Sigma 150mm f/2.8 HSM macro

[panos_voudouris]

Hello,

 

Does anyone have any experience with the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro EX

DG HSM? My dillema is this: I have a Canon 28/1.8 and a Tamron

90/2.8 macro. These two focal lengths cover most of my photo needs,

including macro. The only thing missing is a longer lens at 150-

200mm.

 

So my normal thought was to just add a 200/2.8. But I am thinking

that I could instead replace the Tamron 90/2.8 with a Canon 85/1.8

and get the Sigma 150. So I would have the 28-85-150 kit.

 

The advantage of this over the 28-90-200 kit is that I get the

85/1.8 which is faster and has USM while I still retain macro

capabilities with the Sigma. The cost appears to be the same to

buying a 200/2.8 or buying the 85, 150 and selling the Tamron. Size

and weight is similar too and the 50mm missing from the Sigma to the

Canon is not that bad.

 

So I would be interested to hear user's opinions on performance of

the Sigma and focusing speed, particularly the HSM full-time-manual

focus, as I really like my 28/1.8 with its USM. And if anyone has

compared it to the 200/2.8L even better!

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Panos.

[eric_kozak]

I do not have 150mm Sigma, but since you are happy with the 2 lenses that you have, KEEP them and add the Canon 70-200mm / f 4 L, I have this lens and consider it one of the best lenses made by Canon and the price is very good also!

Happy shooting,

Eric

[carnagex_carnagex]

The speed on the Sigma is great for a macro. (you already know the differance in speed of a

macro vs. a standard lens). The full time manual focus works like a charm. And the quality is

better than any ive ever used (its a shoe in with the 180 L.) As far as the 200 2.8L, im going

to be buying that soon also, for fast action. (like I said macros are not as fast as normal

primes). Both choices are good ones. It depends on what your needs are.

[yakim_peled1]

Sorry, no user experience here but.....

 

1. A friend of mine (a pro and an expert with Nikon gear) claims it is excellent as a macro lens but when used as a regular tele, HSM is not as fast as to be expected. For some reason it hunts a lot.

 

2. He claims the Tamron 180/3.5 is even better (but not by much, both are top quality) and almost as fast when used as a regular tele. It also hunts less. It also offers you greater working distance.

 

3. I have the 85/1.8 and 200/2.8 and they are truly excellent lenses. Light, fast, relatively cheap, super fast AF (IF and USM), flare resistant, barely noticeable distortion, very sharp wide open. A delight in use and when viewing the pictures. For the rare occasions I shoot macro, I mount the Kenko extension tubes on them.

 

4. Sigma's recent past is a major concern to some, myself included.

 

5. If I were in your shoes my set would be 28/1.8, 85/1.8 and Tamron 180/3.5.

 

HTH.

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[panos_voudouris]

Thanks for the opinions guys. My reasoning is:

 

As far as the 70-200/4L is concerned, the disadvantages are that it is a white, long, slow zoom. Yakim's suggestion for a Tamron 180mm is interesting, but the size and price of that lens is something I am not very comfortable with.

 

What makes the 28-85-150 solution so tempting is that I get f/1.8 lenses for my two most useful focal lengths and I have macro and a fast telephoto. The problem is, I like the Tamron 90 so much I really don't want to see it go!

 

I think I'll get the Sigma and re-evaluate the situation once I see if I like it or not. Who knows, I might end up with two macro lenses...Or I might get a 135/2 instead...(slowly fades into deep sleep and more dreams).

 

Thanks!

[ky2]

Panos, if I were you, I would be getting the 200/2.8L. It's bound to be MUCH BETTER in non-macro distances. You need a long tele-- get a long tele. It's as simple as that.

[mark_chappell]

<I>It's bound to be MUCH BETTER in non-macro distances.</i><P>

 

Do you know this for sure (i.e, after testing)? I'm willing to believe it -- sounds reasonable in

theory -- but data are better than unverified assertions.

[panos_voudouris]

"Panos, if I were you, I would be getting the 200/2.8L. It's bound to be MUCH BETTER in non-macro distances. You need a long tele-- get a long tele. It's as simple as that."

 

Who knows, I might end up with the 200 in the end, I'm still thinking about all that, each lens has many pros and very few cons so I have to do some serious thinking. Besides, I want to handle each lens in a shop first, so to get them all in to the local shops will take a month or so...

[ky2]

Mark, All I know is that the 200 is EXTREMELY GOOD. I also know from my past experience that Macro lenses are adequate at the most in infinity. I could be wrong, ofcourse. But I do know for a fact that the 200 is extremely hard to beat at non-macro distances...

[thomas_munch]

The Canon 200/2.8L is outstanding; you won't find too many discouraging words about the optical performance of this lens. I wouldn't trade mine for a long tele-macro because I need the AF speed, and I like the size and handling of the 200L. I do enjoy macro, however, and very much like the 50/2.5 and 100/2.8 USM macros.

 

 

In short, I think the 28-85-200 would be a great 3-lens combo.

 

 

--tom

[mark_chappell]

<I>Mark, All I know is that the 200 is EXTREMELY GOOD.</i><P>

 

I believe you. But it might help readers looking for some guidance if we would stick to what

we know in our pronouncements, instead of making extrapolations based on guesswork.

FWIW, my experience with macro lenses at non-macro distances has been more favorable

than yours -- although I know nothing of the Sigma 150.