Sigma 150 EX DG f/2.8

Anyone got pix for me or a real world review? I'm looking for both shots of it on a body and shots taken with it.

I've got the 105 EX DG 2.8 right now and love it. Seriously its a fantastic lens at a very reasonable price. Sharp wide open, built well, no CA, and I just love what comes out of it. Problem is ... it's not long enough.

So I'm thinking of selling it and getting the 150. Hit me with it people, hit me.

Bill

????? why not get a tele lens then
Like the 70-200 or 300f4, or 100-400, or Bigma 50-500, sigma 100-300 f4. i dont think that 50mm is going to make worlds of difference. keep the macro you got and get a long lens

05Xrunner wrote in post #2351714
????? why not get a tele lens then
Like the 70-200 or 300f4, or 100-400, or Bigma 50-500, sigma 100-300 f4. i dont think that 50mm is going to make worlds of difference. keep the macro you got and get a long lens

I think you miss read his post
Rob.

he wants to sell it to get the 150 to use more as a tele lens it seems. I mean he isnt going to get any more magnification with 105-150 both are 1:1
Thats why i say get a dedicated telelens for that reach

05Xrunner wrote in post #2351714
????? why not get a tele lens then
Like the 70-200 or 300f4, or 100-400, or Bigma 50-500, sigma 100-300 f4. i dont think that 50mm is going to make worlds of difference. keep the macro you got and get a long lens

Sigma 70-200 ... too much $$$ (already trying to figure out how I would explain spending approx $300 on top of what I got from the sale of the 105). Why is everyone around here so flippant with everyone else's money?

300F4 ... are you going to buy it for me? Doesn't matter, I don't want it, its too slow

100-400 ... okay seriously ... is this a joke? For 90% of the people on this forum, photography is a hobby. I'm no exception. I make a good chunk of change, but I'm not retarded enough to spend that kind of cash on something that will never pay for itself. Of course, the offer still stands for you to buy one for me.

Bigma ... um, too slow. And um, $1K.

Sigma 100-300 ... too slow, and um .... I think you hopefully are getting the picture by now .. yes?

Keep the macro and get a long lens: Sure, since I won't have the approx $300 I hope to gather from the sale of the 105, find me a long lens, 2.8 or faster for under $300.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=231925

Since you have the lens, can I get some photos now?

Bill

Well UMMM you never said any kinda budget you had or lsted any kinda gear you had. So I um had no idea what you can spend.
how is the 100-300 slow...its pretty decent fast for a tele of that length.
I personally think save your money then.
you said you want real world shots..I was figuring as in you wanna see how it does as a tele. Well I really dont have any of them now I use it for macro only anymore. My macro images are going to be the same as you would get with the 105 I just dont get as close to get the 1:1 you are at 12" i am at 15"

Only major difference is the Manual override focus and doesnt extend

Ohh and my photography is a hobby..i have made i think 80bucks on it so far.

05Xrunner wrote in post #2351938
Well UMMM you never said any kinda budget you had or lsted any kinda gear you had. So I um had no idea what you can spend.
how is the 100-300 slow...its pretty decent fast for a tele of that length.
I personally think save your money then.
you said you want real world shots..I was figuring as in you wanna see how it does as a tele. Well I really dont have any of them now I use it for macro only anymore. My macro images are going to be the same as you would get with the 105 I just dont get as close to get the 1:1 you are at 12" i am at 15"

Only major difference is the Manual override focus and doesnt extend

Ohh and my photography is a hobby..i have made i think 80bucks on it so far.

I use it as a candid/portait lens. I thought the 105 would be long enough on my Elan 7 body and would be REALLY nice on my 1.6 crop ... but that isn't he case. It's just not long enough. I think the 150 might fill the bill, the other choice for the same price is the Canon 200 f/2.8L, but that might be too long for my crop body (would be absolutely stellar on my Elan though).

Just looking for photos from the Sigma for now.

Bill

I dont have anything but macro shots wich isnt going to do you anygood

Bill Ng wrote in post #2352018
Just looking for photos from the Sigma for now.

See https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=138539

And also check out Stefano's work, all with the 150EX DG Macro. Here's one shot from his gallery http://www.pbase.com …o/image/5993216​2/original

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

05Xrunner wrote in post #2351938
how is the 100-300 slow...its pretty decent fast for a tele of that length.

It's an F/4 ... I am a predominantly natural light photographer who enjoys the diffused light provided by cloudy days ... F/4 doesn't work for me, especially since my subjects are usually fast moving children.

I'm also a very tight cropper, so the longer the better.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

Try here.

http://www.pbase.com …50_28_apo_ex_dg​_macro_hsm

Not sure your arguement for the (low???) speed of the 100-300 stands up, it's only 1 stop down from 2.8, but if you want a longer Macro that does tele too, just say so!

I've no idea what he wants this lens for ...

I do know JoJo just posted a shot that shows it is always the shooter and never the lens. Perfect Macro shot.

Bill Ng wrote in post #2352045
It's an F/4 ... I am a predominantly natural light photographer who enjoys the diffused light provided by cloudy days ... F/4 doesn't work for me, especially since my subjects are usually fast moving children.

I'm also a very tight cropper, so the longer the better.

That's a great shot Bill!

Did anyone read the artical in Shutterbug magazine about this lens? Reading that was enough for me to consider this over a 180 f3.5 macro lens.

EOSAddict wrote in post #2352080
Try here.

http://www.pbase.com …50_28_apo_ex_dg​_macro_hsm

Not sure your arguement for the (low???) speed of the 100-300 stands up, it's only 1 stop down from 2.8, but if you want a longer Macro that does tele too, just say so!

1 stop = double (or half, depending on which direction you look at it) the shutter speed. When shooting running, screaming, jumping objects .. its essential. It may not be significant to you, but to me, 2.8 is about as slow as I can go. Ideally I'd like a 200 1.8L ... but I haven't hit the lottery in a few years and will have to wait till I hit again before I can consider that one.

Bill