Sigma 50-150 F2.8 lens review...

A

alaskacameradude

Veteran
I promised in another thread that I would soon have my review for this lens up on my blog.
It is now live. Go to my website at www.gforcevideo.com and click on the 'blog' link.
Yeah, I know, I have an FS100, but I think this lens would be great for all you AF100
owners as well.......if you can find one (they are discontinued in favor of the bigger,
heavier model.)
 
Last edited:
AF100 owner, recently bought a used Nikon-mount Sig 50-150, I can safely say... yes, this combo is freaking marvelous. Great for reframing interviews on the fly.

Plus, saying the focal range makes Van Halen tunes coalesce in my head.
 
Your review is spot on. I bought my nikon mt 50-150 sigma right after I got my af 100. The only downside is that sometimes 50mm for the AF 100 is a bit too much telephoto to get the shot you want when you are in tight interiors. I haven't used the lumix 35-100 yet, but I can tell you its the absolute sweet spot in lens range for doing interviews, but of course its alot more expensive than the sigma. The sigma feels like a cinema lens.
 
alaskacameradude said:
Nice, did it take you long to find one? It took me a month or so, but I'm glad I waited, just a sweet combo with a big sensor cam.
Click to expand...

Guess I got lucky... was looking for something in this range, read up on the stats, and then found a Nikon mount version locally available for $500

Pairing this with the Leicasonic 14-50 covers an awfully nice range. Buck's correct in 50mm sometimes being a bit much, especially if the talent is on prompter, if there's minimal space, or similar distance-limiting scenarios. For interview situations in tight spaces where I still want to blur out the background, I opt instead for a superspeed 17.5, 25, or 35 prime.

If there's ample space, however, the extra 50 on the long end is wonderful. Especially nice for events, sports, procedural and architectural details, incredibly intimate closeups, etc. It actually focuses closer than the 35-100. Its 300mm FOV is my practical limit for handholding/shoulderholding, and if I need longer reach, it even works well with inexpensive Nikon 1.4x and 2x tele-extenders.

The 35-100/2.8 is a fantastic lens, but after renting one, I just wasn't moved. Working with it and the 12-35, my style didn't jibe with the focal length break... I kept feeling the need to change lenses or get a little more reach. I'd rather have that extra 15mm on my short zoom, using it a majority of the time, and then have the 50mm extra reach when I knew I'd be needing the longer lens. Having the ability to mark and execute repeatable focus on the 50-150 is a huge plus also... especially since the longer lens is where I need it most. My only lament is that I'd like functional OIS, but it's not $1000 worth of lament.
 
At the end of your review, you mentioned the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 as an alternative. I have the earliest version of that lens in Nikon mount, and it has two major advantages over Sigma's more recent offerings. The official designation of this lens is the "Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX APO IF HSM" and a short review and photo can be seen here:

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Sigma-70-200-F2.8-EX-APO-IF_lens141.html

Even more so than the Sigma 50-150mm, this is a lens that should be mounted on a tripod or rails. The advantage of the 70-200mm is its built-in, rotating tripod collar, which the 50-150mm lacks. For AF100 shooters, however, the major asset of this particular Nikon model is its manual aperture ring, which is not found on any of Sigma's more recent versions. Sigma's cryptic naming conventions make it difficult to positively identify the manual-aperture version of this lens - it is the one that is non-DG, non-OS, and not the "II" version!

A rare virtue that is shared by all variants of theses lenses is the APO designation, which is a major factor in bokeh quality. It means that the lens is apochromatic, without noticeable green-magenta color shift outside of its in-focus depth of field. Photozone has a review of a later model of the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 which explores this subtle lens property in detail:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/763-sigmaex7020028os?start=1
 
The early non-OS 50-150 doesn't need rails, so its lack of tripod collar is a non-issue. Likewise a Novoflex adapter (or its non-union Chinese equivalent Fotodiox/Rainbow/etc) mostly solves the aperture ring issue, with the exception that you can't be certain what aperture you're in at any time unless wide open.

Since a Fotodiox adapter is cheap enough to get one per Nikon-G lens, I'm working on calibrating mine and adding markings for the lens' f-stops to solve that minor problem. Fairly easy with the AF's ability to read out exposure IRE... just point it at a solid wall.

The extra reach of a 70-200 is nice, but overkill for what I typically need and cumbersome with its need for rails.
 
Last edited:
mcbob said:
Since a Fotodiox adapter is cheap enough to get one per Nikon-G lens, I'm working on calibrating mine and adding markings for the lens' f-stops to solve that minor problem.
Click to expand...
I have a Fotodiox adapter and several Nikon G lenses without aperture rings, but I find the combination intolerable on the AF100. The mechanical aperture levers in Nikon G lenses were never designed for direct manual control and the frustratingly short range of adjustment on the adapter ring makes it unrealistic to hope for anything close to repeatable, calibrated aperture settings. I know some find the compromised operation of these adapters to be usable, but I don't see how they can ever be an adequate substitute for a lens with a genuine built-in aperture ring.
 
The Fotodiox adapter is indeed a bit crap from the factory... mine was a touch rough, the ball detents were in the wrong positions, and the lever slot was incorrectly clocked and wouldn't allow me to fully open the iris. Luckily, it's infinitely improvable with a little dremel work to remove the detents and elongate the lever slot. Very short range on its aperture ring throw, yes, but as I just completed this evening, a little bit of calibrated marks and engraving it's repeatable.

I locked the camera down at a bare wall exposed so that it was neither too bright nor too dark, and took spot IRE values with 5 lenses (a 50, 60, 90, 100, and a 135) at each of their major f-stops from 2.8-16 or 22, and got the average value. There wasn't a whole lot of deviation, so I proceeded with confidence. Fitted the 50-150 with its adapter, dialed in each of the IRE values, and pencil marked the adapter at its appropriate f-stop. Engrave, a touch of white paint, and voila... marked repeatable f-stops, declicked and non-drifting. No, the marks aren't very far apart at all... but it's repeatable.

Yes, a proper iris ring is ideal... won't argue with you there... But the rest of the lens fits my needs perfectly and this deficiency was easy enough to work around.
 
lpowell said:
At the end of your review, you mentioned the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 as an alternative. I have the earliest version of that lens in Nikon mount, and it has two major advantages over Sigma's more recent offerings. The official designation of this lens is the "Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX APO IF HSM" and a short review and photo can be seen here:

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Sigma-70-200-F2.8-EX-APO-IF_lens141.html

Even more so than the Sigma 50-150mm, this is a lens that should be mounted on a tripod or rails. The advantage of the 70-200mm is its built-in, rotating tripod collar, which the 50-150mm lacks. For AF100 shooters, however, the major asset of this particular Nikon model is its manual aperture ring, which is not found on any of Sigma's more recent versions. Sigma's cryptic naming conventions make it difficult to positively identify the manual-aperture version of this lens - it is the one that is non-DG, non-OS, and not the "II" version!

A rare virtue that is shared by all variants of theses lenses is the APO designation, which is a major factor in bokeh quality. It means that the lens is apochromatic, without noticeable green-magenta color shift outside of its in-focus depth of field. Photozone has a review of a later model of the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 which explores this subtle lens property in detail:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/763-sigmaex7020028os?start=1
Click to expand...

I must admit, I wrote this from the perspective if a FS100 owner so I must apologize for
some possible misunderstandings. On the FS100 the canon mount version with metabones
adapter works perfectly with the cameras built in iris wheel and displays fstop numbers in
the LCD screen so no need for a manual iris ring. It's small and light enough there is no
need for rails or lens support and the 50/wide end of the lens is a bit wider on the FS100
then on the AF100. But I still thought it might be valuable for AF100 owners as it seems
so much nicer than most still lenses for video. However stay tuned as I hope to have a
review of a 28-105 f2.8 tamron up next week....would that one be better on the AF100??
 
I would be interested in a Tamron 28-105 review, sharpness,parafocal?,smoothness of zoom and focus.
 
Ok, I just got two last minute jobs so it will take a couple days. It's not quite as nice as the 50-150
from a mechanics side of it, but a really nice lens with a good range at f2.8!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top