Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC OS

Ok, lots of debating going on here!

My original plan ...

Keep: Canon 135mm, 100mm IS macro, Sigma 85mm, Sigma 17-50mm
Sell: Canon 100-400mm, 70-200mm f4 IS, 200mm f2.8 II, 50mm 1.8 II
Buy: Used 70-200mm f2.8 IS II & used 2x III

Now, after seeing the post that the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 EX DC OS is available I am comtemplating this idea ...

Keep: Canon 100-400mm and others mentioned above
Sell: Canon 70-200mm f4 IS, 200mm 2.8 II & 50mm 1.8 II
Buy: Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 EX DC OS

Second scenerio would give me more $ in my pocket in the end and still allow me to a variety of scenerios (birds, portraits, fast moving dogs & grandkids). If worse comes to worse, I can always sell the 135mm &/or 85mm down the road and still be well covered lengthwise just not so much for low light.

Questions:

If at some point, I still decide to get an extender, are the new Canon extenders compatible with the Sigma? If they are, would it be better IQ to use a Sigma extender on a Sigma lens? Anyone here use the Sigma extenders?

Opinions on Option #1 vs. Option #2 welcomed especially opinions on the Sigma 50-150mm IQ.

Thanks Much!
Denise

Hi, maybe you could consider something like this:

Keep 17-50 and 70-200/4 as a good general purpose zoom kit.

The short telephoto primes 85, 100, 135 are a bit redundant, it could be an idea to keep only one of them. I would say the 100 macro (to cover also the macro stuff).

For longer ranges / large apertures it could be a good idea to keep the 200/2.8 and add an extender to it. (I understand you want the 70-200/2.8 II, but it will mainly be used at 200/2.8 so you might as well stick with the much more handy prime.)

When it comes to the 50/1.8 you might as well keep it. It's a good lens (IQ-wise) but you won't get much if you sell it.

So, sell 135, Sigma 85, 100-400 and buy an extender. That would be my suggestion for unlocking some cash while keeping a good lens lineup.

Denise,

Are you sure you want to sell the 100-400? I see you post a lot of wild life pics.

I'd agree the 85, 100, and 135 appear to be redundant. Maybe you should sell the 85?

Then keep 17-50 for wide to normal, 100 for macro, 135 for amazing performance and bokeh (I couldn't be too biased on that one, could I?), and 100-400 for wildlife.

Dave

The Sigma 85mm is one of my favorite lenses ...focal length worked perfect and great in low light but ...true, maybe it is time for it to go.

Hi Denise, I am unfamilar with the 50-150, but it sounds a very usable zoom for what you like to shoot, wildlife and portraits.
The 135mm may be a little redundant in your line up, definitely keep the 100-400 and the 100mm IS and the 85mm in my opinion. The f/1.4 is difficult to replace but the 135mmf/2 is matched by the 100mm IS and I would think the 50-150 OS would perform very well.

I think Steve's right in that one of the of 3 of 85, 100, and 135 would probably need to go. Which one would depend on what you like to shoot the most. It'd make sense to keep the macro and sell whichever one you use least of 85 or 135... or if you're trying to save some cash sell either the 85/135 and then sell the 100L macro and replace it with a lower cost macro.

Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Throgmartin

I think Steve's right in that one of the of 3 of 85, 100, and 135 would probably need to go. Which one would depend on what you like to shoot the most. It'd make sense to keep the macro and sell whichever one you use least of 85 or 135... or if you're trying to save some cash sell either the 85/135 and then sell the 100L macro and replace it with a lower cost macro.

Dave

---

I just sold the Canon 100mm IS macro and the Sigma 85mm alittle while ago. I figured as much as I loved the 85mm, I didn't really NEED it and I am hoping to pick up a cheaper non-Canon macro. My house is surrounded by my flower gardens and butterfly bushes that are all about to bloom ...I NEED a macro lens!

I really have a lens deciding migraine going on!

Ok, all of you know I sold my 100L IS macro for the purpose of downgrading on that lens ...gotta love how life takes those unexpected turns! You can keep up to date on that saga in another thread.

I also sold my all time favorite lens, my Sigma 85mm 1.4 & my Canon 70-200mm f/4 & my Canon 200mm 2.8L II. Today, I received the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 OS hoping it would magically replace the above (200mm was a tad to long for me anyway and f/4 wasn't working for me most of the time).

I haven't really had much quality time to spend with the Sigma 50-150mm but I have attempted some hodge-podge micro-adjusting on it and am at +7. Tomorrow I will be able to try some real life shots set at this and see how it fairs. Other than that, I like the feel of it. The OS has a click sound that takes a small amount of getting used to but my 70-200mm was slightly more annoying. I know I am going to prefer having f2.8 in this range as opposed to the f4 on the 70-200mm. Wisconsin is some what of a gloomy state more often than the sun shines so I would rarely grab the 70-200mm for outside shots even on cloudy days. Of course, it will not be as sharp as the 70-200mm but I wasn't expecting it to be. Nor will the buttery out of focus background come close to that of the 200mm 2.8L II. But I am hoping IQ will still be good and that it will focus quickly and accurately. It seems to focus quickly but the real test will be my dogs and granddaughters tomorrow if it doesn't rain!

But, it in no way comes close to being my favorite like the Sigma 85mm and I will eventually sell a kidney to get that lens back!

Hopefully, tomorrow I will have some somewhat decent photos to post taken with the Sigma 50-150mm if I ever get it micro-adjusted accurately!

The lens does pretty good at 150mm but not so well at about 50-100mm. The photos are not as sharp in that range a great deal of the time. I am at a +7 at 150mm which seems to work (testing done with just real life trial and error) but I am having a tough time finding what works at 50-100mm to find a happy medium. I don't think it is a MA issue in that range. Bad copy? Maybe. Just soft in that range? Could be. So do I, A) return the lens to B&H for another copy and maybe end up with worse, maybe better or B) Send it to Sigma?

Here is a photo I took today at 150mm

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5234/7...8b8364bc_z.jpg
IMG_1189 by Denise Trocio ( www.dtrociophotography.com), on Flickr

Not bad! Considering this is the uncropped version...
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7080/7...541055b5_z.jpg
IMG_1189_uncropped by Denise Trocio ( www.dtrociophotography.com), on Flickr

I can't even crop that much out of a photo with my 100-400mm and end up with a keeper!

So, I am torn as to what to do with the lens. Anyone else ever have this sort of issue with a zoom?

That seems fantastic for what you are asking of it at that range but that shot is more suited to your 100-400. The way to make your mind up is to shoot at the intended range you bought it for and then work out if you are happy. It sure looks sharp for a large crop that you showed as an example. But if you are not happywith it at 50-135 then it isn't good enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve U

That seems fantastic for what you are asking of it at that range but that shot is more suited to your 100-400. The way to make your mind up is to shoot at the intended range you bought it for and then work out if you are happy. It sure looks sharp for a large crop that you showed as an example. But if you are not happywith it at 50-135 then it isn't good enough.

---

Oh, I know this isn't what it is suppose to be used for. I was at a park using the lens at its intended range and just shot this right before putting my 100-400mm on my camera. Overall, I know it is not a birding lens that should be used for such distant shots and would never intentionally take a shot that would need this much cropping.

I would like it to be this sharp from 50-100mm. Some of my shots are ok at all ranges but some are less so. I think maybe I will keep it but send it to Sigma to be looked at and see if it can be improved on in the shorter range or maybe I am just expecting too much out of it.