Interesting new lens from Sigma for APS-C DSLRs.....

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by terry_rory, Aug 11, 2006.

  1. Sigma APO 50-150mm F2.8 EX DC HSM


    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06081101sigma50-150dc.asp
     
  2. Someone should check it if it is any better than the 50-135 f/3.5 AIS lens.
     
  3. If it stacks up image-wise it may be a perfect available light concert lens.
     
  4. I like the size and weight specs and that it only needs a 67mm filter (have those already) I also like the f/2.8 speed through the whole range and that it is HSM and has manual focus adjust permanently engaged.

    I have had very good use out of my 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC and only wish that had been HSM as well.

    Existing 70-210mm f/2.8 designs are huge (Sigma and Nikon) and finally there is a fast/compact APS-C 'equivalent' that will easily fit in my bag.

    I too hope this lens is a good'un. I also wish Nikon would launch an equivalent. They seem to be currently fixated on tele zoom lenses with f/5.6 at the 'long' end with VR to compensate. Not the same thing.
     
  5. Lets wait for the official production review before we drool, it would be a waist of saliva if it turned to be average after all.

    And it does'nt have an IS, which is undeniably wanted at that lenght.
     
  6. Very nice! If its optics are good, this lens will be a big success. I hope NIkon is watching
    because many of us would buy such a lense for the new, smaller, DSLR's (e.g. D80)
     
  7. Just what I've been waiting for the last 5 years. For my type of shooting it fits perfectly.
     
  8. "And it does'nt have an IS, which is undeniably wanted at that lenght."

    Not sure about that. When talking about hand held shutter speeds then the relevant measurement is the real focal length (50-150mm) not the 'equivalent' FOV (75-225mm on a Nikon DSLR).

    The actual lens is only 135mm long and relatively light in weight at 770 grams.

    The nearest Nikon equivalent 70-200mm (non DC size) is 215mm long (in actual physical length) and weighs 1470 grams.

    I would argue that without the moment force of a 1.47 kilo lens of 215mm long swinging around, then lack of IS is not going to be too much of a problem especially as the minimum safe handheld speeds will be 1/50th - 1/150th rather than 1/70th - 1/200th (using the classic 'reciprocal of the focal length' rule)
     
  9. Heavy or not , there is no exception to that rule, even if you put it on a tripod, our shutter finger would cause an image blur to some extent, if you go below those numbers. thats Why we have self timer and /or remote.

    What I simply meant in my previous statement is that, IS should be incorporated in that lens, they've done it before,and why not now? and IS is also becoming popular now a days.

    It would be more attractive to have that lens with IS than not. NOt that I need IS always, but I want it to have one.
     
  10. Interesting looking lens.. I imagine it will be a big seller. I do think VR would have made it a real killer.

    Trevor - regarding your points about VR: the relevant measure IS the equivalent focal length, not the actual focal length. It's not really about focal length at all -- it's about angle of view. Just because a digicam uses a 6mm normal lens doesn't make it more hand-holdable than an SLR with a 50mm normal lens.

    http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00H0lN

    Regarding weight, weight would make a lens have a greater moment at the tip, making the tip harder to wiggle, but shaking the body of the camera would still be a problem. Actually, if you hang a backpack off the end of your lens, you can see it wiggle less, assuming your muscles aren't straining.
     
  11. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    The lack of VR is certainly a problem for low-light applications, unless you can always use it on a tripod. This is the type of lenses that can really take advantage of VR. At least in my case, I upgraded from the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S to 70-200 VR for that one feature alone, and so far that is the only VR lens I have.
     
  12. Is it just me or the lens hasn't got a tripod collar??? I'm looking hard, but I can't see anything resembling a tripod collar. Am I right?

    YUK!

    No VR and no tripod collar. Brilliant, Sigma.

    Roberto
     
  13. Roberto, the camera has a tripod adapter ;^)
     

Share This Page