New Sigma lenses, but...

[blurboiboi]

Juz came across the new 50-150 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 for sigma.... was wondering how come sigma never release 4/3 versions for these 2 lenses??... it would be really great if they had, ya? since oly dun haf any constant f2.8 lenses of their own....

[retrovox]

Originally Posted by blurboiboi Juz came across the new 50-150 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 for sigma.... was wondering how come sigma never release 4/3 versions for these 2 lenses??... it would be really great if they had, ya? since oly dun haf any constant f2.8 lenses of their own....

I'm also waiting for Sigma to release the 50-150 f2.8 for Four Thirds mount. I think the focal length is just right for me. I don't need the extra telephoto range from the ZD 50-200 f2.8-3.5. I have to admit, the constant f2.8 is the main luring factor for me.

[bernards]

I used to have the 70-200 HSM for the Nikon mount. I wanted to save a few dollars over the Nikkor. It's very soft wide open, only from f4 onwards I could get decent results. As far as I am concerned, they might as well sell it as the 70-200 f4. The Bohek was terrible. Many a good shot was ruined by this characteristic of the lens. Four-thirds is not missing much by not having this lens.

[drakon09]

Sigma primes are ok, but the zooms are... erm.. heh

[viewwing]

so i guess the 135-400mm that sigma came out with for oly is pretty much .... too...

[VSonic06]

Funny I remember somebody did turn in some pretty good bird shots here with the E-510 + Sigma 50-500.

[bernards]

Originally Posted by VSonic06 Funny I remember somebody did turn in some pretty good bird shots here with the E-510 + Sigma 50-500.

No matter how much you diss a lens. Some genius will come along and blow you away with an amazing shot.

With that said. I've never used a 50-500. I would like to own it for a try. It's what I am planning after I get a 50-200.

[wrx_sti_22b]

Originally Posted by drakon09 Sigma primes are ok, but the zooms are... erm.. heh

I have the 18-125mm f3.5-5.6. Usable lah... a bit dark... in the middle of the range seems to be the best, not at it's widest or furthest.

[drakon09]

Well, the problem is you'll compare with the Oly zooms.

That's where the disparity is.

[TMC]

Originally Posted by bernards I used to have the 70-200 HSM for the Nikon mount. I wanted to save a few dollars over the Nikkor. It's very soft wide open, only from f4 onwards I could get decent results. As far as I am concerned, they might as well sell it as the 70-200 f4. The Bohek was terrible. Many a good shot was ruined by this characteristic of the lens. Four-thirds is not missing much by not having this lens.

Dunno about you. But the banged up 2H copy I gottten from BnS was not bad. Useable at wide open, better around f4. If you cant get any decent results at wide open, then something is wrong.