New Sigma 50-150 f2.8 EX DC HSM

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

Just laws of physics.

Well, that's not a very constructive answer.