On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:23:11 +1200, Me wrote:
: On 18/09/2012 2:40 p.m., Robert Coe wrote:
: On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:04:50 +1200, Me wrote:
: : On 17/09/2012 12:46 p.m., Robert Coe wrote:
: : Has anyone here tried the new Sigma APS-C 50-150mm f/2.8 lens with image
: : stabilization? I have the old, unstabilized version; and until I got use of a
: : high-end 70-200 last year, it was one of my favorite lenses for event
: : photography. It's pretty sharp, and both the focus and the zoon are internal,
: : so it doesn't collect dust. The only serious knock on it was that its AF
: : wasn't particularly fast.
: :
: : The new lens claims to be even sharper and to focus faster than the old one,
: : and it preserves the internal focus and zoom. Initial reviews have been
: : favorable, but that doesn't tell you much; early reviews often come from
: : fanboys. If it's as good as they claim, it could be a winner (assuming, of
: : course, that one can overlook Sigma's reputation for poor quality control). A
: : 50-150 arguably fits into the typical APS-C lens lineup better than the 70-200
: : does, since so many walkaround zooms top out around 50mm.
: :
: : The 50-150 f2.8 OS doesn't make sense:
:
: Have you tried one? I thought my old 50-150 was just about right.
:
: : It weighs 95% as much as 70-200 f2.8 Fx zooms.
:
: Yeah, but a bottom of 70 leaves a 15mm gap between it and, say, the Canon
: 17-55 (which I have).
:
: : It costs about 75% as much as the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS.
:
: Huh? Isn't that the same lens? Or are you talking about a FF version? I'm not
: aware that such exists.
:
: : Resale value will be poor, as it's a Sigma, and also it's an Aps-c
: : format lens in the quality/price range where people think about the
: : possibility of changing to 35mm format in the future.
:
: Been there, didn't do that. When the 5D3 came out at $3500 and its new walker
: came out at $2300, I punted and bought a second 7D. That said, I did
: tentatively resolve to buy only FF lenses from now on. You never know.
:
: : At $1,000 (street price) it's way over-priced for what it is.
:
: I paid about $750 for the old, unstabilized version four or five years ago,
: and I thought I got my money's worth. $1K is arguably not exhorbitant for the
: same lens with IS and faster AF.
:
: : There are good APS-c wide zooms which top out in the 70-85mm focal
: : length range if you really don't want to "lose" the 50-70mm range.
: : The 50-70mm range is usually able to be compensated for by "zooming with
: : your feet" if you need to frame everything perfectly ex-camera.
:
: Depending on where you are and what you're doing. It can be hard (or at least
: embarrassing) to "zoom with your feet" at an awards ceremony, with all the
: wives and mothers cursing you for getting in their way. ;^)
:
: : If you also need "fast" at about 50mm, then you can get a very
: : inexpensive 50mm f1.8.
: : The weight of this lens (and the 70-200 f2.8s) is substantial, as you'll
: : know if you used the 70-200 you tried for long enough.
:
: The 70-200 wasn't a loaner; I still have it. I'll have to give it back if I
: quit my job; in the meantime, they'd have to pry my cold, dead fingers from
: around it. But yes, it is heavy. Which is why the old 50-150 still makes it
: into my bag sometimes.
:
: : I hope I've put you off - you don't need a review of the lens optical
: : performance - there's enough information to be gleaned from specs and
: : pricing to show that even if it performs well, it's at best a poor
: : solution to a problem which doesn't exist.
:
: No need to put me off, I wasn't going to buy it (except possibly for my wife,
: who probably wouldn't like the weight). It just sounds like an interesting
: lens. Like my old 50-150, but bigger, heavier, and more expensive. But with
: stabilization and (allegedly) faster AF.
:
: Bob
:
: I think the new OS 50-150 is quite a bit heavier than the older non OS
: version you have, hence most of my negative comments.
: Yes - Sigma make a 70-200 f2.8 OS, less than 100g heavier than the OS
: 50-150, and about $1250 street price. It's probably okay.
: I'm not a Canon owner. There are two things in Canon land that I really
: envy. One is the 17mm TSE, the other is the 70-200 f4 L IS. The latter
: is what you should be getting your wife for Xmas. I have used that lens,
: and it's an absolute gem (on 5D and 5DII bodies). In fact I'd go so far
: as to say that if I decided to buy a Canon body, I'd buy the darned lens
: first, then cart it around camera stores to decide which body suited it
: best.