Sigma 50-150 2.8?

punchdrunk · 19-05-2008 9:28pm #1

anyone tried this?
I liked the Nikon 18-200 VR in theory but i wasn't too gone on the shots I got from it

i've got the Nikon 17-35 2.8 and it's great,but I've no tele lens
I want a sharp lens i can use without flash or tripod
i refuse to lug around a 70-200 2.8 cause i'm a little wuss!
this 50-150 looks good on paper though
anyone tried it out?

seems to be a big gap between the budget Tele's and the foot long 2.8 monsters this and the Tokina 70-135 2.8 look like my only real options?

punchdrunk · 20-05-2008 9:05am

has anyone tried this lens?
...maybe even a lowly Canon user tried this?

Thirdfox · 20-05-2008 9:21am

Heard good things about it - if it only had OS too (Optical stabilisation) - would have been a great upgrade from my 55-200vr

punchdrunk · 20-05-2008 9:48am

yeah OS would be nice,but would probably put it out of my price range!

I'm wondering about the 1.4 extender too
hmmm...

Fajitas! · 20-05-2008 9:52am

I've not used it, but it did get very good reviews.

punchdrunk · 20-05-2008 9:58am

guess I'll be the Guinea Pig so!

pete4130 · 20-05-2008 11:14am

I had the 50-150 2.8 on my D200 and it was brilliant. Sharp, fast focus and I can't really fault it at all. Sold it when I got the D3 as it was a DX lens. Here are a few shots I took with it so you can see for yourself.

punchdrunk · 20-05-2008 12:12pm

Pete,stunning shots!
well thats settled,D300 and one of these on the way!

now i need to work on the family getting me the grip for my Bday at the end of June

Thirdfox · 20-05-2008 5:51pm

You might find it just a tad short though (I know I wish my 55-200vr was like the 70-300 or even the 55-250is Canon have).

punchdrunk · 20-05-2008 6:06pm

yeah thats why i'm thinking i'll add the 1.4 converter to it down the road,that gives 210mm F4

Thirdfox · 20-05-2008 6:11pm

I even find 200mm a bit short (and that's 300mm equivalent on FX!)

Maybe I'm just too spoiled

punchdrunk · 20-05-2008 6:15pm

...I'll just have to zoom with me legs!

pete4130 · 20-05-2008 6:52pm

I did find it a wee bit too short but nothing that was too bad to handle. I thought it was heavy until I bought a 70-200 2.8....the 50-150 seemed light in comparison then. I used the Sigma 18-50 as well on the D200 and that was a cracking lens too!

punchdrunk · 20-05-2008 8:47pm

yeah i'm think that tele converter will be a must down the line

one of the lads got the new sigma 18-50 and he loves it,but with the 17-35 2.8 and a 50 1.4 i think i'm sorted at the mid range
a little wider would be nice too eventually

Sigma 50-150 2.8?

Comments