Sigma 50-150mm/f2.8 DC OS

<p>DPReview has some information on the new Sigma 50-150mm/f2.8. In Nikon terminology, this is a DX type tele zoom with VR: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/2/8/sigma50-150">http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/2/8/sigma50-150</a></p>

<p>I suppose this is a good news/bad news situation. This lens is clearly the "DX equivalent" of the popular 70-200mm/f2.8 zoom, with VR, that plenty of people want for their DX DSLRs. Assuming that the quality is similar to its bigger brother the Sigma 70-200mm/f2.8 OS I reviewed for photo.net, this new lens would be a great addition at $1099.</p>

<p>The thing is that this new DX lens uses 77mm filters, so it is clearly not small. The length specification is 197.6 mm/7.8 in, which is almost as long as Nikon's 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR II. For those who are looking for a 50-150mm/f2.8 because that should be considerably smaller than a 70-200, this does not look like the case at all.</p>

<P>

This lens is available in three different versions: Sigma mount, Canon EOS mount, and Nikon F mount.

There are no Sony and Pentax versions at this point, but they could be added.

</P>

<p>Interesting price point. 77mm filter isn't too bad - at least one doesn't have to buy another filter size for it if one already has some (pro-)glass for which that filter size is standard. According to this link from Sigma Japan website http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/news/120330_apo50-150_28_ex_dc_os_hsm.htm the weight is <strong>1,340g or 47.3oz</strong> - ouch! Certainly no weight or size advantage over an FX lens for this one - but half price of the Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VRII. Here is a gallery with sample images: http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/lens/sample-photo/50-150_28_sample-photo.htm</p>

<p>Lens specs and MTF data: http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/lens/digital/50_150_28_os.htm</p>

<p>I find it peculiar that the lens dimensions are exactly the same as those published for the Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM - maybe someone made a mistake? But the weights aren't the same, the 70-200 is listed as 1430g / 50.4oz. here: http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/lens/tele/70_200_28_os.htm</p>

<p>Wasn't this lens delayed because of a Nikon/Sigma lawsuit? Anyone knows any details?</p>

<p>If it is that close in size and weight to the 70-200 is it odd that it doesn't have a lens collar for tripod mount or am I missing something?</p>

 

<p>The links I published above to Sigma's website show a lens collar and the specs list is as "supplied". But the image certainly looks different from the one dpreview published.</p>

<p>It seems strange that the lens is so large in outer dimensions. The weight was not announced, are they still working on the design? I think it's critical that this lens be significantly lighter weight than the FX equivalent.</p>

<p>Come to think of it, I wonder whether the length specification is an error, but DPReview does mention:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The OS version of the lens is 46% longer than the existing, non-OS version.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And on the Sigma web site Dieter links to, it has the same length specification, unless DPReview copies the same error from Sigma.</p>

<p>The 50-150mm OS has a tripod collar that looks similar to the one on the Sigma 70-200mm/f2.8 OS.</p>

<p>This page on Sigma's site has more information: <a href="http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/lens/digital/50_150_28_os.htm">http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/lens/digital/50_150_28_os.htm</a></p>

<p>Looking at the image Sigma provides, the filter size/lens length ratio looks the same as the many 70-200mm/f2.8 type lenses I have seen. Therefore, most likely the stated lens length in the spec is correct.</p>

<p>Sigma most likely used the same housing as the 70-200 to cut costs. A lot of us aren't happy with the new weight and size. Why bother to buy it at all if there is no size or weight avantage over a FF lens. And the light falloff on the edges will be worse than a FF lens too.</p>

<p>I wouldn't discard an error on the official website. I recall that, before the announcement, the 50-150 OS site had the data, all of it, copied from the 50-150. </p>

<p>I have the original 50-150 and find it to be an excellent lens, especially because of the size, but do miss a VR vibration reduction/OS optical stabilization ability. I will very seriously consider the new one because of the price, but it's too bad it will be that much bigger, about 2 1/4 inches longer, 1/2 an inch wider and about twice as heavy 47.3 oz. Until I use it, I would never assume anything about light falloff.</p>

<p>i think sigma may have made an error 1) in discontinuing the original 50-150 and 2) in making the OS version so big. IMO its pointless to have a DX lens which is as big as an FX lens. as an owner of the (now-rare) non-OS 50-150, i can say its strength is in the combination of a sharp 2.8 optic with creamy bokeh and tele reach in a compact package. the lens is small enough to travel with--about the same size as a 70-300--which is not something that can be said about the nikon 70-200. and optically, it compares favorably to the nikon 70-200 VRII on DX, which is saying a lot. sure the nikon is better but not so much as the price differential would indicate. for what i used it for, i only occasionally missed not having VR. i also appreciated the fact that the 50-150 started at 50, not 70 or 80, which made it a bit more useful indoors. IMO the biggest weakness of this lens wasnt the lack of VR, but terrible close-focusing.</p>

<p>the new lens moves into a slot where it now competes directly against the non-OS sigma 70-200 and the nikon AF-D 80-200 at that price point. both of those lenses can be used on FX or DX, so the 50-150 OS makes sense if you have no plans to move to FX--which is not how nikon views current D300s and d7000 users.</p>

<p>so why did sigma make this lens at all? one possibility is for its SD1 camera in sigma mount,which is APS-C equiv. but since they also make a stabilized 70-200 which is about the same size, you're really only saving costs there.</p>

<p>the real tragedy in this is that sigma no longer makes a lens which filled a niche in and of itself, that of a compact, affordable, 2.8 telezoom with stellar optics. even though i have an FX kit with the 70-200 VRII, i still use my 50-150 in a DX kit when i want to go light.</p>

<p>I've found that Sigma doesn't feel shy about making big lenses when they think it suits the results. Their 50/1.4 is a good example. It's a large, heavy hunk of glass with a 77mm filter. It's obnoxiously, wonderfully huge. And it makes gorgeous images. So, no complaints here. Hard to say if similar thinking has anything to do with this apparently beefy DX-flavor zoom. Will be interesting to see some tests and subjective reactions to its behavior.</p>

<p>And it ships April 1st, 2013, right? Perhaps Nikon will stock a 70-200mm F4 before this elusive Sigma...</p>

<p>i'm just thinking, who is the target market for this lens? someone for whom the abbreviations OS and HSM are magical. that's obviously someone committed to high-end DX, which at this point is the d300s and d7000 in the nikon lineup. anyone else? d3100/5100 users? entry-level/prosumer enthusiast? maybe, although IMO that type of user is going to think twice before buying a third party lens which costs more than one's camera.in the long run, i think most people will consider FX-compatable 2.8 telezoom lenses the better investment.</p>

<p>the HSM makes it an option for entry-level users where the 80-200 AF-D would not, and also with the less-expensive tamron 70-200 (which is perfectly fine for portrait/landscape shooters). IMO a d90 or d5000 user is probably more interested in a new body or a longer/more compact or less expensive lens -- unless they need both stabilization and a fast-focusing internal AF motor.</p>

<p>so basically i've boiled it down to one category: <em>soccer dads and other DX sports shooters who a)want a stabilized 2.8 lens but b) have no immediate plans to move to FX and c) have decided a 55-200 or 70-300 isnt fast enough but d) are too cheap to spend more to get either the sigma or nikon 70-200. </em> for $200 more, though, i'd probably opt for for the 70-200 OS or for $500 more a used 70-200 VRI.</p>

<p>of course, if the 50-150 smokes sigma and/or tamron's 70-200s in terms of IQ, this lens could get popular. but it essentially cedes the compact fast tele market to m4/3, which has a 75mm/1.8 (150mm equiv.). on an OM-D E-5 that could be a serious travel kit, combined with a 12-50 or a couple of the digital zuiko fast primes (like the drool-worthy 12/2). which leads to an interesting thought, but i can't see sigma making a 50-150 OS at this length in m4/3 mount, that would be like a chihuahua romantically attached to a great dane.</p>

<p>Though I agree with much of what you said but imo it doesn't take that much analysis to see how this lens doesn't appeal, Eric. It doesn't strike in either size, price, or range department much...</p>

 

<p>B&H is taking pre-orders: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/853531-REG/Sigma_692_306_50_150mm_f_2_8_EX_DC.html for an expected May 4 delivery date.</p>

<p>I will wait until more is known about the lens performance - the size and weight are certainly a disappointment and the lens competes against Sigma's own 70-200/2.8 which costs only $200 more.</p>

 

<p>3lbs? will be as hot as their SD1:)</p>

It's only $300 and 0.2 pounds less than Sigma's 70-200 OS HSM lens for FX, and the same size. I would have hoped

for more differentiation.

<p>I bought the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 EX II about three years ago because it was much smaller and lighter than the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. They were close in price, but the size and weight were most important to me. The OS version has no such advantage. It's only advantage seems to be that it's $300 less than the Sigma 70-200 OS. I'd like to have the OS, but I'll stick with my much smaller and lighter lens.</p>

<p>$300 is not an insignificant amount of money. There may be enough people willing to give up 50mm to save $300 to make the lens profitable. I doubt it, but we'll see.</p>

<p>I obtain the Nikon 70-200mm vr, the Tokina 50-135mm 2.8 and de Sigma 50-150mm 2.8. Sometimes I prefer the Sigma sometimes the Tokina, they are bothe very good lenses.<br>

First of all I use the 50-70mm range all the time and the 135-200mm rarely. For DX the 70-200mm range is i.m.o just too much for general photography.</p>

<p>In general the low weight DX lenses are much more comfortable to work with. In 95% I do not see any difference in IQ with the expensive Nikkor 70-200mm (I did a lot of tests). I use the Nikkor only in critical situations.</p>

<p>The weight of the new Sigma is nearly 1400 grams and the size is about the same as a 70-200mm. That is ridiculous for a DX lens! Th biggest advantage of the DX lenses has gone! For street photography you don't want to walk around with such an enormous lens. For sure I will stay with the old Sigma wich always surprises me with excellent IQ and nice Bokeh. I changed Sigma version I to version II and the focus (also close) now seems fine to me.<br>

The new camera's like the the Nikon D400 will give very good high iso results (comparable with the D800) so the advantage of OS becomes less obvious, just use higher ISO's.<br>

My advice: try to get an "old"Sigma 50-150mm II (or Tokina) and later you will laugh at the people carrying around with the new big monster! For me the 50-150mm is a real "people"lens and OS is mostly useless because people move themselves. Attracting as little attention as possible is crucial so for me so size and weight matters more than OS!</p>

<p>Sometimes people ask me why I would buy a 50-135 mm f/2.8 lens for a crop sensor. My reply is always, why would I buy a 70-200 mm for FX? I am not going to buy a 70-200 for DX and handicap myself when 50% of my shots are in the 50-70mm range at a typical wedding. Shooting two bodies might be a different story, but still, most of my shots are between 50 and 70mm, so I don't really want the gap right there.<br>

I ordered the 50-150mm OS for Nikon because I wanted a lens in that range with OS and that is my only option. Size and weight are a bit annoying, but if it performs well most people will forgive those. I think Sigma might have made it so large on purpose as well, some clients like to see those big lenses for paid gigs. I like my Tokina 50-135mm size wise, but the lack of OS is a pain.<br>

Eric</p>

<p>Eric, any news on how your new 50-150 OS is working out for you, esp. sharpness wise?</p>

<p>OK, 10 months later. </p>

<p>How's it working out?</p>