C300: Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 - How hard to find a good copy? Or is there such a thing?

Jim Feeley

Jim Feeley

Veteran
So I've read up on the various versions of the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 lens. Intriguing focal length for a C300 (where it would reside for now), but such wildly varying opinions. Some people here and elsewhere like it a lot (and there seems to be a bit more love for the non-OS version, right?). Some really don't like this guy:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50-150mm-f-2.8-II-EX-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

So what's the deal, especially if I'd mostly be using it on sticks (or perhaps monopod) and manually focusing?
Were there quality-control issues with some units working well and others just barely working?
For those of you who have used one, how does it hold up, how well does it manual focus?
Are the supposed softness issues more of an issue for stills as opposed to video (and let's toss in 4K in addition to HD here)?
Do you need to stop down a lot to get a good image?

Is it worth trying to chase down one of these, or am I likely to find mainly not-great units?
Does it become a "specialty" lens with flaws that are occasionally endearing, or can it be a go-to lens for a compact kit?

Why do I care? I find the 70-200 to be not quite wide enough for some work.

Thanks a bunch!
 
I love mine. Absolutely amazing lens. I used it on a C100 and an 80D. Sticks or monopod definitely helps though I use it hand held all the time in concert environments. I have had a lot of success doing it...but I can say...its not easy. It took me a second to really get it down and it takes a decent amount of strength...especially when using it for hours without a break.

Like anything, you adjust...and get better because of it. Now my shots look fairly solid and totally passable. When I need a break, I throw it on a monopod and there are zero problems.

Its sharp as a tack...really nice wide open. Butter smooth focus ring. It breathes like a b$%@h...but as long as you don't to any insane racks....its totally fine. Never been a problem.

You will love it. Definitely some magic going on with that lens.
 
Interesting. Thanks.

Which model/version of the 50-150 do you have? With OS or without? If without original or mkII (or are their others?).

And did you buy new or used?
 
Jim Feeley said:
Interesting. Thanks.

Which model/version of the 50-150 do you have? With OS or without? If without original or mkII (or are their others?).

And did you buy new or used?
Click to expand...

I'm a Sony shooter and its one of my favorite lenses (the 18-35 F1.8 being the other.)
I wrote a blog post about this lens about 4 years ago. It's rumored that the Red 50-150
zoom is a rehoused Sigma 50-150. I've got the older, smaller, non OS version.
http://alaskacameradude.blogspot.com/2013/01/sigma-50-150-f28-lens.html
 
Ya Gabe, I found your post earlier. Helpful! Interesting that you're still using and liking the lens.

Any thoughts on Bryan Carnathan's issues in his review that I link to in the first post here?
A bad-batch problem they fixed? NBD when operating manually?
 
Jim Feeley said:
Ya Gabe, I found your post earlier. Helpful! Interesting that you're still using and liking the lens.

Any thoughts on Bryan Carnathan's issues in his review that I link to in the first post here?
A bad-batch problem they fixed? NBD when operating manually?
Click to expand...

So kind of hard to know, this is the only one I've ever owned,
I bought it used from B&H as it was listed in 10+ condition for
$550. Maybe I just got lucky and got a good copy. Of course,
being a Sony shooter, I'm not using autofocus and it doesn't have
OS, so there is that. I'm sorry, as I can't say how the autofocus
would work, I'd love to test it with a Canon C100 or 300 with dual
pixel autofocus! But great focal range for interviews and much lighter
than something like a Canon 70-200 F2.8. I still use this lens a ton.
One thing is he is obviously looking at it from a still shooters point of
view it seems, and I've always felt this may be one of those lenses that
is actually better for motion than stills.
 
i have Sigma EX 50-150 2.8 APO DC HSM. i got with no AF working from ebay for like 150 usd. and i dont need AF so its great for me. its the cheapest constant zoom i could ever find. So its great in that way. but its not perfect one.

the lens has its problems: HUGE breathing, like all zooms it gets just a little darker on the end, has some chroma issues. its sharp enough, image looks good, still has F2.8 "constant". Parfocal - well yes i could say i may call it parfocal, at least its very very close...

but i must tell that lets say for interview 50-150 is not enough... 150 will not give the close up to an eyes for example or else when u need to show a critical close up to an emotion... i would say u would need 200 or even more!
I would say its not great for run and gun with c300, as 50 its already hard to handhold steady, but then 150 is almost impossible. i use it on tripod

length of focus throw is a quoter of circle!

in general the lens is great for its price - would say its a still ! i prefer to close it to F3.5, easier for me to focus....

u should know that correcting that lens if u got it with not working AF - is possible but economically not worth it, too expansive. its not a dust and split proof, and after some time the dust that is collected inside will damage the electronic cord/ flat plume (not sure how its in english), its hard to find and not cheap to buy and + its costly to disassemble that lens ... so i would say if u find 1 with not working AF , dont bother to correct it.

still if u are on a budget and need a zoom - its great one

70 - 200 , 70 - to much already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top