Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 15, 2009, 1:17 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3
Default Sigma 50-150 f2.8 owners

I am seriously considering this lens as a plus up to my 18-70 kit lens. I have not been able to find much info on it however and decided to try the forums and see if I could find any current owners. I am interested in IQ and overall sharpness. The reviews I have read have not been that favorable due to front focus issues on multiple copies. I am also considering getting a sigma 70-200 2.8 or the Tamron 70-200 2.8, but these might be a little large and heavy for my needs. I like to get out and take pictures while biking. I am not averse to the larger heavier lenses as I like to shoot tight zooms in the trees where I ride and the 2.8 will be a big help in the shadows. I think the 50-150 will serve my needs if it is of good quality. Anybody out there have one........or would anybody like to comment on my choice.......
Any help would be appreciated.

Kevin
Knewman is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 15, 2009, 1:36 PM   #2
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Were any of those reviews commenting about it when used on a KM or Sony dSLR body?

Problems with one mount (Canon, Nikon, etc.) don't necessarily mean another mount will have the same issues (and Sigma may have fixed issues and rechipped lenses for better calibration during later production runs)

I see 3 reviews over at Dyxum for this lens (with no mention of focus accuracy issues). They have reviews of many lenses from Sony and KM dSLR owners.

http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/...asp?IDLens=440

I haven't seen anyone commenting on how it works on a KM or Sony dSLR body here yet.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 15, 2009, 1:37 PM   #3
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

P.S.

Welcome to the Forums.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 15, 2009, 1:49 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3
Default

Thanks for the welcome!!!

I have a brand spankin new a700 and am trying to get a companion lens for the kit lens that does not duplicate its range. (will replace later as funds become available). I am having a hard time finding anything out about this particular lens.

Kevin
Knewman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 15, 2009, 1:57 PM   #5
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Congrats on the new A700. That's what I shoot with now.

I dunno... The 50-150mm f/2.8 is attractive because of it's smaller size and weight compared to the 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses. But, if you wanted to upgrade to a body with a larger sensor size later (for example, a Sony A900), it would be best to stick with lenses designed for a larger sensor so you could shoot at full resolution.

If you don't plan on upgrading anytime soon, then lenses like Sigma's DC series lenses designed for cameras with APS-C size sensors can offer some size/weight benefits over lenses with similar focal ranges and available apertures designed for a larger sensor size.

You'd need to decide the best focal range for what you plan on shooting more often. Ditto for the apertures needed. If you don't need f/2.8, you've got lots of options with more focal length.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 15, 2009, 2:07 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3
Default

Jim

I am trying to stay with the 2.8 without going overboard due to the fact that I have to deal with shadows and hand held photos. Carting a tripod on a mountain bike gets in the way, I figure the faster lens would help with that. I don't think I would like the 70-200's as mush as the 50-150, however what do I know??? Would you have any recommendations???

Kevin

PS I guess you need some insight as to what kind of photos I take... I take opportunity photos while bike riding the battlefield in Petersburg VA, the light can get dim and the tripod is a nuisance. Travel photos (going to Disney World in November), portraits, flowers and pets.


Thanks for the help!!!!
Knewman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 15, 2009, 2:32 PM   #7
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Personally, I'd probably grab a couple of primes instead for use in dimmer lighting for outdoor type scenes, probably keeping something like a 28mm f/2 on the camera, and use a lighter weight zoom in better lighting, instead of lugging a 70-200mm f/2.8 around.

But, I don't do much at longer focal lengths. My usual walk around lens is a Minolta 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 (although I've got a Minolta 28mm f/2 AF lens on my A700 right this minute).

I'll sometimes use a Minolta 100mm f/2 or Tamron 35-105mm f/2.8. But, I'd rarely use anything longer than those for the types of shooting I do more often (usually going to my Minolta 135mm f/2.8 if I do need something longer, since it's a relatively small and light weight lens for it's focal length and easy to bring along). I've got a couple of longer zooms, but they never seem to get used.

If you need a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom for flexibility in more lighting conditions, I'd probably consider the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8. It doesn't focus as fast as the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 (which would be a better bet for sports use). But, it tests a bit sharper at most focal lengths compared to the Sigma. Of course, if budget permits, look at the Sony 70-200mm f/2.8G.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 15, 2009, 3:11 PM   #8
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

If you decide on that 50-150mm f/2.8, keep us posted on how well it performs. That Sigma is interesting to me, since it starts off a bit wider than the 70-200mm zooms (which I would find more useful) and it would be a smaller and lighter lens compared to the 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses. But, it wouldn't work on a full frame body, unless you wanted to shoot at a reduced (cropped) image size, and you may prefer a 70-200mm lens on a full frame body anyway, since you'll have a wider angle of view compared to using one on a body with an APS-C size sensor.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2009, 12:58 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
NewsyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver, BC Canada
Posts: 231
Default

I followed a recent thread in another forum on a comparison between the Sigma 50-150 and the Sony 70-200G. There was a response from a fellow who has both and also the Sigma 70-200 HSM. He likes the 50-150 a lot - uses it for indoor basketball amongst other subjects.

"It hasn't replaced it, as I said. But I think the 50-150 is a match for the G in IQ and has slightly better AF speed than the G (if you discount the limiter). It also has great bokeh, but there's just something special about the bokeh on the G lens."

He also commented that in terms of build quality it was very good but he was disappointed with the build quality of the Sigma 70-200.

.
NewsyL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:55 AM.