Archive 2008 · Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 first version vs newer II version

diggitydawg510
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 first version vs newer II version

What's the difference between the older 50-150 and the newer 50-150 II? is there a significant difference?

Apr 22, 2008 at 11:48 AM

sunethjayalath
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 first version vs newer II version

I also like to know the differences in these two lenses. I've heard that in the first version there is a front focusing issues. Is it corrected in this version?

Apr 24, 2008 at 05:16 AM

diggitydawg510
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 first version vs newer II version

I went on ahead and purchased the 2nd version. so far it ROCKS on my D300.

Apr 24, 2008 at 01:45 PM

Etienne Otero
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 first version vs newer II version

no difference between versions except the addition of Sony and Pentax mount, everything else is the same. Sigma has also (supposedly) taken care of QC for the second version. I have the first version and am very happy with it on my D300 as well.

May 10, 2008 at 08:50 PM

Kuan
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 first version vs newer II version

I think II has some new coatings minimum focus of 1m is constant throughout the zoom range. Also, some say sharpness at f2.8 is better on the II at 150mm.

I'm probably going to pick up the new version although its quite a bit more expensive.

May 11, 2008 at 12:48 AM

MagicNikon
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 first version vs newer II version

I'm returnig my 50-150mm 2.8 II. I tried the first version a year and a half ago when it first came out. I actually tried two copies, but it was too soft at 150mm 2.8 and not much better til 5.6. I decided to give Sigma the benefit of the doubt, and ordered the new version last week. I was pretty dissappointed with it, to say the least. Still softish at 150mm 2.8. So it goes back too.

I bit the bullet and bought the 70-200mm 2.8 VR. Its what I always wanted anyway.

Edited on May 16, 2008 at 01:48 PM

May 16, 2008 at 01:47 PM

julian45
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 first version vs newer II version

I have tried both versions and seen extensive results from each. I own version II.

Comparing the two versions on the a number of bodies I found the the images were significantly sharper on version ll due to three reasons-:

Images with version II had more focus accuracy.

Images of version I are bad - had more CA and was generally softer when in focus especially at the long end.

But also strangely focus was bad in low light with version I - much more hunting.

Also until recently there was no option for on camera fine tuning such is available for the d300 or 5Dii so the images would have always looked soft especially at the long end where image needs more fine tune - near the maximum tune on my d300.

At least my copy makes great wedding photography - when the fine tune is correct - lousy images with a body with no fine tune such as a d90. Tight portraits are quite sharp at 2.8 @ 150mm and images at the wide end are really really sharp.

Julian Meehan

Serendipity Media

Melbourne, Malvern East

a

Apr 26, 2009 at 07:13 AM


FM Forums \| Leica & Alternative Gear \| Join Upload & Sell

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.