Sigma lens set

thefilmaddict

thefilmaddict

Veteran
I was thinking about getting just these three lenses to work together:

Sigma art 18-35
Sigma art 50-100
Sigma 150-600 contemporary

Thoughts?
 
Sigma 150 600 SPORTS is way better than the contemporary, a bit heavy, Sigma 18-35 is a good lens. Though I sold it because 18-35 is a bit short. Both worked well on FS7 with mc-11.


I liked the build quality too.
 
Last edited:
I have two of those lenses (the 18-35 and the 150-600) and I'm familiar with the 50-100.

The 18-35 is a fantastic lens, and the only lens that I truly miss now that I'm moved to primarily FF cameras. It's sharp, fast, solid, and it feels decent to focus with manually. The range is limited but that forces you to be a little more creative with your options, and on APS-C/S35 sensors I think 35mm is a really versatile focal length.

The 50-100, from what I've heard from friends who own the lens, has similar optical quality to the 18-35 (which is to say, excellent). But I can't comment personally.

The 150-600 is a great value for an extreme telephoto lens, but it won't blow you away. At 600mm it's a bit soft, and even at 400mm it isn't quite as sharp as the Sigma 100-400mm (at least in my comparisons—I used to own the 100-400, and I kinda regret switching to the 150-600).

Unless you think you need the extra reach I'd suggest the 100-400 over the 150-600. But this all depends on your needs and use.
 
What would you use the 150-600 for? My Canon 70-200 barely gets much use these days!

The 18-35/50-100 are both amazing value and highly recommended.

What if you spent the $899 on a low budget film project? It'd be a great video for your channel and you could definitely pull it off with your awesome lighting skills.
 
Thanks, guys. It sounds like the 18-35 is universally loved and the 50-100 should be good (the only negatives I have heard about the 50-100 was the weight, no IS and some color fringing). As far as the 150-600, I was looking for a lens to shoot wildlife and the moon. I heard that the sport version is better, but it's more money than I wanted to spend. I figured getting the 150-600 from Sigma would be good because it would match the look of the other lenses better than if I buy from a different manufacturer. Am I wrong? For the price of the Sigma 150-600, is there a lens that's better for the same money?

Thanks for the comment on my lighting. It's certainly something I love doing. When my son finally gets vaccinated, I definitely look forward to shooting a short film. Until then, I'm getting into wildlife stuff and I thought the Sigma 150-600 would be a good economical start?
 
I have the 18-35mm and like others have mentioned it is a great lens. The only "fault" would be that it doesn't cover FF.

As for the 50-100mm, if I recall the only negatives I remember hearing about when it was released was the weight and the lens breathing. If you search for "Sigma 50-100mm lens breathing" on YouTube or Vimeo, you should be able to see several examples of it. That may not matter to you, but I just wanted to mention it because I hadn't seen it mentioned in this thread yet, and I know some people are pretty particular about not wanting to use lenses with a certain amount of lens breathing.
 
I didn't know about the wildlife shooting. Just like the other two, the sigma 150-600 seems like great value. I can't comment on the differences between the two versions.

The importance of matching is personal. Unless we're talking about specialty lenses, I personally don't think mixing various brands matters at all for low budget projects.

The material captured with extreme telephoto lenses is likely to be completely different to what you'd shoot with the other two lenses. Any variation in lens character will be less apparent compared to shooting the same subject e.g. actor with two different brand lenses closer in focal length like a 35mm/50mm.

I doubt there's a better option at that price than the sigma anyway.
 
18-35 should be in everyone's kit if they shoot S35. The 50-100 is a nice lens but it breathes considerably if you pull focus during a shot. If that is not a concern then it is a nice lens as well.
 
rob norton said:
The importance of matching is personal. Unless we're talking about specialty lenses, I personally don't think mixing various brands matters at all for low budget projects.
Click to expand...

I don't think that lenses from the same brand match each other anyway. Canon L lenses, for example, can look pretty different from each other. That was sort of the point of the Samyang Cine line - to match across the line just like Cine lenses do. And I would imagine that Art lenses and Contemporary lenses might diverge even more if they're intentionally given different coatings as opposed to a different generation of the same coating design as I assume is the case with Canon L.

But I mean, Kubrick mixed different lens lines within a scene all the time, probably because there wasn't a matching lens to be found with the characteristics he needed for the shot.
 
A 70-200 would be far more useful than the 150-600. I would also suggest that everybody own a 70-200.

The 50-100 is a perfectly good match for the 18-35mm, but the lens breathing is extraordinary. It is actually closer to a 75-150 at close focus. Any type of rack focus creates a noticeable frame shift that looks abnormal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top