Sigma 50-150mm/f2.8 lens

[nightwolf75]

managed to borrow a sigma 50-150mm/f2.8 lens, and the tokina 50-135mm/f2.8 lens for a test run today (see http://forum.clubsnap.org/showthread...45#post2812445 for tokina 50-135mm).

again, to repeat from the tokina thread, this is not a scientifically-held, pixel peeping kind of test. i hand-held the cam, at f8 in M mode @ roughly the same location.

the sigma is a little slimmer in profile compared to the tokina, and also a little lighter.


took the same test pics of raffles hotel, same AF center point used at the "ES" of "Raffles".

50mm


70mm


85mm


...cont'

[nightwolf75]

...cont'

100mm


sigma dun exactly have 135mm marked out. so i had to guess... took this so that those who want, can compare with tokina (which max out at 135mm).

135mm


150mm


50-150mm at f2.8. took the same traffic stand-pipe as with the tokina.



and this bird, which happened to perch near me.



this is another small f2.8 zoom for those using crop-factor DSLR. the focusing is smooth and fast, as befitting a HSM lens. however, again like the tokina, it hunts a bit when i was trying to shoot a dark object. the lens is lighter and slimmer in profile compared to the tokina - a point dat some might deem important. the zoom ring is smooth in action, with manual over-ride if u want to go MF.

the colours are warmer straight out of cam. i found the bokeh of the sigma a little more pleasing to the eye, IMO, compared to the tokina. but, in terms of construction, the usual pet peeves of sigma will matter. plus, for this particular copy of the lens dat i was using, some some reason, i cannot get the lens to 'extend' (metaphorically speaking, cos it's internal zooming) to 100mm. it shows on my ExIF either 98mm or 102mm. wonder if its some manufacturing gremlins....

thanks, again, to the folks of TK Foto for kindly letting me walk out of their shop with this lens, with nothing more than good faith dat i will actually return the lens... hehe... (of course, i did)... original pics available. but, not posting them cos they are too big. do let me know if u are interested?

[look4raymond]

Did u manage to shoot some colourful subjects? Would love to see its colour contrast n saturation...

If u had to choose between 50-150 2.8 vs 70-200 2.8, which one will u buy?

[nightwolf75]

Originally Posted by look4raymond Did u manage to shoot some colourful subjects? Would love to see its colour contrast n saturation... If u had to choose between 50-150 2.8 vs 70-200 2.8, which one will u buy?

yesterday's skies wasn't too cooperative.

if money is no object, it's a no-brainer IMO. the 70-200 (either canon or nikon) will beat the pants off either the sigma or tokina DX zooms. i'm not "originals only" person. but, having used both the canon and nikon versions of 70-200, i can safely say, just in terms of sharpness, the 70-200 is a few lorongs ahead of either sigma or tokina. so, it's not fair to pitch these lenses agst the big boys. besides, u can't.

but, at almost half the price of the 70-200, and tipping the scales at under 1kg, its hard not to like the sigma or tokina.

[cherps]

thanks for the review of the 2 lenses! how does the 50-150mm compare to the 70-200mm Sigma lens?

i'm contemplating getting either the 50-150mm or the 50-135mm tokina as a budget tele zoom, until save up to get the nikon 70-200 vr. then, i'd keep the DX crop lens to use when i wanna give up some image quality and VR for portability and weight.

[look4raymond]

May i know why the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG MACRO so cheap ar? Only SGD320! Might as well buy this if i am on very tight budget but still need that zoom power. The image quality is really bad, izit?

[ExplorerZ]

Originally Posted by look4raymond May i know why the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG MACRO so cheap ar? Only SGD320! Might as well buy this if i am on very tight budget but still need that zoom power. The image quality is really bad, izit?

reach is not everything... one of the main factor deciding the cost of the lens is the size of the aperture... you can have a 600mm f11 yet still cost less than a 300mm f2.8.

[kcuf2]

Originally Posted by look4raymond May i know why the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG MACRO so cheap ar? Only SGD320! Might as well buy this if i am on very tight budget but still need that zoom power. The image quality is really bad, izit?

as u already write already, it is a F4-5.6 lens. It is not a constant apeture lens. to make a 200mm lens at constant apeture of f2.8, the size of the glass inside is much much much bigger than those of the make of F4-5.6.

200mm/2.8 = 71mm, meaning for a 200mm lens at f2.8, the diameter of the lens must be at least 71mm, meaning the glass inside the lens must be at least 71mm diameter.

for a sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6:
at 300mm, 300/5.6 = 53mm diameter for the glass inside.

71mm diameter = 35mm radius = 3846mm square area
53mm diameter = 25mm radius = 1962mm square area

3846/1962 = 2 times the amount of glass required.

Btw, the optical quality glass that is use in lens is not the normal glass that ppl use in mirror and aquarium tanks, they are of much higher quality which allows more more more light to pass through to ensure that u get the best optimum contrast. And obviously this kind of glass is much more expensive.

And take note that the bigger the glass elements inside the lens, the more susceptible the glass is to internal reflections, flare and watever crap there is, and because of that, they need to build in more glass elements inside to cancel all these negative effects away. And also, because the glass are so much bigger, the surface area is bigger and thus they got to apply more of their expensive coatings to the glass elements.

And besides, all the glass elements inside the lens are of different shapes and sizes, and the bigger the glass elements, the more difficult it is to produce it.

But for the other lens, it is small, and all the negative effects are smaller, thus it is so much cheaper to produce...

that is why a 70-200 f2.8 lens is $2,000+++ while a sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 lens is $300+

[nightwolf75]

Originally Posted by cherps thanks for the review of the 2 lenses! how does the 50-150mm compare to the 70-200mm Sigma lens? i'm contemplating getting either the 50-150mm or the 50-135mm tokina as a budget tele zoom, until save up to get the nikon 70-200 vr. then, i'd keep the DX crop lens to use when i wanna give up some image quality and VR for portability and weight.

i am never a fan of sigma's 70-200. the construction of sigma is never a +ve point for me, with all the peelings and the "keep ur fingers cross and hope its a sharp copy" worries. also, sigma lenses tend to give slightly warmer pics out of cam. some like it, some dun.

again, u cannot compare cos the 70-200 is a FF lens while this is a DX lens. construction and optics are different, IMO. dats why i din bother to put up a comparison with 70-200 vs sigma/tokina even though i can borrow them from TK.

by itself, i think u are not giving away too much IQ, all things being equaled among 3rd party lenses. these 2 lenses are the 1st DX zoom lenses @ f2.8, and IMO worth a consideration for those who dun need the weight and all the bells-&-whistles of the far more expensive 70-200 from canon or nikon. i'm actually pleasantly surprised by the pics at f2.8. unless needed otherwise, my own 70-200 is always used at f2.8. so, f2.8 quality matters for me. both the tokina and sigma came out pretty darn good, IMO.

[smallaperture]

How about some 100% crops at F2.8 or at F4 to see how good it is.
Thanks in advance.

[nightwolf75]

Originally Posted by smallaperture How about some 100% crops at F2.8 or at F4 to see how good it is. Thanks in advance.

i din do any pics at f4. for f2.8, i can send u the 2 original size pics fm above... if u got an email acct dat has enuf space for 2 3+MB file? pm me?

[cherps]

Originally Posted by nightwolf75 i am never a fan of sigma's 70-200. the construction of sigma is never a +ve point for me, with all the peelings and the "keep ur fingers cross and hope its a sharp copy" worries. also, sigma lenses tend to give slightly warmer pics out of cam. some like it, some dun. again, u cannot compare cos the 70-200 is a FF lens while this is a DX lens. construction and optics are different, IMO. dats why i din bother to put up a comparison with 70-200 vs sigma/tokina even though i can borrow them from TK. by itself, i think u are not giving away too much IQ, all things being equaled among 3rd party lenses. these 2 lenses are the 1st DX zoom lenses @ f2.8, and IMO worth a consideration for those who dun need the weight and all the bells-&-whistles of the far more expensive 70-200 from canon or nikon. i'm actually pleasantly surprised by the pics at f2.8. unless needed otherwise, my own 70-200 is always used at f2.8. so, f2.8 quality matters for me. both the tokina and sigma came out pretty darn good, IMO.

will take your advice when considering lenses in da near future. best to try out firsthand at the shops.. thanks!

[yipdanny]

Owner of Sigma 50-150mm f2.8:

Are you happy with the sharpnest at f2.8 of the lens? at 50mm, 100mm and 150mm?

Just want to hear some feedback. Thank you.

[smallaperture]

Originally Posted by nightwolf75 i din do any pics at f4. for f2.8, i can send u the 2 original size pics fm above... if u got an email acct dat has enuf space for 2 3+MB file? pm me?

Hi nightwolf, got the pics. Those pics at F2.8 are good enough for me. Anyway, even a Tamron 28-200 is sharp enough for me as well, provided you do not demand it for some indoor sports action. I will be checking it out soon myself. Thanks.

[nightwolf75]

Originally Posted by smallaperture Hi nightwolf, got the pics. Those pics at F2.8 are good enough for me. Anyway, even a Tamron 28-200 is sharp enough for me as well, provided you do not demand it for some indoor sports action. I will be checking it out soon myself. Thanks.

ur welcomed!