Sigma 50-150/2.8 APO HSM version II

[paul.droluk]

I just acquired the version-II, after having tried (and immediately returned) the version-I a few months

back. The version-I suffered from soft performance when focused close, which is now considerably

improved with the version-II. There were numerous reports of near focusing with the version-I, though

mine didn't and this new version-II doesn't either... at least on my D300.

 

I did a series of handheld shots of a bookcase, illuminated by the on board D300 flash, covering all FL's

and from f2.8 thru f8. The lens is sharpest at the wider end, and is very sharp overall, sharp at f2.8... from

the 50mm to 100mm settings. It softens just a bit at the 150mm setting, though still very, very good.

 

I've attached the shot taken at 150mm (f4), as this probably represents a worst case scenario for this

lens... yes, f2.8 is a little softer, and f5.6 is a little sharper. Shot in RAW, it was converted in CS3, and only

sharpened for web viewing (0.8, 30).

 

I'm very impressed with the new version-II, and foresee my 70-200VR performing additional shelf duty.<div></div>

[paul.droluk]

Here's another quick example... 150mm/f2.8, handheld, at the closest focus distance. Hot in

RAW, converted in CS3, Smart Sharper for web (0.8, 30).<div></div>

[hiro]

Nice. I'm glad you're happy with the version II. I have the version I and honestly, I can't say enough good things about it. I bought it used just to try it out since the size appealed to me. I didn't expect it to be such a good performer. I don't notice any problems with close focus. The 70-200VR that I owned spent a lot of time in the bag in my closet and since the 50-150, it is with another owner, hopefully being used to its potential.

[eric_arnold]

i have version I as well, sounds like the close-focusing was the only real tweak on verion II, since the other characteristics sound familiar.

[harry_spooner]

Paul, etc... Great info. I was searching on this lens yesterday looking for the same info you provided.

Harry

[eric_arnold]

hey harry,

when you check the specs this lens seems intriguing. when you actually use it you realize it's kinda slept-on. being able to handhold tele shots at 2.8 with HSM, true IF, etc., is awesome. of course it's great for sports, but where it surprised me was how good it was for portraits. the hint of softness at 2.8 (which diminishes at f/4 and is a non issue by f/5.6) is actually kinda cool, since the color renditions are crisp and detailing is pleasant. you don't get the harsh lines that can detract from a good portrait (of a woman particularly) but everything else is sharp enpugh to make it look like a winner. i can handhold on this far below 1/60, even 1/15 or 1/10 is possible. so who needs vR?

[eric_arnold]

here's a pic...<div></div>

[mvtol]

It is a great lens. And not noticeable soft at 2.8, only a little vignetting as you can see here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=810305

[lex_jenkins]

How do you expect us to evaluate how good a lens is by taking photos *with* the lens? You're supposed to take photos *of* the lens.

 

Semi-seriously, those are excellent example photos, Paul. Thanks.

[lynn_malpass]

I just purchased the version I and I love it wiht the limited use I've put it through, but I am having a problem in low-light situations where it seems the lens is just plain... slow. And I'm missing my shots or they're coming out blurry because the lens is not focusing fast enough. Has anyone else had this experience? This is my first telephoto lens - I have been wondering if the battery drain on my D70s is the problem, and if so, do you think a grip with two battery cells would help the problem? The lens honestly does me no good unless I can use it in low-light conditions, and I am not having these issues with my other 2.8 lenses (although the biggest lens I have there is a 28-75 zoom) Here's a pic I took with mine, from a balcony. This was at 150mm. Slight vignetting, but I don't think it detracts at all from the pic. I DO love the sharpness and the image depth, however. This was in near-dark, however, from the balcony I had no problem with the lens. Up close, in the stage pit, it just wouldn't focus fast enough for all the movement.

 

<a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v345/shira_uma/misc/9227c06b.png">http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v345/shira_uma/misc/9227c06b.png</a>

[Rich B NYC]

Lynn,

 

Two possibilities that I can think of.

 

1- Since you're shooting in low light, are you sure the issue isn't camera shake and not poor focusing? You might want to try a few shots on a tripod under controlled conditions just to rule that out.

 

2- Are you using release priority or focus priority for AF? If you aren't using focus priority, I would suggest that you do so as it will prevent the shutter from releasing until focus is locked.

 

By the way, nice shot. The vignetting isn't much of an issue in a shot like this. I actually think that it adds to the shot by focusing the viewers attention on the performer.

[lynn_malpass]

Richard,

 

No, the problem isn't camera shake. There were four bands the night I tried the lens. I used it for two, my Tammy 2.8 zoom (which is an amazing little lens, let me tell you) for everything else. Same conditions, all four bands. I got clear pics from the Tamron, like I usually do, and nothing good from the Sigma. :( So this was why I was wondering if it was a battery issue or not.

 

Release priority vs focus priority? I will have to check the camera. I want to say I do, definitly, have it set to focus priority, but it's been so long since I set the base settings, and I tend to change very little in my settings other than aperture and shutter speed, and occasionally white balance. I am pretty sure it is, though; my camera does not shoot unless it's got a good 'track' on something and the lens has stopped. Thinking in this vien, it seems perhaps the shutter is snapping especially slow, but I can't really push my shutter speeds in this low of lighting, because the pics come out black at that point. What I question along that train of thought is... isn't f2.8,... f2.8, regardless of what lens it is? Or could there be a problem with something on the lens that it's not getting the light it should be, and not actually acheiving that f2.8?

 

Oh, one other detail, not sure if it means anything or not. These preliminary runs with the Sigma, I ended up really strapped for space and a lot closer than I needed to be with a telephoto. So most of the shooting was done all the way back at 50mm. I would think that would be a GOOD thing, but... I don't know?

 

Thanks, about the pic. I thought it came out pretty nice myself. :)

[eric_arnold]

lynn,

i have the tamron 28-75 and use it for concert pics too. in low-light, my experience is that it's a bit better than the 50-150 at 2.8. but this is normal, given that the sigma is twice as long, which might account for the seeming lag in AF speed. then again, on a d300 set to CH, the sigma easily cranks out 8 fps at 1/250. all i can say is work with the sigma, it's a great lens if you know how to use it.

[lynn_malpass]

Eric,

 

Thanks for that reply. That helps me at least realize that probably the place I "tried it out" was too-low light for it. As I had mentioned earlier, it's my first foray into telephoto, and I'm pleased with the quality of the distance shots I got with it, but the close ups, well, I'll have to give it a try again in better light. It really does seem like a great lens and I especially love the depth I have gotten in my images, so here's hoping. :)

[eric_arnold]

lynn, the 50-150 is a fantastic portrait lens with good but not outstanding low-light ability. it's not as good in those conditions as a 1.4 like the sigma 30, and not as good as a shorter 2.8 zoom like the tamron 28-75 or tamron 17-50. it's incredibly sharp stopped down, but still usable wide open. in fact it was designed to be used at 2.8 through its entire range, but almost any 2.8 will be sharper at 5.6. for extreme low light, i'd suggest the 50/1.8 or the sigma 30/1.4.

 

but look at it this way: there's nothing like the 50-150 in the nikon lineup, and few telephotos that fast which are also fully handholdable -- and has true IF and HSM. so i think it's better to focus on what the lens does well, than to quibble about minor shortcomings. in all likelihood, you will be using it for many years, so it's natural to expect a learning curve as you become acclimated to it.

[lynn_malpass]

Eric,

 

Well, I wish I had known this before I bought it. I already use a 1.8/50mm, but I need a telephoto lens as well. So am I understanding you correctly in that another 2.8 telephoto might be better for this? Concert photography is pretty much all I do.

 

I did research a lot, and thought I would be coming away with a good lens for my purposes, especially since it seemed a really great distance range for my uses. It doesn't do anything for me at all if its low-light capabilities are not that good. :( I bought it to use it in the dark. I guess I will be selling it, then. I can only afford one telephoto lens. Unfortunately, in this case, minor shortcomings are the in the properties that I need it to be strong.

 

Wow, I'm kinda disappointed.

 

Anyone want a Sigma 2.8/50-150mm? I will sell it for what I paid, $500. It's not even a year old, and at this point has been used only about five times.

[dan_brown4]

Lynn, get a grip. The 50-150 is perfectly fine for concert photography.

 

Geez.

[lynn_malpass]

Well, I don't have experience with the lens, or with telephoto at all. I'm a lot less experienced than the rest of you, obviously. I can only go by what I find out from other people. I originally BOUGHT the lens after reading the guide that you posted on this forum... and it just seems to me it's being suggested that it's not suitable. I don't know. All I know is that my results with it were poor. I understand I probably need a lot of practice with it, but if I'm going to be wasting my time, I'd just as soon get something else.

[kaiyen]

Sounds like the issue is the focusing system in the D70 rather than the lens. On my D200 and D300 it's fast enough for professional cyclists coming around a corner (so serious speed with changing direction) in burst mode for 4-6 out of 11 shots to be sharp. That's pretty fast focusing.

 

Remember also that you have to know how to use your focusing system. If it's that dark, and you're focusing on, say, a singer's shirt which is often monochromatic, you won't lock focus nearly as quickly as an area with higher contrast.

 

allan

[ncordova]

Anybody tried the Sigma 50-150 II on the D300? Any lag in low enough light, but not super low, that is, not for a 1.4 or 1.8? I'm interested in this lens, and would like to know its limits.

 

Then again, I'm more likely to use it for portrait work outdoors. Any good examples of such types of shots?

 

Thanks,

 

N

[kaiyen]

I don't think they changed the HSM system in the 2nd version. And if they made it faster, then it's blazing, as my 1st version is already very fast.

 

allan

[paul.droluk]

This is an update to my earlier posting.

 

Without any apparent reason, my lens has developed what appears to be a de-centering

defect. The left side of all of my images went blurry... not soft, but downright blurry. The

remainder of the frame dropped considerably in performance as well. Quite unexplainable,

as the lens hasn't been used since my previous testing.

 

It is back at Sigma for repairs at this time.

 

I'll advise when I get it back, but I'm a bit bummed at this juncture.. I'll always worry about

a recurrence from now on.