Previous news story    Next news story

Sigma USA announces pricing of 50-150mm F2.8 OS HSM

By dpreview staff on Mar 30, 2012 at 21:59 GMT

Sigma Corporation of America has announced the pricing and availability for its stabilized 50-150mm F2.8 APO EX DC OS HSM lens. The lens, designed to offer a roughly 70-200mm equivalent zoom range, will have a street price of $1099. The OS version of the lens is 46% longer than the existing, non-OS version.

The Canon version will be available from the first week of April, with Nikon and Sigma mount versions following by the end of April.

Comments

Total comments: 105
smileblog
By smileblog (Apr 8, 2012)

too big too heavy..

all good news is price.

1 upvote
X Faktor Photo
By X Faktor Photo (Jun 15, 2012)

U needs muskles to karry dis.

I suppose all the 70-200's out there are too big & heavy for you as well?

0 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Apr 7, 2012)

What exactly is the weight of this lens???

I have googled the weight specification, checked SigmaPhoto site etc: they all yielded zip.

0 upvotes
smileblog
By smileblog (Apr 8, 2012)

1340g

I checked the japanese site.

1 upvote
WmDean
By WmDean (Apr 6, 2012)

70-200 was obviously successful on FF bodies. So buying this for APS makes perfect sense. I can have the same functionality for $1,000, rather than $1,600 or even $2,600 for the Nikon. This is a bargain price for an extremely useful lens. If I buy another lens for weddings and events I would get this. I currently use a Nikon 17-55 and Sigma 70-200 and find like some other posters here, the 17-55 is too wide, and the 70-200 is too telephoto.

0 upvotes
SnapHappy32
By SnapHappy32 (Apr 10, 2012)

WmDean - why don't you go for the 24-70 instead?

My favourite on a D7000. 36 mm is not too wide - and 105 is fine for close up portraits. And it locks focus F-A-S-T!

It's lighter (!) than the Sigma - and maybe a tad cheaper.
Since you're using the 17-55 currently I guess VR is not a major concern.

This Sigma lens weighs pretty much the same as the 70-200 mm VR2 which is a shame.

Go for it. Just keep the shutter speed above 1/60 and you should be fine.

0 upvotes
racztomi
By racztomi (Apr 3, 2012)

I am mad at Sigma discontinuing the old 50-150.
This is as big as the 70-200, too big.
I was to buy the old one, just decided to spend money on other things first. By the time I got to buying, it disappeared.
I will never ever buy this awkward thing in place of the good and neat old one.

1 upvote
cordon50
By cordon50 (Apr 14, 2012)

I am really glad to have bought the old version. It is great on my SD14. A friend occasionally borrows the combo instead of shooting his d800 (yes this does sound strange)

You should be able to find one used. The price may have gone up, but it is worth it

0 upvotes
X Faktor Photo
By X Faktor Photo (Jun 15, 2012)

Now we need a 50-500 f/4

0 upvotes
Rambler358
By Rambler358 (Apr 3, 2012)

No Sony version? :(

0 upvotes
mrforka
By mrforka (Apr 3, 2012)

I have a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 os and its the sharpest lens I've owned in 30 years of photography. And even tho' I own a Canon 70-200 f/4L I think this lens will make an excellent part of a two lens kit with the 17-50. It was really only a year late and that was a bit frustrating but if it proves to be sharp and has the color rendition of the 17-50 I think that other photographers will latch on to this quickly.
The length of this lens and the weight are a fact of life in photography today if we want quality construction. The weight along with Sigma's excellent OS should help guys like me hold a bit steadier. Hope to see some tests on this one soon.

2 upvotes
revskidoodles
By revskidoodles (Apr 3, 2012)

This focal length is perfect for nature/travel. Wish it had 'Macro' capabilities though, a 1:2 or 2.5 would have been good enough for medium sized insects and other critters.

0 upvotes
aleckurgan
By aleckurgan (Apr 3, 2012)

So much for the APS-C lenses being smaller than their FF counterparts.

3 upvotes
FuzzTheKingOfTrees
By FuzzTheKingOfTrees (Apr 3, 2012)

It's taken Sigma so long to release this lens I was sure they had gone back to the drawing board to sort out the size and weight so that it was closer to the original lens.
Looks like all they've done is added a tripod mount. This lens is going to sell in very small numbers. It's a pretty small niche that wants an f/2.8 lens but will give up FF compatibility for the difference between 50mm and 70mm.
I'm a big fan of the old 50-150 and the only thing missing was OS. This lens takes away most of what was good about the old version. The thing is it looks like a cost saving exercise by Sigma, they seem to have shared the 70-200 molds for the case.

2 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (Apr 2, 2012)

would be sick if there is 50-135 f2.8 for full frame

0 upvotes
DavidZvi
By DavidZvi (Apr 2, 2012)

Why is price such a big knock on this lens?
Canon and Nikon make DX lenses that list for more and sell for more. At least with Sigma in the US this will probably sell for noticeably less. Probably in the 700-800 range if their 17-50 anything to judge by since it sells for more than $300 off list. Canon and Nikon's 17-55 2.8s sell for between $1100 and $1400.

Honestly for me it's size and weight that would be the "Why buy?" The old one had a major benefit like the Canon f4 to their f2.8.

1 upvote
Gyiman
By Gyiman (Apr 2, 2012)

Canon 70-200 f4L IS vs 2.8 non IS?

0 upvotes
nofumble
By nofumble (Apr 1, 2012)

This lens was announced almost 2 years ago and they finally ship. Bummer. I waited, and waited then bought a 70-200/4L for about same money. I am pretty happy with the 4L now.

0 upvotes
egorkaraban
By egorkaraban (Apr 1, 2012)

hey... i want this 50-150 2.8 for full frame - cool for wedding ... oh..

0 upvotes
Rickard Hansson
By Rickard Hansson (Apr 1, 2012)

Buy their 70-200 f2.8 OS HMS, i did. It is "ok", not in line with Nikon or canon equivelent.

0 upvotes
grayowl
By grayowl (Apr 1, 2012)

It is no more necessary to puzzle about the weight difference in comparison with Sigma's 70-200. The 'smaller' lens is just 100 g lighter according to the Sigma's web site.
The old one (without OS) was a nice alternative to the big 70-200 on a FX body. The new one isn't.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (Apr 1, 2012)

Depending on build quality this could be ideal, allowing decent shots from a single body both on special stages and at park ferme. Dust and weather would be its enemies, more so than Sigma's almost comical recent status quo (see DSRL pricing debacle etc.).

Definitely worth a shot in my view. Eager to see it in real life.

0 upvotes
Tord S Eriksson
By Tord S Eriksson (Apr 1, 2012)

Who can afford it?! But nice complement to the 150-500, if you like that style!

0 upvotes
AngusCNH
By AngusCNH (Apr 1, 2012)

$1099.......for a DC Lens....... i will gave a little more to get a EF 70-200 f4L IS USM instead.....

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Apr 1, 2012)

And get a less versatile range (112-320mm equivalent) and 1 stop slower aperture at a higher price?

6 upvotes
raincoat
By raincoat (Apr 1, 2012)

ahha. f4 for a crop body. There's a reason nobody else makes them. Of course all you care about is having a red ring right?

0 upvotes
Elgsdyr
By Elgsdyr (Mar 31, 2012)

Big and expensive. This completely defeats the reasons why I bought the non-OS version... I'm glad I did.

2 upvotes
grahamdyke
By grahamdyke (Mar 31, 2012)

It's a monster, with a monster price to go with it and I'll wager that the IQ will be worse than the pervious 50-150, which I love and have had great results from.

The IQ drops off every time Sigma add OS to an existing lens and then charge twice as much for the privelidge, even if it is not required and does not contain it, as will be the case for Sony and Pentax mount versions.

1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Mar 31, 2012)

Actually, the 17-50 improved, and although I have the older 150mm macro reports are that the new OS version is even better.

4 upvotes
Visualiza
By Visualiza (Mar 31, 2012)

Suffice to say that you don't know what you're talking about. That only happens to be the case in a small minority of lenses, the new 12-24mm being the only one that comes to mind. The new 17-50, 70-200, 105 & 150 macro os editions all outclass their predecessors in build quality and optics.

1 upvote
DavidZvi
By DavidZvi (Mar 31, 2012)

Sorry to say but I will not believe anything about this lens until I have it in my hands. I've own two of the older version. I liked and used them before moving to full frame because of their size, weight, & range. The specs for the new one that WERE listed on Sigma's site were the same length and width of the current 70-200. I say were because they seem to be gone from the US site now. Now Sigma/DPReview is saying the new one will be 46% longer than the old one? So it will actually be longer than the current 70-200 OS HSM lens?

2 upvotes
Jay Kim
By Jay Kim (Mar 31, 2012)

Sigma, please release this lens, your other OS lenses (e.g 50-500mm OS) and some of your other fast primes (e.g. 30 1.4, 50 1.4) and wide lenses (e.g. 8-16, 10-20 3.5) for m4/3!! You would sell so many more than now if you did IMO.

0 upvotes
Bernd M
By Bernd M (Mar 31, 2012)

It seems, that this Sigma lens is as big as the 35-100m F2.0 of Olympus. For mFT it should be no problem to build a 50-150mm F2,8 at least half that size. I'm waitin for someone to do it. Until than I will use the old Tamron SP 35-105 F2.8 which is a quiet reasonble lens and much smaller.

0 upvotes
treepop
By treepop (Mar 31, 2012)

I gave up on this lens and went full frame...heh figures.

0 upvotes
Mike CH
By Mike CH (Mar 31, 2012)

What /existing, non-OS/ version? Hasn't that one been unavailable for a while? At least for Sony....

0 upvotes
f_stops
By f_stops (Mar 31, 2012)

I want a 50-150mm f2.8 full-frame!

2 upvotes
cesaregal
By cesaregal (Mar 31, 2012)

I wanted from Sigma a "fast autofocus" 40-80 mm f2.8 FF.

0 upvotes
Stormik
By Stormik (Mar 31, 2012)

deleted.. found answer ;)

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
VeijoM
By VeijoM (Mar 31, 2012)

I had the earlier II-version for Pentax mount. I remember once a person I passed by asked to look through the lens to see a distant object that it could be better recognized. I had to smile and say, well, this isn't a tele lens. The guy was surprised (seeing how "big" even that was). Now that the new one is so much bigger, I cannot believe a single sane person carrying it around. Ok, maybe for paid jobs, but usually you use FF for those anyway.

2 upvotes
Alan Brown
By Alan Brown (Mar 31, 2012)

interesting... NO pro would use DX slrs, then?

4 upvotes
Chaitanya S
By Chaitanya S (Mar 31, 2012)

I hope this lens as good as the recently launched sigma lenses like 8-16mm, 150mm OS, 105mm OS and other. Also the price of this lens is just right not too expensive.

1 upvote
Amateur Hour
By Amateur Hour (Mar 31, 2012)

Hoo wee - lots of opinions here. That's a sign that a product's market aiming hit it right on the nose.

The way I see it - Sigma's taking advantage of a *huge* hole in Canon's lineup. Canon has no fast telephoto lenses to *complement* a 17-50-ish range - and this is a key range for APS-C cameras. Their only fast lens is the 17-55/2.8.

Sure Canon has a few others that start in the proper wide range of 18mm or wider and as long as 85mm (to mate with a telephoto zoom starting at this range) with IS and USM even, but the fastest one is 3.5/5.6 - not as fast and not parfocal. Move along, these aren't the droids you are looking for...

If you go with a Canon 70-200/2.8, you've got a hole in your lens line up. If you try and complement the 70-200/2.8 with a 24-70/2.8, you're losing a bit of the wide end on an APS-C camera. And no - I (and a lot of others) don't wanna buy a full frame...

Kudo's to Sigma.

I hope the Ed's here see this as marching orders - we'll want to see it reviewed.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
username81
By username81 (Apr 3, 2012)

Thank you for making his point and I agree with you, though I wouldn't call it a *huge* hole. Rather a hole right where it is a pain in the rear to deal with, causing too many unnecessary lens swaps.

0 upvotes
zstan
By zstan (Mar 31, 2012)

Why no Sony mount? :(

1 upvote
krisdalmine
By krisdalmine (Mar 31, 2012)

Here is the optical stabilisation version. Sony and Pentax due to In Body Stabilisation System can use the previous existed versions

1 upvote
Ivan Gordeli
By Ivan Gordeli (Mar 31, 2012)

previous version is listed as discontinued though :(

0 upvotes
unotisto
By unotisto (Mar 31, 2012)

Exactly. But if Sigma started selling the previous version again...

0 upvotes
Bob Meyer
By Bob Meyer (Mar 31, 2012)

I'd love to see this lens in a micro 4/3rd mount. 100-300 f2.8 equivalent? Yeah, that would do the trick!

3 upvotes
Lauterwasser
By Lauterwasser (Mar 31, 2012)

This looks like it could be a winner.
Nice price too.

2 upvotes
osullis
By osullis (Mar 31, 2012)

My copy of the non-OS version of this lens was very, very sharp. I've the Canon 70-200 II now, so have another wickedly sharp zoom, but this one focused accurately and was a remarkable lens for me. If I were in the market, I'd certainly consider this lens. It is on the high side.

0 upvotes
Jun2
By Jun2 (Mar 31, 2012)

46% longer, that's a massive OS system

0 upvotes
Ruy Penalva
By Ruy Penalva (Mar 31, 2012)

Sigma? I'm out.

2 upvotes
Greg VdB
By Greg VdB (Mar 30, 2012)

I happily own the 1st-generation 50-150, and have wondered for years how they managed to extract a '50 mm' image from such a long lens...and now they made it even 46% longer!

(btw, I'm not looking for an explanation by means of optics, I will gladly accept that this lens performs magic)

0 upvotes
ZoranC
By ZoranC (Mar 30, 2012)

So they made it bigger than old one and more expensive than old one.

Works for me as that makes old one even better deal and I am selling mine.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Mar 30, 2012)

No tripod collar? Doesn't look like it. How unfortunate. There is nothing worse than hanging a heavy lens from the camera and stressing the lens mount. Interesting lens, I just hope it does have a lens collar. Even the smallish EF 70-200 f4 benefits from a tripod collar, but since Sigma's last version of this lens didn't have one, I guess this one doesn't either.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
zakk9
By zakk9 (Mar 31, 2012)

You might need to see an optician and get some new, really strong glasses ;)

1 upvote
JATO
By JATO (Mar 31, 2012)

Yes as Zakk said, do get some glasses. Could the collar be any more obvious?

0 upvotes
mayurgogoi
By mayurgogoi (Mar 31, 2012)

Hey 70-200 f4 canon does not provide tripod collar As free accessories when you buy in India.

0 upvotes
GodSpeaks
By GodSpeaks (Mar 31, 2012)

Blind much?

0 upvotes
Chaitanya S
By Chaitanya S (Mar 31, 2012)

@mayurgogoi Canon 70-200 f/4 doesn't ship with tripod collar which ever country you decide to buy it from. Its an optional accessory.

0 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (Mar 31, 2012)

What do you mean? The tripod collar could hardly be more obvious.

0 upvotes
cfh25
By cfh25 (Mar 31, 2012)

See R Butler's (DPR) comment below - there is some confusion whether the collar is included as standard, irrespective of the photo.

0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (Mar 30, 2012)

if youve got an 18-50/2.8 it makes more sense to get the 70-200/2.8.. the 50-70mm difference is nothing and can be made up by walking. the extra 225-300 on the tele end is far for useful.

0 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (Mar 30, 2012)

The difference between 50 and 70 is huge. Try shooting indoors with a 70-200 for a portrait shoot or wedding with a DX body and come back and post your thoughts. The percentage difference between 50 and 70 is fairly close to the difference between 200 and 300 (not quite but close).

13 upvotes
IcyVeins
By IcyVeins (Mar 31, 2012)

Viking you are missing the point, which is that you don't need coverage in between 50mm and 70mm, there are no situations where one is too short and the other too long. If you have two lenses covering 50mm it is somewhat redundant.

2 upvotes
Greg VdB
By Greg VdB (Mar 31, 2012)

IcyVeins, what you say only makes sense if you are carrying two bodies. If you're only carrying one body, as I'm sure Viking was implying, then the 50 vs 70 difference at the short end makes a world of difference

3 upvotes
Lew K
By Lew K (Mar 31, 2012)

Sorry, but I have a situation where this lens may really be useful. I take a lot of theatre pics and with my Canon 70-200 on my 7D, I can't get wide enough to cover the width of the stage even with starting to back out thru the doors into the lobby. I can use my 17-55 at dress rehearsals but during the show, I have to shoot from the back due to the shutter noise and the 70-200 is just a bit to much telephoto. A 50 to 200 would be great, but I don't expect a constant f/2.8 version of such a lens will fit into my budget. :-}

0 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (Mar 31, 2012)

I am not missing the point, I think you are. If I have a 70-200mm f/2.8 mounted there are many circumstances where I would find I would have to change lenses out. Most of my shots are in the 50-70mm range at events. Last reception I shot 50% of my shots were from 50 to 70mm. I could not work with changing lenses in that range, I would either be too long or too short.

Edit: I shoot with a Tamron 17-50 and a Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8. I miss OS so plan on getting this new Sigma, and replace my Tamron with a Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 as the focus is all over with the Tamron.

And agree, carrying two bodies and maybe I could work with it, but probably not. As I said, most events 50% of my shots are in the 50-70 range. I can crop to 200 if I need to.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
3a
By 3a (Mar 31, 2012)

70-200 on a film body eq 50-150 on a dx wrt FL. 70-200 is a classic range but for FF. but DX shooters need something on a similar range and halp the price make it interesting. but i am not going to sell my 70-200 VR2 for a 50-150 OS :)

0 upvotes
GodSpeaks
By GodSpeaks (Mar 31, 2012)

"the 50-70mm difference is nothing and can be made up by walking"
Hmmm, no not really. Try 'walking' in a confined space (such as a studio). Starting at 50mm is much preferable to starting at 70mm.

1 upvote
Ivanaker
By Ivanaker (Mar 31, 2012)

``Hmmm, no not really. Try 'walking' in a confined space (such as a studio)``
Get a 18-200 and you covered it all. if you are in a studio your lighting is good and you dont need faster lens.

0 upvotes
A-Awayda
By A-Awayda (Mar 31, 2012)

i have a d7000 and i have the nikkor 16 85 mm and the sigma 08 16mm in addition to the 35mm I'm missing a long range lens in my collection should i go for the sigma 70 200 or should i wait for this one to be released what i was thinking since there is a 300 USD between the sigma 70 200 and the 50 150mm i can use the difference to get a tele converter which will give me almost the same focal length as the 70 200 but with more option

0 upvotes
StyleZ7
By StyleZ7 (Apr 2, 2012)

A ton of comments, but nobody is mentioning, that 70-200 is a FF lens. If you put it on Crop body, it becomes more like 110-320 if field of view is compared.
So there can't be a conversation about 20 or 30 mm but at least 60, which is a huge thing!!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
kathyk
By kathyk (Mar 30, 2012)

So, for Canon, Nikon and Sigma only?

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Mar 30, 2012)

The linked specs appear to be the original "70-200" class size and weight specs. If I am interpreting this story and picture correctly, Sigma may have gone back and made it smaller and lighter. If so, it will be good to finally see this lens available for purchase. As a Tokina 50-135mm owner, I would welcome something similar with faster AF and stabilization.

Sigma 17-50 and 50-150 OS HSM combo would be a pretty killer crop kit for the money.

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Mar 30, 2012)

Those are the specs from Sigma:

http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/news/110208apo50-15028exdcos_hsm.htm

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Mar 30, 2012)

I guess I am wondering if those are final specs. Those specs are from when the original announcement was made. Then the lens fell off the map for a year.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Mar 30, 2012)

The Japanese announcement appears to have grown a tripod mount (which I'll check with Sigma US on Monday). The specs are the same though:

http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/lens/digital/5015028_os.htm

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Mar 31, 2012)

Thanks for the updated link. I was hoping it had shrunk, but I guess it's still a big boy. Makes the decision a bit tougher.

0 upvotes
CarVac
By CarVac (Mar 30, 2012)

Personally, I would rather have a 35-135/2.8 for crop than a 50-150. I would rather have the 50-150 focal length range on FF.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Mar 30, 2012)

You know, I would too. But unfortunately we can't all have custom zoom ranges.

0 upvotes
fad
By fad (Mar 30, 2012)

Yes, we can't all have custom zoom ranges. But the manufacturers could make money by offering us more choice.

I have Canikon zooms with fantastic specs, but I would kill for a small, slow mid-range zoom when I get my D800e. Even a 35-70/3.5. With cropping it would cover 35-100mm in daylight. It would not need IS. It could be only good optically, not excellent. But it sure would be useful as a walkaround/street lens to shoot at f5.6-f8.

Someday the independent lens manufacturers will realize the possible markups by making lenses that are different from the competition.

0 upvotes
GodSpeaks
By GodSpeaks (Mar 31, 2012)

Agreed. The 50-150mm range is one of the few 'missing' zooms for full frame. For me, a high optical and build quality, fast 50-150mm zoom that covered full frame would be my ideal lens.

0 upvotes
Dan
By Dan (Mar 31, 2012)

Nikon used to make a 50-300mm F4.5, but it was very big. Tamron used to make a 28-105 F2.8. I wish someone would bring that range back.

0 upvotes
Miike Dougherty
By Miike Dougherty (Mar 30, 2012)

I hope the sharpness at close focus is better than my current 50-150. It's a great lens but IQ deteriorates the closer you focus. My 17-70 F4 OS, on the other hand, actually gets sharper the closer you focus.

0 upvotes
DonAndre
By DonAndre (Mar 30, 2012)

I have the predecessor, the 50-150 f/2.8 HSM II and it's one of my best lenses. I like it a lot.

1 upvote
stasvolik
By stasvolik (Mar 30, 2012)

OOPS, posted my comment on the linked announcement :( . Here's a copy:

There's something strange about this lens specs. The weight is not disclosed yet, but the size is identical to 70-200 OS lens (86.4mm x 197.6mm vs 86x197 mm, the first from http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/2/8/sigma50-150 , the latter from http://www.dpreview.com/products/sigma/lenses/sigma_70-200_2p8_os). Why exactly the claim then that the 50-150's "design ... is smaller and lighter than full frame 70-200mm F2.8 designs"?

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Mar 30, 2012)

My mistake - I knew this was bigger than the old versions but I hadn't realised they'd managed to make it as big as the 70-200mm.

I've corrected the story.

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Mar 30, 2012)

No longer a tele lens but a portrait zoom.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Mar 30, 2012)

Ironically has more zoom than a 70-200 on full frame, but I wouldn't hear that comment on a 70-200 lens story.

It's 80-240mm equivalent on Canon. Little shorter on everything else, but still definitely a telephoto.

0 upvotes
vicpug
By vicpug (Mar 30, 2012)

Another APS-C lens - what a waste of time and energy! FF would be of interest.

1 upvote
seta666
By seta666 (Mar 30, 2012)

APS-C users should use APS-C lenses; IMHO it is a waste of room and money to use Full frame lenses on APS-C cameras.
If I had an APS-C camera and I was into fast teles this is the len I would buy

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (Mar 30, 2012)

No it wouldn't, there are plenty of full frame options of this range. Nikon and Canon are a bit slow offering something useful for these focal lengths as I think they would rather people buy their more profitable full frame cameras.

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Mar 30, 2012)

nevermind

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
DWR0082
By DWR0082 (Apr 1, 2012)

Not everyone can afford a $3000 dollar body + $2400 70-200. This is a great deal for users like me.

1 upvote
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Mar 30, 2012)

expensive!

0 upvotes
645D
By 645D (Mar 30, 2012)

Make no sense to buy a DC lens when the FX lens are about the same price.

0 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (Mar 30, 2012)

There is no useful FF lens of this focal length. 70-200mm is not very useful on DX in my opinion. People like 70-200mm for full frame, naturally a 50-135mm class lens is great for DX.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
PhotoHop
By PhotoHop (Mar 30, 2012)

Guess I'll just hang onto to my non OS 50-150mm....not worth upgrading for the price and bulk

0 upvotes
Dave Oddie
By Dave Oddie (Mar 30, 2012)

70-200 not useful on "DX"?

If you have a 16-80 and 70-300 lens combo on "DX" as I do them you are covered and then some in my opinion.

If you want speed then since when has F2.8 ever been fast at the focal lengths offered by this zoom?

Sigma have got too big for their boots in my opinion. 3rd party lenses sell because they are cheaper and sometimes different to what cameras makers offer.

Every time Sigma add OS to a lens the price goes through the roof.

0 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (Mar 30, 2012)

It is useful focal length, but not ideal indoors for portraits and weddings is what I meant. Why do you think most wedding photographers use a 70-200mm with a full frame (they cover an equivalent range, the Sigma is like a 75-225 or something).

0 upvotes
matthew saville
By matthew saville (Mar 31, 2012)

I use the 50-150 2.8 ALL THE TIME on my crop sensor, and could not live without that 50mm wide end vs 70mm on crop. 70mm on crop is really not very useful for close quarters candids, although I'm sure it's a non-issue for birds & wildlife.

Actually, for children's theater and other total-darkness kinds of jobs, I even use my old Sigma 50-150 2.8 on my full-frame body! Without the hood, the vignetting isn't really a problem for theaters since the corners of your frame are almost always black anyways. And having a 50+ zoom on full-frame, WOW that is practical for close-quarters candids!

I'm bummed that the OS version is so much more expensive and heavy, even though I knew it would be. My old mk1 version is so beat up, I might just get a new one of those. Sigma should bring that lens back into production, it's so rare now!

3 upvotes
Richard G T
By Richard G T (Mar 31, 2012)

I've been waiting for this lens for the past year. Actually sold my 70-200 VR (1) because of the size and weight. Was hoping this Sigma would be smaller and lighter but the Sigma site indicates that this lens is nearly identical in size/weight to the Nikon 70-200 VR I sold. I am disappointed the Sigma, being a DX lens, is this big. Maybe Nikon will soon introduce a smaller 50-150VR. I'd happily pay more for a good 50-150 f/2.8 that was smaller and lighter than this Sigma.

0 upvotes
CNY_AP
By CNY_AP (Apr 1, 2012)

Good length for indoor sports - would love to use it at SU basketball games. I had a few good shots using the Canon 55-250, and did go all the way to 250 a few times.

0 upvotes
mikekollar
By mikekollar (Apr 5, 2012)

I just found a NEW Sigma 50-150 in box, with case, etc out of a store in Hong Kong for $675 (Sony Mount). Popped up early in the morning about 3 weeks ago on Ebay. I read through the description at least 3 times to make sure I was not missing something. I could not hit the "buy it now" button fast enough. I was shocked to see this lens. Took delivery about 1 week ago and mounted on my a77 (with internal OS). WOW, I love this lens. Still cannot fugure out how it sat around for so long before being sold. Saw another one for $775 a week later and 3 to 4 availalable in Nikon and canon mounts. Watch Ebay closely!!!

0 upvotes
Total comments: 105