Sigma 50-150 f/2.8

[kylebybee]

<p>I've had this lens on my want list for some time. I shoot with the D7000 and currently have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX, Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 (newer version), and the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. I'm accumulating lighting equipment to start doing portrait work, I have an SB800 and the Photix Obin TTL radio trigger system. I have a soft box/light stand, reflector set with stand on wish list at B&H. Eventually I will want to add FX body for my work. The question is should I forgo the 50-150 lens and use that money toward FX body. Currently the only lens I have that is full frame is the Tamron 70-300 so I would need to also purchase a 24-70 f/2.8 (to start with) with the new body. I should mention that the intended use for the new Sigma lens would be primarily for the portrait/wedding work. The thing I'm wrestling with is being redundant with DX and FX lenses eventually. When going to FX I would still keep the D7000 as back up. Your thoughts and recommendations are appreciated.</p>

[kylebybee]

<p>Oh any recommendations on full frame body would be welcome as well.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>If you only have one camera body at the moment Kyle, then I'd leave paid wedding work alone, unless you go as second shooter or stringer. If you're going it alone then you really need a backup body. So if pro wedding and portrait work are your long term aim, then get a second body before anything else. If you get a D810, then you'll still be able to use your DX lenses on it with adequate resolution.</p>

<p>A 50-150mm lens on DX roughly equates to a 70-200mm on FX, and while a kit of 24-70 and 70-200mm f/2.8 zooms will cover nearly everything in FX, they leave a gap at the wide end on DX. However, your 11-16mm on the D7000 will have that covered.</p>

<p>I guess in summary I'm saying; don't buy a lens that's going to be redundant in the near future, if and when you go full-frame. Save your pennies for a 70-200mm f/2.8 pro quality zoom, which will do everything the 50-150mm would allow, since you already have the 50mm focal length. The Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC lens is very nice. It's not that much more expensive than the Sigma 50-150, and quite a bit cheaper than Nikon's offering. Next on your shopping list though should be a second body, and whether you leap to full-frame or not this is a must for solo wedding coverage.</p>

[bruce_maddox]

<p>I very recently purchased a Sigma 50-150mm F/2.8 OS refurbished from Sigma's outlet. It is a top notch performer wide open at all focal lengths. My investment was less than 1/2 that of buying a new Tamron 70-200 VC . Please keep in mind that the 50-150mm F/2.8 OS is discontinued according to Sigma, and that it is a full size/weight lens. I believe you could use the lens until you make the move to FX, and get 80-90 percent of your initial investment on your Sigma refurb purchase. Finding one is the key, because I'm not sure Sigma sold that many to begin with.</p>

[kylebybee]

<p>So Rodeo Joe, which FX lens would you acquire first? the 70-200 or the 24-70? Since I have the wider end covered with the D7000 I think that maybe the 70-200 for the FX body would be best, do you agree? Then later as the paying shoots come around invest in more FX lenses.</p>

[kylebybee]

<p>On FX bodies, D800, D810, or to start with D610? </p>

 

[kohanmike]

<p>My Sigma 50-150 OS is the best lens I've ever touched.</p>

[bruce_maddox]

<p>NAS just shifted into high gear.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Hi Kyle. Yes, I'd suggest the 70-200mm as your next lens purchase. It's a must-have for formal portraits and weddings on FX.<br>

Well, before I get blasted for saying that, obviously it's not the <em>only</em> lens that you can use for portraits and weddings, but it's basically the gold standard for that sort of work.</p>

<p>WRT cameras. Build quality is a bit better on the D800/D810 than on the D610, plus the extra pixels in DX mode will squeeze slightly better IQ out of those DX lenses you've already got. It's your money to do with as you want Kyle, but if we're talking about investing in professional tools, then you should want to get the best you can afford - or hire.<br>

See the D800 versus D810 thread below for some good advice on deciding which is more suitable. Personally the D800 does all I want and I have no plans to "upgrade" anytime soon. However frame rate might be an issue for you. Depends on your shooting style. Remembering that people were shooting weddings perfectly successfully on MF film not that long ago, with a frame rate of 2 FPS if you were lucky and quick on the winder knob - and with a "buffer size" of only 12 or 24 frames!</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i have both the 50-150/2.8 non-OS and the 70-200 VR II. the 50-150 is really great for DX cameras and works well with a 17-50/2.8 as a two-lens do-it-all kit. i kept mine because of its compactness and because i still shoot with DX sometimes. the 70-200 is a huge beast and not compact at all. also the 20mm difference on the wide end makes the 50-150 more usable in tight spaces.</p>

<p>that said, if you are planning an eventual move to FX, it may not make sense for you to get a 50-150, especially if you are not getting paid to shoot. if you already have a DX 2.8 zoom, get the 70-200 first, as it's fantastic on DX in situations where the 1.5x crop factor is in your favor. i would wait until you have an FX body to get the 24-70 (which i also have). regarding the 24-70 and the 17-50 lenses, i used to use the tamron 17-50 non-VC and currently use the sigma 17-50 OS on DX. i rarely use the 24-70 on DX because it's such a mammoth lens compared to the 17-50; also as RJ pointed out, you lose the wide end completely. in some situations this may be advantageous, like when you need a little more reach past 70mm, but it can also be a drag. in terms of IQ, the 24-70 is optically superior but not by that much. same thing with the 70-200. most photos i take, you wouldn't be able to tell what lens it was shot with without careful inspection. i have also used a tamron 28-75 and that's a good budget standard zoom on both DX and FX which is fairly sharp and super-lightweight/compact. IMO the 24-70 is a bit overpriced for what it delivers, but i needed a pro-grade lens for event photography. besides its optical goodness, it has lightning-fast AF on a pro body like the d3s (reportedly, the 810 is much better at AF speed than the 800). it's too heavy, however, to use as a walk-around lens, especially with a pro FX body. a Black Rapid-type sling strap does help with both the 24-70 and 70-200; it's pretty critical to get the weight off your neck, especially if you will be carrying the camera and lenses for long periods of time.</p>

<p>here's a recent shot from the 70-200 VRII on a d300s:</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[bruce_maddox]

<p>Look at the original post. The OP has essentially a DX kit with one daylight FX lens. You guys are all over the place with FX lens recommendations and full frame 2.8 zoom advice. The OS version Sigma on a D7000 can be had for less than 700.00 as a Sigma factory refurb. It is better optically than the Nikkor 70-200VR I on DX, is light years ahead of the non-stabilized sigma 50-150. I've shot the version 2 Nikkor, and the Sigma 50-150 OS is it's optical equal on DX. Check out DXO score. Then check out your own output. You will be amazed. The OP could sell his 70-300 and for 300-400 dollars more have a complete DX kit. You are taking the discourse thousands of dollars off course. </p>

[kylebybee]

<p>Thank you "everyone" for your thoughts and concerns, they are appreciated. I will let everyone know what happens in the near future. </p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p> You are taking the discourse thousands of dollars off course.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>did you miss the part where the OP said he wanted to move to FX eventually? that factors into the recommendation. if you plan on sticking with DX forever, then sure the 50-150 iis a great choice. but if not, then the full-frame 70-200 is the way to go.</p>

[bruce_maddox]

<p> I gave him advice that maximizes his dollar while not surrendering an inch optically. I would do the same. Drop the 70-300, pick up the 50-150 OS with little outlay, and keep moving forward with the craft. The shift to the Nikkor VR2 will be $1500-1800 additional for no real performance improvement with his D7000. One thing is certain. Used VR2 prices will drop more in real dollars going forward than his modest investment in a 50-150 OS. I respect your opinion, but I'd take a different route to the same destination.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>Bruce, current new prices have the 70-200 II at $2100- $2300 and the 50-150 OS at $930 - $999. not sure how you get "$1500-1800 additional" out of that. even if we're looking at used lenses on the auction site, the sigma is about $650 while the nikon can be had for around $1700 or even less. plus if you consider additional reach on DX and compatibility with FX bodies a performance improvement, the 70-200 II is the better long-term investment, especially since the 50-150 OS doesnt offer the weight/size savings of the non-OS model. buying the 50-150 only saves money in the short term, since any eventual move to FX will mean selling the lens and buying the nikon anyway. there is no way to be certain that used VRII prices will fall, but it is likely the new price will continue to rise. it is true that used lenses most likely wont depreciate any further, but buying used, you dont get a warranty, which is especially important in the case of the sigma, just in case you need the lens rechipped for a future nikon body. </p>

[pete_s.]

<p>70-200 is a little long on DX for portrait and weddings. It's equivalent to 105-300mm on FX.</p>

<p>I've shot a lot with the smaller old version of the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8. Try to see if you can find one of those used instead. It would be better bang for your buck to get one of those used, buy the lighting equipment you want and pick up a second used D7000 (or D7100) as a second camera/backup. Then you have good enough gear for portrait and wedding work and can start making money and more importantly gain experience.</p>

<p>The added image quality you get with FX will not really matter for your clients. The real reason to go FX for wedding work is low light. And the ability to throw the background even more out of focus using f/1.4 or faster lenses. FX is also nice with lens selection since you have fast wide lenses like 24 f/1.4. Really long lenses (>200mm) are not used much for weddings and portraits so FX is a good choice. However the primary advantage of DX is lower weight and smaller cameras and lenses and of course better bang for the buck.</p>

<p> </p>

[kylebybee]

<p>Pete, I looked at the older version of the 50-150 and it seems to not have image stabilization. Did you miss not having that?</p>

[siphiwe_memela]

<p>I have the 50-150mm non-OS and it seems it would benefit from OS if used indoors particularly when used with a high MP body such as a D7000. I have used it in the past with any of D70s/D80 and D300s but I find the D7000/D5100 quite a bit more demanding and would not easily recommend it but as always, your mileage may vary. Perhaps buy from a place with a good return policy should it not work out for you.</p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I looked at the older version of the 50-150 and it seems to not have image stabilization. Did you miss not having that?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i have that lens. the lack of OS isn't really an issue unless you need to shoot below 1/FL. like i said before, i held onto it even after i went FX and got the 70-200. i've shot a lot of events with it and always appreciate its compact size and good IQ. i almost never shoot these lenses at shutter speeds where stabilization would make a difference. for <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/used/533559?gclid=Cj0KEQjwhLCgBRCf0fPH043IlJwBEiQAf8P8UyIdbaKjtQV0JSXIZxm-S3_1Bo1PuYt0IaEv5M5RaFAaAppK8P8HAQ">$500 used</a>, it's a good deal. of course you'll probably sell it if you go FX, but it seems like that might be a ways away. Paul's advice to save $$ for a 2nd d7k and lighting is spot-on; it's better to have redundant gear w/ DX than one FX body if you want to shoot weddings.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Scrimping money on gear and offering a professional service to paying customers are two different and, IMHO, incompatible options. Remembering that uncle Joe among the wedding guests will most likely be carrying a D7000 and 3rd party 50-150 lens, or at least something similar. So as soon as someone mentions "wedding shoots", a tight budget shouldn't be the first consideration.</p>

<p>To put yourself above the same league as uncle Joe you've got to show superior visual ability, have crowd handling and people skills, have better lighting equipment than simple on-camera flash (or apply it more skilfully) and in those situations where available light is called for, use a camera with lower noise/higher ISO capability. It's in the last area where FX wins and its better control over depth-of-field helps as well. It's down to you, Kyle, to decide which route to take, but pro photography isn't a cheap game to play.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>The old and new Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 are not a typical uncle Bob lens. It's Sigmas EX series which means it's one of their pro series lenses.</p>

<p>Typical photo hobby photographers are more likely to show up with a kit lens or one of Nikon's variable aperture consumer lenses like the 16-85mm, 70-300mm etc etc. Or if they have enough money they will show up with the latest and greatest like a D810 and a 24-70 and a 70-200 - sometimes without knowing much about photography.</p>

<p>But a pro isn't bothered with what gear the guests show up with, only that they may get in the way of some shots. A pro's main concern is happy customers, getting new jobs and running a successful business. And that means keeping costs under control.</p>

<p>So to get back on the issue, two competent DX bodies like a D7000 or D7100 and an assortment of suitable lenses and other gear is certainly enough to do a competent job.</p>

<p>I've shot weddings with the old 50-150 f2.8 and for most part I didn't miss the stabilization. However when Sigma came out with the newer OS lens I would have bought one - if the size and weight would have been roughly the same.</p>

<p>It's only when the light levels are low that you need to shoot at slower shutter speeds, under 1/f. So typically it would only happen in a darker church during the ceremony. I used a ball head tripod or a monopod when I knew that would be an issue. All my cameras always have quick connects on them so putting the camera on or off a tripod only takes seconds.</p>

<p>So I would have preferred a stabilized lens but not the weight and size of it. So the 50-150 OS was a no go. But it also depends on what kind of weddings you shoot. I'd shoot for 12 hours or more straight, carrying two cameras at all times, so weight was important.</p>

<p>If I would shoot weddings again today I would have opted for two light weight full frame cameras and a selection of primes (two zooms as backup) so I could use as much available light as humanly possible. But that's just me and everybody has to find a solution that works for them. </p>

<p> </p>

[pete_s.]

<p>PS. The OP has the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 and the 17-50 f2.8 so the older 50-150 f2.8 would complement these perfectly. It also takes advantage of the DX format as a similar setup on FX would be a lot bigger and a lot more expensive (14-24, 24-70, 70-200).</p>

<p>My suggestion for weddings would be to go all DX or all FX and not have a dual format setup. At this time it seems to make the most sense for the OP to stay DX.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Typically, wedding photography involves a lot of low-light situations indoors. Therefore, moving to FX and having VR (or OS, IS) in your short tele zoom are obvious choices.</p>

<p>However, as Pete mentioned above, a successful wedding photographer needs to be good in marketing yourself and work with people, including demanding brides and grooms, mother in laws, uncooperative guests and children ... in addition to capturing good images your clients want. It is easy to spend a lot of money on expensive equipment. Whether you an recuperate such investment within a reasonable time frame is another matter. As in any business, you will eventually need to make a profit and hopefully have some fun doing it.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>uncle Joe among the wedding guests will most likely be carrying a D7000 and 3rd party 50-150 lens, </p>

</blockquote>

<p>more like a d3000 or t2i and an 18-55. if the 50-150 had been that popular with everyday shooters, both versions wouldnt have been discontinued.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The OP has the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 and the 17-50 f2.8 so the older 50-150 f2.8 would complement these perfectly. It also takes advantage of the DX format as a similar setup on FX would be a lot bigger and a lot more expensive (14-24, 24-70, 70-200).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>very good point. i've used the 17-50/50-150 combo for years and its a very capable 2-lens setup. using that with the 11-16 is pretty close to the DX holy trinity (although the sigma 18-35/1.8 would be an even better DX solution than the 17-50 IMO, especially if you are shooting with two bodies); only thing i would add are a couple of fast primes --35/1.8, 85/1.8--which can cover the available light/low-light work. </p>

 

[craig_shearman1]

<p>"70-200 is a little long on DX for portrait and weddings. It's equivalent to 105-300mm on FX."<br /><br />I shoot weddings only occasionally but when I do I use a 70-200 on a D7000 and find that it's exactly what I want. Back in film days a 105 was my standard portrait lens, so that end is fine. And the extra length on the long end is welcome when shooting the ceremony from a balcony or off to the side up front.<br /><br />I also use a 24-70 and a 12-24 on my DX bodies and I'm happy with the combination. I've just learned to accept the angle of view I get with those as normal and not to worry about trying to use a shorter focal length to match film/FX focal lengths.</p>