Ilia , the biggest mistake sigma made with this lens was to use the same basic size as the 70-200os .in fact they could use the same barrel (maybe they did that to reduce their costs)
As much as I want canon to come out with a 50-150 EFs its only going to be interesting if the size and weight are smaller than the 70-200 IS . It could quite easily be around the 70-200/4 size / weight
I see, but I think it might be marketed as an "alternative" to a 70-200 class lens, not a straight "replacement" - depending on preference in focal lengths. After all, hardly anybody would be dying to get an exact equivalent of a 70-200 focal length (which this 50-150 is not). I was happily using my 70-200 on APS-C and now on APS-H.
For a FF user, sure. For an APS-H / APS-C user... it depends.
Guess the designers followed a "we only live once" approach, hence the performance... and the size.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Sorry this lens makes absolutely no sense to me with those specs.
Unfortunately pixel I tend to agree .
I just looked up the price of the 50-150 compared to the 70-200 OS and the 50-150 is only £100 cheaper
So the advantage (on crop) of smaller cheaper lens is gone . For the difference I'd rather take the extra 50mm on the long end and crop the a 55mm image if I needed the little bit between my 17-55 and this lens .
In fact I'm not sure I'd notice the 15mm as I can get away with 25mm difference between my 17-55 and my 80-200
It's a real Shame as sigma would most likely have had a sale from me. I've been tossing up weather I want to sell my 80-200 and get the 70-200 mk2 but would like something a bit more portable (I find times when I don't want the pipe in my bag) . So the other choice is to get the 70-200/4 IS and keep the pipe (which is where I'm heading) but a great 50-150/2.8 that near the size of the FF f4 is pretty close to having my cake and eating it . Even more so now I have the 120-300/2.8 (although its a bit on the large heavy side to be considered a walk about option )
Paul Mo wrote:
I can't believe how little it vignettes.
Certainly not little enough to use it on FF.
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
So the advantage (on crop) of smaller cheaper lens is gone . For the difference I'd rather take the extra 50mm on the long end and crop the a 55mm image if I needed the little bit between my 17-55 and this lens .
In fact I'm not sure I'd notice the 15mm as I can get away with 25mm difference between my 17-55 and my 80-200
Still looks like a decent enough option for those who have something like a 150-500 as their longer (and heavier) lens and don't want to leave large gaps between their normal and tele lenses. Sounds like a pretty small market to me though. If I had been choosing a lens now, I would've probably still gotten a 70-200 (brand, Sigma, or Tamron), if only for the unlikely event of moving to FF.
It's a real Shame as sigma would most likely have had a sale from me.
Well, certainly I had you in mind when posting. But say... you don't have the 1D Mark II N anymore, do you?
I've been tossing up weather I want to sell my 80-200 and get the 70-200 mk2 but would like something a bit more portable (I find times when I don't want the pipe in my bag) . So the other choice is to get the 70-200/4 IS and keep the pipe (which is where I'm heading) but a great 50-150/2.8 that near the size of the FF f4 is pretty close to having my cake and eating it . Even more so now I have the 120-300/2.8 (although its a bit on the large heavy side to be considered a walk about option )...Show more →
Congratz! Looks like a solid option, with the 80-200 being the "portable" alternative (I did think of getting a 120-300 briefly, back when I was on active duty, and I would've probably got the Tamron 70-300 VC as a carry-around kinda lens. That, however, is now out of question).
Having had this lens, I'll voice a few thoughts here.
First I bought it for use on a crop sensor. I CANNOT stand the 70-200 range on a crop sensor. Love it elsewhere. So, for someone looking for a similar FL eqv. on crop, here you go and it makes sense. Works well on 1.3x too.
Additionally, if you love the focal range, then the price is attractive given it's cheaper than most of the 70-200 2.8 models.
The lens is well balanced on camera, slightly smaller in diameter than a 70-200 (or feels that way) and has a spectacular OS system. AF on mine was dead on.
This lens isn't made for the masses. Quite frankly, it's almost a specialty lens. But for people who shoot a crop body and don't care for having to change from 17-55 to 70-200 for a different view, then this lens would make alot of sense and at a reasonable price. Only reason I sold mine was that I went away from crop sensors.
I found this very interesting;" The results we could admire with our own eyes - in the resolution category the Sigma 50-150 mm OS can easily compete with the best ‘primes’, being one of the sharpest zooms we’ve ever handled."
Wish this was smaller. I have the Tokina 50-135 f2.8. I love the lens size (smaller than a 70-200 f4) and range, but really miss stabilization. Hopefully Tokina brings this lens back into production, and adds IS when they do.
tr1957 wrote:
Wish this was smaller. I have the Tokina 50-135 f2.8. I love the lens size (smaller than a 70-200 f4) and range, but really miss stabilization. Hopefully Tokina brings this lens back into production, and adds IS when they do.
Tokina make nice lenses, but they are stuck in the dark ages. Still no version of USM, still no version of IS, still using that clutch mechanism for MF and I don't think any of them offer FTM, and lenses just weigh a ton. Just look at their 70-200 f/4, 300g heavier than the competition, yet no IS.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Tokina make nice lenses, but they are stuck in the dark ages. Still no version of USM, still no version of IS, still using that clutch mechanism for MF and I don't think any of them offer FTM, and lenses just weigh a ton. Just look at their 70-200 f/4, 300g heavier than the competition, yet no IS.
Still, between Tokina 50-135 and the old (non-OS) Sigma 50-150, would Tokina receive the nod? The new Sigma 50-150 OS is just too big and heavy for me to like it.
Newtonite wrote:
Still, between Tokina 50-135 and the old (non-OS) Sigma 50-150, would Tokina receive the nod? The new Sigma 50-150 OS is just too big and heavy for me to like it.
probably neither these days. Yep Sigma seems to have slapped the 50-150 optics in a 70-200 shell and offers only the benefit of being 20mm wider and the Tokina well still has all those faults even if a smaller lens.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Tokina make nice lenses, but they are stuck in the dark ages. Still no version of USM, still no version of IS, still using that clutch mechanism for MF and I don't think any of them offer FTM, and lenses just weigh a ton. Just look at their 70-200 f/4, 300g heavier than the competition, yet no IS.
Whayne , that new f4 does have IS and a Ring USM type AF motor
from the tokina Japan web site
Telephoto zoom lens in which it is mounted for the first time, a ring-type ultrasonic motor and image stabilization mechanism as Tokina. (MF possible by turning the focus ring in AF mode), equipped with image stabilization mechanism of four stages shutter speed fast and full-time manual AF
I agree though that Tokina is mostly old tech but the glass is generally very good . I do think they are going to struggle in the 3rd party sector with anything other than their niche lenses , which in general are the excellent crop and FF UWA's
But if they could stick a crop 2.8 50-150 type lens into the FF f4 size barrell (or get something close) with IS and USM they may have another niche
. Even more so now I have the 120-300/2.8 (although its a bit on the large heavy side to be considered a walk about option 
If I had been choosing a lens now, I would've probably still gotten a 70-200 (brand, Sigma, or Tamron), if only for the unlikely event of moving to FF.