Sigma 50-150mm OS f/2.8???

Ugh. I already want to buy a 17-50. Now sigma has to spring this on me too!

I still like it but it really really needed to be either slightly cheaper or slightly smaller to have much appeal over the 70-200 varieties. Although it would depend a little on what you want it for, how valuable the 50-70mm range is.

Yeah it's practically the same size as the 70-200 and barely .25lb lighter...

elogical wrote in post #14210700
Although it would depend a little on what you want it for, how valuable the 50-70mm range is.

I have a 50-135mm f2.8 from Tokina right now, and I find 50-70mm to be a pretty key range for portraiture. Although it could be argued that if you already had a f2.8 standard 17-55/50, then you could use that up to 50mm, and maybe even crop a little to get to 60 and then swap over to the 70-200 after that. I do think having the 50-70mm range would result in less lens swaps, though.

Those on FF have their 70-200 lenses and this 50-150 would be like a 80-240mm, or pretty close. You'd even get a little extra reach. A 70-200 on 1.6x is like 110-320mm I don't think many shooting FF would take a 110-320 over a 70-200 would they? Even at similar weight?

^Exactly. I've owned the 50-150 HSMII, now the 70-200, and have found that I definitely prefer the wider end of the former. It really comes down to which focal length you fancy to work with. As far as I'm concerned, I'm getting:

-New finish
-Better IQ, notably long end performance
-Closer minimum focus distance
-Better flare/ghosting control
-77mm filter thread
-OS

All things put together, I'm set for this rocking lens and to get back the focal length. Just justify the extra size and weight as if you were getting a 70-200 2.8IS II if you were to be on full frame. If not, the previous models are more than capable performers and can be had for half the price of the OS.