Reviews and Problems with Sigma APO 50-150mm F2.8 II EX DC HSM
Showing 1-10 of 42
Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 II EX DC HSM APO review by hamdala
4 January 2015
Summary: Bought my copy new in 2010 from B&H just before they went out of stock. Would have liked the Pentax 50 -135mm but that was just too expensive in New Zealand. Also worried about the reported SDM failure rate with the Pentax. Unlike the tested copy here, mine is almost perfect at 50mm straight from F2.8 (as good as my Pentax A50 F1.7mm prime). Progressively softens off towards the top right hand corner as it is zoomed out.
Pros: Very good build quality Manual focus over ride
Summary: I really wanted the Sigma 70-200mm lens for my Nikon D5100, but I was short on both money and time, and i was not impressed with Tamron's lens, so I got this instead. I actually like this lens better, because the reach is just right! A lot of my portraits are taken between 50 and 85mm. If I want more zoom than my DX camera already offers (an effective 75-225mm), I can simply crop the photo. I took one candid shot in the street and I was instantly in love with this Sigma!
Summary: I just purchased this lens from 42nd St. Photo to go with my Canon 60d. I am more than pleased. Ralph the salesman suggested I have it calibrated for a $39.95 charge. I let them and boy am I pleased especially after reading your reviews concerning the focus issue. The one thing I found out later is you can buy a USB doc calibration tool for Sigma to do it yourself. The lens is tack sharp and I have no complaints so far.
Summary: To preface, I wanted/needed a 2.8 constant aperture zoom lens that I could use in both Auto and Manual modes with my D5100, as well as my D90. For the Auto feature to work with the D5100, that requires a lens with a motor. For me this Sigma 50-150 was a bit of a compromise lens, in two ways.
Summary: Professional photographers wouldn't be without their $2,500 70-200 f/2.8 zoom for theater and sports, and this is the DX version (equivalent to FX 75-225 mm) at a fraction of the price and weight. Focusing is quick, quiet and accurate (I've had none of the problems reported by some reviewers), there is a motor in the lens so it works on all current Nikon DX DSLRs, with instant focus override, though the focus ring is reversed compared with Nikon lenses.
Summary: This lens received a 9 in overall rating at POPPHOTO.com, leading the pack in this zoom range for a while when it came out in terms of sharpness and versatility. [....] Of course as has been mentioned, the close focusing issue is subjective to your particular lens. I've had no issues thus far on a new Canon T3i; sharpness is spot on, AF is quick and quiet, and its weight/package is ideal. Great lens for cropped sensor cams.
Summary: While many lustfully wish for a 70-200 2.8 but not it's price tag--getting such overlooks a big advantage of the DX format -- SIZE. A large aperture tele-zoom is a bear to carry around, and the price means one must be at the very least, very committed to photography. This lens finally addresses DX users and provides an effective 35mm focal length of 75-225 at a constant f/2.8. This allows for low light use, portability, and great shallow depth of field.
Summary: The 50-150 range is an effective 70-225 range on the aps-c sensor. That range is really great for portraits, photojournalism, and live music. The constant 2.8 aperature makes the lens super fast, even when zoomed all the way in to 150mm. This lens has wonderful optics and produces a beautiful bokeh. Compared to the nikon 70-200, this is a steal. To get nit picky, it could really benefit from VR. Other than that it is a fantastic low light performer.
Summary: With the acquisition of the 18MP Canon 60D I knew I needed to upgrade my lenses and had vowed to stick to Canon this time. Hwever, they don't make a lens like the Sigma 50-150mm - it has the zoom range I'm looking for with a constant f/2.8 aperture, without weighing a ton and the reviews are great. BUT... The first one front-focussed so badly that I could not use it on Auto Focus unless the aperture was small enough that the discrpancy didn't matter.