Sigma 50-150 f2.8 DC HSM or Sigma 70-200 f2.8 DG HSM

I'm about to purchase one of these two lenses for my 30D, and was wondering if anyone had any experience with either one. The search function is down again so I'm sorry if this has been covered.

Part of me wants to pick up the 70-200 in case I decide to go FF with my next camera, but the price and range of the 50-150 keep pushing me back.

With the money I save I could almost buy an 85 1.8 as well. I primarily want this lens for weddings, so I think 150 would be enough of a zoom -- or maybe not??? Any advise would be helpful.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bernarrking

There is little experience with Sigma 50-150mm. Hopefully in the next few days we'll get more photo samples from the people who bought it, maybe some tests/comparisons with some other lenses too, and in the next weeks a pro review. Until then, hard to tell about it. On paper it looks like a great lens, very useful zoom range, could be a lighter (so wouldn't be left so often behind if you need to go light on a hike or something like this) & not-so-expensive alternative to the 70-200 zooms if it will meet the IQ expectations.

You can find some samples in this thread (for the Nikon version): http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=20293604 and a few samples on pbase too (like 8 or so, also for Nikon I think).

I'm also looking forward to find out more about this lens.

But if you plan to go full-frame at some time in the future, you should get a full frame lens.
--
A man is only as big as the dreams he dares to live.

I would not recommend this lens. I bought mine yesterday and brought it back this morning because of severe front focussing. At least two other Dutch buyers have the same experience.

See: http://www.dutchphotozone.com/viewtopic.php?t=36005 (Dutch language).

Bernie_King said:

Part of me wants to pick up the 70-200 in case I decide to go FF
with my next camera, but the price and range of the 50-150 keep
pushing me back.

Click to expand...

I'm also wanting to pick up a 50-150. I would say size and weight should be a factor too. The 50-150 looks like being half the volume and half the weight of the 70-200. Price looks simlar to me, here in UK, about £500 for both lenses. If you are sure about moving to FF in future then that is a factor. I am probably staying with the APS sensor for forseeable future so it doesn't bother me, but there is always eBay to recoup 75% of cost should I change my mind.

Bernie_King said:

With the money I save I could almost buy an 85 1.8 as well. I
primarily want this lens for weddings, so I think 150 would be
enough of a zoom -- or maybe not??? Any advise would be helpful.

Click to expand...

For weddings I would say 200mm is too long for 99% of shots, going by what I see of others and of friends who have shot weddings. One pal uses Nikon and the longest he shoots at weddings is 85mm, using shorter lengths to create more involvement in the images. On the crop 85mm is 135mm, plenty of reach for indoor and outdoor candids. I think the 50-150 could supplement you well, 150mm being plenty should you want it.

But it's your call. Good luck with whichever you go for.

Bernie_King said:

http://www.pbase.com/bernarrking

Click to expand...

--

My Favourite Restaurant > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/5371500.stm
-

RemKo said:

I would not recommend this lens. I bought mine yesterday and
brought it back this morning because of severe front focussing. At
least two other Dutch buyers have the same experience.

See: http://www.dutchphotozone.com/viewtopic.php?t=36005 (Dutch
language).

Click to expand...

can I ask was the front focussing using test cards and indoors with artifical lighting? I've had my own experience of Sigma and read of many many others who report this when doing test shots of static objects indoors.

Try some outdoor shots, and of more distant objects too, + varied lighting conditions - good and bad light.

I've looked at the link you posted and see only a ruler shot and a close-by shots of some toy figures on a wooden board. All of these look to have focussing front, but the explanation may be other than faulty AF of the lens body. The focus points areas in the rebel line of camera and 20D 30D are larger than the box in the viewfinder shows. The sensors creep beyond the edges of the boxes quite significantly.

Also, Camera AF likes straight lines of contrast - vetical and horizontal are what it likes best.

If you shoot something with the centre focus point which has large lines of horizontal or vertical contrast (attractive for AF) just outside the indicated AF box in your viewfinder, the AF will often be attracted to that. E.g. those toy figures are less attractive looking to AF than the black horizontal edges of the board they are sitting on, just below them in that picture.

A second consideration is that the AF points are sometimes not perfectly centred in the camera, my centrepoint AF on my 20D is actually a little high. So when i take test shots on objects or rulers etc it can look as though my camera is backfocussing. Others can have the AF slightly lower than centre, and this could explain test-shots as front-focussing.

Thridly, some Sigma's are reported as AF'ing badly in artifical light, but perfectly in daylight, etc.

And finally, there can be body lens compatibility issues. A 3rd party lens can apparently give drastically different results according to which body it is used on. Lots and lots of complaints of Tamrons, Sigmas etc not AF'ing well on 300Ds, 350Ds, but then working fine on 20Ds, 30Ds. The AF system is better on the higher models usually. Try a 'bad AF lens' on a 1-series body and it might just become a peach all of a sudden. But also factor in user error and or camera AF behaviour when dealing with different scenes environments.

But no doubt there are some bad AF lenses out there too, which still front-focus and back-focus whatever you try, and whatever you shoot, and on whatever body. Though it's a question of eliminating those first variables before coming to complete judgement, and I believe you have to shoot lots of varied shots before you can do that.

--

My Favourite Restaurant > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/5371500.stm
-

That's interesting - I have the same problem with the 50-150 I've bought. It has severe front focus in anything other than very bright light. Ii returned it, but the replacement is the same. I've heard of 2 other users on other forums who have seen the same issue.

It seems that Sigma have a real problem with the lens

RemKo said:

I would not recommend this lens. I bought mine yesterday and
brought it back this morning because of severe front focussing. At
least two other Dutch buyers have the same experience.

See: http://www.dutchphotozone.com/viewtopic.php?t=36005 (Dutch
language).

Click to expand...

Bernie, here's a fellow who shot a wedding w/ 70-200 and his thoughts - likes the sound of 50-150 range and weight.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=20293604

Graeme Cogger said:

That's interesting - I have the same problem with the 50-150 I've
bought. It has severe front focus in anything other than very
bright light. Ii returned it, but the replacement is the same.
I've heard of 2 other users on other forums who have seen the same
issue.

Click to expand...

Graeme, were your low light shots also of rulers and objects on a table? If so, read my post on focus points, as I'd want to rule those out as being other possible explanations before coming to definitie conclusion on the lens. And what about low-light shots further than 5 meters from the subject? Could it be the lens only has a problem focussing on near objects?

If the lens really does have an intrinsic AF problem then that'd be a shame. I was going to pick one up, and was hoping it would be good.

--

My Favourite Restaurant > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/5371500.stm
-

Dom said:

Graeme Cogger said:

That's interesting - I have the same problem with the 50-150 I've
bought. It has severe front focus in anything other than very
bright light. Ii returned it, but the replacement is the same.
I've heard of 2 other users on other forums who have seen the same
issue.

Click to expand...

Graeme, were your low light shots also of rulers and objects on a
table? If so, read my post on focus points, as I'd want to rule
those out as being other possible explanations before coming to
definitie conclusion on the lens. And what about low-light shots
further than 5 meters from the subject? Could it be the lens only
has a problem focussing on near objects?

If the lens really does have an intrinsic AF problem then that'd be
a shame. I was going to pick one up, and was hoping it would be
good.

Click to expand...

I first noticed the problem on some real-world test shots (e.g. distant trees very late in the day). On the more rigorous indoor tests, I've been using centre point focus and making sure that anything else is way outside the reach of that focus sensor. Yes, I know the sensor is bigger than that indicated on the focus screen Here is an example crop - it's actually been reduced to 50% size, so this is a good proportion of the total frame, taken from the centre.



I've also tried pics of high contrast objects at staggered distances from the camera. In that case, the object in focus is right at the edge of the frame. Most of the tests have been done at shorter distances (1-2m) but, as I say, I've seen the same problem at longer distances.

here's a previous post
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=20180965

and here's my text

I have the lens and must say it's as sharp as my Sigma 18-50 2.8 or sharper, cause it benefits from accurate focusing HSM. The 50-150 is much lighter than the 70-200 lenses and easier to hold steady. It doesn't have IS, but I found I shot alot of pictures at 1/50 @100mm according to EXIF and they came out sharp. I don't know if I could hold the 70-200 2.8 that steady after 20 mins of shooting due to the weight and arm fatigue.

once stopped down to 3.2 or 3.5, this lens is cracking sharp.

The only thing about soft tele shots I seen so far were at 150mm and focusing 1 meter away but sharpens by f5.6. When I focus shots 3 meters away @ 150mm, they come out nice and sharp. I work around this by zooming in to about 130-140mm rather than all the way and I haven't seen any problems yet wide open. Its nice to know I have the extra 15mm over tokina's 50-135, but I choose not to use it unless necessary, I'd rather crop to get that extra quality.

Also, the thing I love the most about this lens over the 70-200 is that the compact size and weight lets me fit my sigma 18-50, 50-150, and rebel xt into a small bag and it's ultra portable. I'd have to get a bigger bag to hold the 70-200 lens. I'd say get the lens

here's a link to a test I did http://download-v5.streamload.com/ ... ... sigma100mm%20test.jpg?action=save

--
long live the rebellion...XT

all that is a bummer Graeme. Sorry to hear. Have you returned the second copy too?

Over in the Nikon forum they report better luck on outdoor shots, but some look soft at 150/2.8 while others look sharp. And some nasty pincushion distortion on one shot of a park sign... looks a bit excessive to me. I don't know. I await more reviews experiences... it's a bit worrying though. £500 is a lot of moollah to lay down on some glass... it ought to be good at that price.

Hmm... I'm not so sure if yours is focussing accurately. Here's a similar test I just tried at 100mm. I have shots at f/2.8 using auto focus, f/2.8 using manual focus and f/8 using auto focus (manual was about the same in this case). Each is a 100% crop straight out of the camera (no processing) with sharpness/contrast/saturation at 0.



As you can see, there is no significant difference between f/2.8 (manual focus) and f/8 - in fact the f/2.8 looks a little sharper, but I think that's due to the flash exposure being a touch lower on that one.

No reports of such mis-behavior from the people that bought the Nikon version on this lens. At least for now. (the pbase shots and the person who posted in the Nikon forum, don't know of others)
--
A man is only as big as the dreams he dares to live.

Thank you for the insight for this lens.

If you have time, could you please post again the link or upload some sample photos somewhere where we could see them? Some samples wide open @2.8 and at f/4-5.6 would be great, or even some comparison shots with some other lens you have.
--
A man is only as big as the dreams he dares to live.

If you click on the link to the 'previous post' in the message you replied to, you can get to the sample pics.

how about this



This was a quick test, I'd like to redo it with manual focus
--
long live the rebellion...XT

If you are thinking about FF in the future... and only keeping one body...70-200 for sure... or you could consider canon 70-200 4 IS....
--
Terence Ng

Just an update. Today, I bought a new 400D - I was hoping the improved AF system (taken from the 30D) might help. It doesn't - I get the same results with this camera. I'll be calling Sigma again tomorrow, and if I don't get a good explanation I'll be sending the lens back for a refund. Damn it - this is the perfect lens for me, if only it focussed

Does this problem of bad focus at 150mm f2.8 appears only for subjects that are very close (like 1-2 meters away), or it still is there regardless of the distance to the subject (like it still appears at 3-5-8 meters, infinity)?
--
A man is only as big as the dreams he dares to live.

Graeme Cogger said:

Just an update. Today, I bought a new 400D - I was hoping the
improved AF system (taken from the 30D) might help. It doesn't - I
get the same results with this camera. I'll be calling Sigma again
tomorrow, and if I don't get a good explanation I'll be sending the
lens back for a refund. Damn it - this is the perfect lens for me,
if only it focussed

Click to expand...

Graeme, sounds like a real possibility that the batch your shop got in was a cr@p lot. Probably adjacent serial numbers on the lenses... maybe someone at the factory line that day messed a few up. What about returning this one for full refund instead of an exchange, and going somewhere else completely for a hopeful fresh batch.

I've ordered mine from T4 Cameras over the phone for £455, and they said if I find anything wrong with the lens to send it back for a full refund, postage included.

--

My Favourite Restaurant > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/5371500.stm
-

I've not done too much testing at greater than 2-3m, but I first noticed the problem on some shots of trees in the distance. I'm afraid I've deleted those images because, at the time, I assumed it was user error.

Daos said:

Does this problem of bad focus at 150mm f2.8 appears only for
subjects that are very close (like 1-2 meters away), or it still is
there regardless of the distance to the subject (like it still
appears at 3-5-8 meters, infinity)?

Click to expand...