising lens for the MASSES of crop camera users. Sure we all might go full-frame someday, if that's the case we can sell APS only lenses.

So it's the same weight as the 70-200 F/4 and a bit smaller...........NICE

It has the equivalent fov/focal length that 70-200 lenses were originally designed for...... NICE

Since alot of users end their wide zoom at 40/50mm it pairs nicely and continues that on WITH speed, yes 2.8 aperture where it counts.....NICE

With a 1.4 or 2x TC you get back the reach you lost over the Canon lenses and do so at F/4.......NICE

Constant Aperture, internal focusing, EX Build Quality, good price point....NICE

The truth is there's nothing NOT to like about this lens if you have a crop sensor camera. It'll provide some much needed competition for the Canon 70-200 offerings at one heck of a price. I think it's pretty exciting.

Some very good points here...you've basically said it as it should be said.

I'm normally biased towards Canon lenses but I'll come out and say that their feature list for this one really shows a whole lot of thought put into it. As an EF-S user I didn't always appreciate my 70-x00 zooms turning into 112mm zooms, which is the reason I shoot a true 70-200 on full frame.

On the other hand the offerings for EF-S users are now becoming extremely compelling. Between the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 and this lens, you're all set, maybe with the exception of IS, but you're covered for both of the most commonly used ranges. Plus the weight is so much lighter than the zooms.

Now all that's left is Sigma's execution. I hope we don't have too many concerns about soft copies and recalibration when they finally launch this lens. The plan is great - now we look towards their performance.

[fatdeeman]

Ive never seen a Sigma EX be a hit or miss.

What Sigma EX lenses were hit and miss?


18-50mm ex

Search the forum.

[In2Photos]

Now that you've told me what I should do, it's all clear.

What if half of my shooting is still done with film?

CF cards don't work in your film camera either so should we debate them as being "for everyone"?

[ed rader]

Ahh, I knew you couldn't resist for too long. There will always be a few "haters"... :cry:

it's a tough job but someone has to counterbalance the "shills" :D .

ed rader

[LightRules]

it's a tough job but someone has to counterbalance the "shills" :D .

ed rader

Well, regardless of your (baseless) ad hominems and anti-Sigma fanaticism, I think Sigma will probably still sell one or two copies of this lens.

[ed rader]

Well, regardless of your (baseless) ad hominems and anti-Sigma fanaticism, I think Sigma will probably still sell one or two copies of this lens.

well, anytime i see the pom-poms and superlatives flying before a lens has even hit the market i am a little suspicious.

i'm sure they'll sell quite a few copies based solely on your recomendations.....which have already begun :D .

ed rader

[LightRules]

well, anytime i see the pom-poms and superlatives flying before a lens has even hit the market i am a little suspicious.

i'm sure they'll sell quite a few copies based solely on your recomendations.....which have already begun :D .

ed rader

Edward, I think you're reading too much into this post. It was an announcement as this is a lens forum, IIRC. I don't see any "pom-poms" out.

[ed rader]

Edward, I think you're reading too much into this post. It was an announcement as this is a lens forum, IIRC. I don't see any "pom-poms" out.

Fairly lightweight too at 770 grams, and takes 67mm filters. Should be a fine lens and probably very popular. MSRP looks like $916 USD, but it'll be much lower than that at stores.

16 days away...

i think it's an oddball length. too long on the short end to be a walkaround and too short on the long end to be a long zoom.

possibly this lens will appeal to canon 17-55 owners.

it does have f2.8 going for it but will it be usable like the canon L zooms?

let's just say i'm not at all excited about this one.

ed rader

[LightRules]

let's just say i'm not at all excited about this one.

Surprise! :D :D :D :D :D

[Tony-S]

It's getting closer - the lens is now on B&H online for US$679.

[Rhinotherunt]

If I did not have the Sigma 70-200 I would seriously consider this one... that is if it measures up. I may actually still consider it as a light weight alternative if it measures up. I am sure it will...

[Dorman]

DocFrankenstein - if you were using only your crop camera this lens would behave exactly as your Sigma 70-200 2.8 does on your film camera. Now in your situation it's not something you'd be interested in since you have two different cameras with different requirements. Do you like your 70-200 on your film cam? If so it should be easy to see why crop shooters would be interested in this focal range on their APS sensor cams, not to mention the speed over the F/4 Canon and a compact/lightweight zoom.

I guess I just don't understand the haters. As far as I see it there's lots of lenses out there that get praised on these forums that have no interest to me, they just don't suit my style and needs. Do I hate them? No, I appreciate that they're sharp tools for other needs and applications. More variety and alternatives are good for all of us. Different speeds, focal lengths, prices, brands, are all good for us as it means there's something there for everyone.

[CorruptedPhotographer]

18-50mm ex

Search the forum.

Were all the lenses bad - hit n miss - or were there copies that were soft - hit n miss- ?

[blonde]

Ive never seen a Sigma EX be a hit or miss.

What Sigma EX lenses were hit and miss?


how about Sigma's 80-400 OS? that could have been a killer lens but suprise suprise, Sigma had to go and screw it up by not giving it HSM....

however, this new lens is really tempting me. at this rate, i will be forced to sell my 1D and go back to a 30D. between this one and the 17-55IS, the 30D is begining to look very appealing to me...

[BryanP]

how about Sigma's 80-400 OS? that could have been a killer lens but suprise suprise, Sigma had to go and screw it up by not giving it HSM....

however, this new lens is really tempting me. at this rate, i will be forced to sell my 1D and go back to a 30D. between this one and the 17-55IS, the 30D is begining to look very appealing to me...

Don't do it! :evil:

[blonde]

i know i know. but you have to admit, some of the ef-s lenses are very tempting... ;)

[BryanP]

i know i know. but you have to admit, some of the ef-s lenses are very tempting... ;)

I will admit it. The 17-55 IS is one lens that I wished would be non EF-S. :D

[Lightstream]

I will admit it. The 17-55 IS is one lens that I wished would be non EF-S. :D

ALMOST enough for me to relinquish my 5D. Naah, not quite ;) if the lust really gets that bad I'll just add another 30D body, or even shoot it on my 350D.

[CorruptedPhotographer]

how about Sigma's 80-400 OS? that could have been a killer lens but suprise suprise, Sigma had to go and screw it up by not giving it HSM....

however, this new lens is really tempting me. at this rate, i will be forced to sell my 1D and go back to a 30D. between this one and the 17-55IS, the 30D is begining to look very appealing to me...

But the 80-400 wasnt hit and miss. They purposely did not include the HSM, same with the 24-105 f/4, its not f/2.8. Is it a hit and miss lens?

[blonde]

to me it is. you have an amazing lens on your hand that can give the canon 100-400 a run for its money and they choose to leave a simple thing which they have in the 100-300, 50-500, 70-200 and many other lenses. i didn't ask them to make the lens 1.8, i asked them to put the same freaking motor they have in most of their other EX lenses. and the fact that you say that they "purposely did not include that" is even more shocking. tell me one good reason why they would "purposely" leave such a thing out...

[Travis F]

tell me one good reason why they would "purposely" leave such a thing out...

Not knowing anything about the lens itself, I would say that it was left out to keep costs down. Sigma has to compete with Canon, Nikon,.... so to win people over from brand name lenses they try to keep costs to a minimum.


I know that I would choose canon everytime if they were the same price and all else equal.

But that is just my opinion and we all know what those are like:lol: .


Travis

[blonde]

^^ but that is the whole point, people buy tons of the sigma 70-200 because it offer all the things that the canon 70-200 f2.8 offers at a lower price. the sigma 80-400 didn't sell because without HSM, it can't compete with canon at all.... i think that sigma make great lenses like the 100-300, 120-300, 70-200 etc.. but sometimes they make decisions that makes no sense at all!!!

[MrChad]

^^ but that is the whole point, people buy tons of the sigma 70-200 because it offer all the things that the canon 70-200 f2.8 offers at a lower price. the sigma 80-400 didn't sell because without HSM, it can't compete with canon at all.... i think that sigma make great lenses like the 100-300, 120-300, 70-200 etc.. but sometimes they make decisions that makes no sense at all!!!

Did the Nikon version have silent wave? I think the Sigma 80-400mm is more Nikkor copy then a Canon clone.

[blonde]

i never said that it was a canon clone, i said that it could have been a great contender to the canon 100-400 IS..

[CorruptedPhotographer]

to me it is. you have an amazing lens on your hand that can give the canon 100-400 a run for its money and they choose to leave a simple thing which they have in the 100-300, 50-500, 70-200 and many other lenses. i didn't ask them to make the lens 1.8, i asked them to put the same freaking motor they have in most of their other EX lenses. and the fact that you say that they "purposely did not include that" is even more shocking. tell me one good reason why they would "purposely" leave such a thing out...

COST. :)
They got to cater to other markets you know.

Same reason Sony Ericsson left out the camera and WiFi in the m600i which is identical to the P990i except that the latter has camera and WiFi. The former costs significantly less.

[blonde]

COST. :)
They got to cater to other markets you know.

Same reason Sony Ericsson left out the camera and WiFi in the m600i which is identical to the P990i except that the latter has camera and WiFi. The former costs significantly less.

well, i understand the cost thing but that is why i look at it as a miss. all they have now is a lens that most people don't want (you can't tell me that it is a popular lens). they COULD have had a great lens but now they have a dud. and btw, taking out HSM is a big deal with lenses like that unlike the phone that can be used just fine without a camera. the 80-400 range is PERFECT for wildlife and with the OS, it is even better. however, trying to photograph flying birds or wildlife in action is kinda hard with slow focusing motor...

[MrChad]

i never said that it was a canon clone, i said that it could have been a great contender to the canon 100-400 IS..

My point was, I don't think they engineered/designed the Sigma 80-400mm so much as copied the Nikon. It's likely a packaging issue, likely why Canon's 70-300 and 75-300 IS USM's don't use Ring type usm.

And compared to the Nikon it is priced very well.

Canon may have a patent on the USM+IS system design too. That might be the only reason for the Nikkor copy cat, maybe it had a design loop-hole, or maybe Sigma paid some rights to Nikon? (Check out Canon's Lens Work III for some awesome cut aways of their USM lenses.)

After all why has the 80-400mm been the only OS Sigma? I can only speculate that it was the only IS type lens they could re-engineer in house from what's already on the market and not violate a patent or two.

But now I'm way off topic from this thread...

I still think the a 50-200mm f/2.8 would have been a lens to get really excited about, DC or not. The more tele the better, we could always stop turning the zoom ring. :rolleyes:

Maybe they could shorten the optical focal length of the Sigma 80-400 OS, and give us an APS-C only 50-250mm f4-5.6 OS DC tele Or a 30-300mm f4-6.3 DC Mini-Biggy. :lol:

[CorruptedPhotographer]

. the sigma 80-400 didn't sell because without HSM, it can't compete with canon at all

Really? You have a Sigma report stating that 80-400 sales were not up to par? :rolleyes::lol:;)

[blonde]

no, i have about 20 reviews from photographers that i trust that flat out say that the lens is not that good at wildlife. also, why don't you start a poll right here and see how many people have that lens?

[MrChad]

Really? You have a Sigma report stating that 80-400 sales were not up to par? :rolleyes::lol:;)

I wondered that as well...

A lot of Sigma users, pro's doing weddings and sports that I have met shoot Nikon's. (I'm not saying Nikon users buy more Sigma gear either on this one for what it's worth....we all know Nikon users are evil and they steal their lenses from other when not looking....I'm joking-I'm joking!!!) Perhaps we a not the target for all 3rd party lenses...Oh how self centered we Canon users are. :D

[MrChad]

no, i have about 20 reviews from photographers that i trust that flat out say that the lens is not that good at wildlife. also, why don't you start a poll right here and see how many people have that lens?

And if you owned a Olympus, Pentax, KM, or Nikon System would you also still call this lens junk?

[blonde]

hell yeah. btw, i love how both of you are trying to make me into one of those "canon snobs". i haave owned sigmas and i will buy more sigmas in the future. i have one problem with this lens which i have used btw. i did love my sigma 70-200 and i also loved my sigma 100-300 F4. btw, how come you didn't go with the sigma 24-70 instead of the canon L?

[blonde]

Perhaps we a not the target for all 3rd party lenses...Oh how self centered we Canon users are. :D

what kinda comment is that?? who said we are the target for all the 3rd party lenses? Sigma makes lense for Canon and that is a fact. Sigma did not include HSM in the 80-400 OS and that is a fact.

where did you get that "self centered" thing????

[CorruptedPhotographer]

no, i have about 20 reviews from photographers that i trust that flat out say that the lens is not that good at wildlife. also, why don't you start a poll right here and see how many people have that lens?

I hate to go off topic, but your sample of "20 reviews" is not enough to test your "theory". Second, I never said that it was a good or bad wildlife lens.
Third, you asked why Sigma did not include the HSM and I told you the most common and educated possible explanation. Trust me, successful companies like Sigma do not "hit n miss". Thier every plan of action is planned,reviewed and assessed a 100 times before implmenting it. Next you will call the 120-300 or the 100-300 hit n miss because they dont have OS. Would the same apply to the bigma? haha All Sigma lenses are Hit n miss because they all dont have wide f/2.8 apertures,include OS and are sharper than sharp.

[MrChad]

hell yeah. btw, i love how both of you are trying to make me into one of those "canon snobs". i haave owned sigmas and i will buy more sigmas in the future. i have one problem with this lens which i have used btw. i did love my sigma 70-200 and i also loved my sigma 100-300 F4. btw, how come you didn't go with the sigma 24-70 instead of the canon L?

I'm a Canon snob. Just kidding, well not really. My buddy has the 28-70/70-200 f/2.8 combo and I simply love using his glass.

I actually looked at switching systems before I purchased my f/2.8L combo. I kind of upgraded from a Sigma 18-125mm DC to get the 24-70L. Since the price was so high I did look at buying other lenses like some Nikkors. But cost aside, Ifelt the Canon L system was the best built lenses on the market (at least for now.)

I really liked my Sigma, best $269 ever spent on a zoom. But I like my L's better. A friend of mine building his own kit now purchased my Siggy.

I've used the Sigma 24-70 EX DG, the older non-Macro version. It's a nice lens, but the Canon 28-70L had a special "pop" in the colors for me. For this reason I decided to stay all Canon. And I was lucky enough to have the extra cash for the Canon, I'm well aware a great many can't afford to justify the cost of the L's or high end Nikkors.

My opinion is that Sigma and other 3rd parties value is in making lens sizes that Canon doesn't {that's really hard given the EF lens catolog} (like this 50-150mm dc EX) and in offering cheaper versions of popular lenses. I find the 24-70 Sigma is a good lens, but it's cut some corners (no HSM for one) to achieve it's price point.

[blonde]

corruptedphotographer,

alright, since you enjoy twisting what i say and don't even take the time to understand it, you win. sigma is the greatest company ever made. their 35 1.4 has a 100% hit rate and the 80-400OS is th second coming of christ. and you are right, companies don't ever make mistakes, they are all perfect because they think 100 times before they release a product. that is why kodak is still in business and that is why you see millions of deloreans driving on the road today. i alsso find it funny that you would say "next you will say that the 120-300 or the 100-300 are hit n miss" 3 posts after i said that i love the 100-300 and that it is a fatastic lens.

and my sample of 20 is more than good btw considering the fact that the people who tested it are pros that do this for a living and i trust their judgment more than i trust claims from companies. i also tried the lens myself, have you?

[MrChad]

what kinda comment is that?? who said we are the target for all the 3rd party lenses? Sigma makes lense for Canon and that is a fact. Sigma did not include HSM in the 80-400 OS and that is a fact.

where did you get that "self centered" thing????

Perhaps my Sarcasm was lost on that one, I included myself in that little zinger. It was not intended to be a personal attach on you or anyone. I'm sorry if it was. I was going for rehtorical-sarcasm if you could have such.

My arguement all along for the exclusion of HSM was that Sigma can't include it (this is my own theory) because they can't...

A. design around other patents for silent AF held by others.
B. do so in-house given their budgets
C. So so in-house given limited engineering talent or time
D. The lens was targeted to sell below a price point.
E. all of the above
F. none of the above, and I'm an idiot.

[SimonG]

Er, yeah... so, how about that new Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 EX? Looks kinda cool eh? ;)

[blonde]

Perhaps my Sarcasm was lost on that one, I included myself in that little zinger. It was not intended to be a personal attach on you or anyone. I'm sorry if it was. I was going for rehtorical-sarcasm if you could have such.

My arguement all along for the exclusion of HSM was that Sigma can't include it (this is my own theory) because they can't...

A. design around other patents for silent AF held by others.
B. do so in-house given their budgets
C. So so in-house given limited engineering talent or time
D. The lens was targeted to sell below a price point.
E. all of the above
F. none of the above, and I'm an idiot.

don't worry bro :) i agree with you on all points (except for F.) but that is exactly why i said it was a miss. they tried to bring out a killer lens that will compete with the canon 100-400 and they missed...

[In2Photos]

don't worry bro :) i agree with you on all points (except for F.) but that is exactly why i said it was a miss. they tried to bring out a killer lens that will compete with the canon 100-400 and they missed...

I think that was his point though. They might not have brought out the lens to compete with the 100-400L but rather the Nikon 80-400.


As for the 50-150 being $679 at B&H. Not a bad price. If I go the 16/17/18-50 route this lens will be very tempting.

[CorruptedPhotographer]

Er, yeah... so, how about that new Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 EX? Looks kinda cool eh? ;)

Im wondering what bokeh will look like. We already realize that its a great 3x zoom, nice and fast, hopefully it will be sharp like recent Sigma glass.

[MrChad]

don't worry bro :) i agree with you on all points (except for F.) but that is exactly why i said it was a miss. they tried to bring out a killer lens that will compete with the canon 100-400 and they missed...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=207360&is=USA&addedTroughType=search
Nikon: 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR AF Zoom-Nikkor ($1429.95 BHphoto)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=389507&is=REG&addedTroughType=search
Sigma: 80-400mm F4.5-5.6 EX OS APO ($999.00 BHphoto)

Maybe they have the winner they were looking for and selling a Canon mount is just gravy? :lol:

The Tokina 80-400mm for Nikon is out of stock too...

[blonde]

^^^ you might be right but this is a canon forum so i am talking about it from a canon customer point of view. i am sure that the 80-400 OS is way better than promaster, vivitar and pheonix lenses but that is not the issue. again, Sigma makes some fantastic lenses that i would love to own but they do have some misses just like any other company in the world (notice how i never said that Canon doesn't have any misses because they do...).

[blonde]

btw, wining against that Nikon lens is not really a big deal if you read some of the reviews on it ;)

[MrChad]

Im wondering what bokeh will look like. We already realize that its a great 3x zoom, nice and fast, hopefully it will be sharp like recent Sigma glass.

specs list 9 blades on the dia-fra-gym thingy, that can't hurt...:p

But I'm not sure if a reduced image circle hurts that, would the reduced focal length hurt it as well? A 60mm macro can't isolate the background like a 100mm.

[fatdeeman]

Were all the lenses bad - hit n miss - or were there copies that were soft - hit n miss- ?


According to members of this forum and a lot of people on fred miranda it looks like at least 3/4 of people with this lens find the focus to be unreliable, and some people state poor sharpness wide open which could well be the same problem beause mine is sharp wide open but only when it's focussed correctly and if I hadn't experimented I would have just assumed it was a soft lens.

The lens will not focus correctly with one half press of the shutter but if you do it two or three times it will suddenly become locked on correctly.

So many people have this issue or just report that the lens is soft that I wonder if they all have an issue with focusing.

I had no problem with my sigma 10-20mm though and I'm pleased overall with both lenses.

My problem with the 18-50 is a more an annoyance than a hinderance but I still expected more trustworthy AF from an EX lens

I'm very tempted by this 50-150mm but if people start reporting softness or AF problems I'm not prepared to take another gamble.

[MrChad]

btw, wining against that Nikon lens is not really a big deal if you read some of the reviews on it ;)

I haven't read any reviews for the 80-400mm VR, mainly because I refuse to look at a lens that doesn't have AF Silent Wave/USM/HSM, just kidding. ;)

If I believed the reviews on the 75-300 IS USM, I wouldn't have purchased it either. That said it came highly recommended by my wedding photographer some years ago. I am very happy with the prints he made from this lens. Having acquired my own copy it's a wonderful tool IMO. Especially given it's small size.

I think for $1400 the Nikkor 80-400mm VR is likely a very good lens.

I think in the old days lenses had character, in the digital era we call them flawed...

Hopefully the 50-150mm HSM will be flaw free right? I'm sure it will have Canon thinking about building an EF-S 55-150mm IS f/2.8. And I'm sure if made will cost $1200, what a bargain that will be--especially with it's hood sold seperately.

[fatdeeman]

yeah for $99 lol

Bargain!

[Crocodile]

Were all the lenses bad - hit n miss - or were there copies that were soft - hit n miss- ?

I can only speak for my (now sold) copy that was wonderfully sharp. Which area of the image would be wonderfully sharp, however, was too often a lottery. I am now very happy with my 17-55.

It is this bad experience with Sigma that puts me off this lens. Otherwise I know it would be a fantastic range for me (your needs may well be different), fast enough (OS would have been a dream, though) and I have every confidence in Sigma making it perform in terms of sharpness.

Until I can afford a 5D/70-200 2.8 IS I will see what the Tokina 50-135 is like, or find an old Canon 50-200mm L to try out!

[CountryBoy]

I think 3/4 of the people is too high. I've spent a lot of time reading reviews on this lens. Not a lot out there on it . So I had to dig. I would say 1/4 of the people, at the most, had some problem.
Mine will be here tomorrow. I just got my camera back from being cleaned and tested from Canon. So the camera is in fine shape. I will give the lens a good workout the rest of the week and over the weekend. I hope it works out, it's a great focal lenght for me.
I'll post what I find out.

Uh, I better try the camera out tonight. Just to make sure Canon did a good job !

[superdiver]

Anyone have one of these and care to share some pictures taken with it?

[Tsmith]

Anyone have one of these and care to share some pictures taken with it?

PBase has a few photos in users galleries: Click this link (http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/50_150_28_ex_dc_apo_hsm_)

[superdiver]

Thanks...

[CountryBoy]

The first time I took mine out, I thought it had focus problems. But when I put the camera on auto, the pictures came out fine. So I blame myself for the 1st shots. I am just learning. Here is a shot from yesterday. I don't like the brown grass right above the head. The image quality was set to normal, instead of fine.My mistake.
My first picture post here , so I don't know if I am doing it right.
50-150mm 1/640 f/2.8 @ 150mm ISO 200

[CountryBoy]

I will add that I am pleased with this lens and plan on keeping it . I will be trying it with the 1.4 converter before long.
It fits right in with my sigma 100-300mm.
Now all I need is the sigma 150 macro and a wide angle lens, and I should be set for awhile.
But then there's that 50-500 sigma..........................

[JCDoss]

Now all I need is the sigma 150 macro and a wide angle lens, and I should be set for awhile.

Yep, if they only made the 18-50/2.8 with HSM, those four lenses would round a pretty nice kit!

[CountryBoy]

JCDoss - Yes that would be nice.

Tried it out with the 1.4 converter today. Works great !
I think it's a great lens !

[JaGWiRE]

40-150 would copliment a 17-40 I just realised... Hmm, haha.