Sigma 50-150 2.8 is great

cunparis · December 29, 2006

Hi recently got the 50-150. First copy front focus horribly, visible even viewed on screen (without zooming in). Second copy is near perfect. Focal point is just a bit towards the back end of DoF but it's ever so slight and it helps to blur the background so I don't mind. I think most people who think their lens is soft at 150 2.8 really have focus issues. Even mine that front focused, I noticed that the subject's eyes would be soft but the ring on her finger would be incredibly sharp to use an example. The lens is very sharp at 150 2.8 *IF* if focuses correctly. I wish Sigma would get their quality control together.

You'll find samples from my 2nd copy here, all 100% crops (about half the image) taken at 150 2.8 (maybe a few at 100mm in there but I don't think so):

http://www.advweb.com/tmp/50-150_2/2/

Also, the min focus distance is 1m but that's for 50mm. At 150mm it will front focus at 1m and that is "normal" for this lens (that's just how it is). I find at 1.5m the focus is fine. Sometimes I like to shoot real tightly cropped portraits so I have to watch out for that so I'm not too close.

You can see here a focus chart comparison of copy 1 vs copy 2:

http://www.advweb.com/tmp/50-150_2/1/

however note that since I'm at the min focus distance (1m) the test is NOT valid. The first copy front focused on 100% of my portraits from any distance so there is no doubt it was defective.

If you want to try one, I strongly suggest ordering from a company with a very liberal return policy. Amazon is the best that I know of (and cheapest) with B&H being second. There are a few reviews at Amazon:

Nikon version:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000HPMP6A/104-8704416-8739922?ie=UTF8&tag=advanwebamazocom&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=B000HPMP6A

Canon version:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000HPOQKS/104-8704416-8739922?ie=UTF8&tag=advanwebamazocom&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=B000HPOQKS

Returning mine was a breeze with amazon and I didn't have to pay shipping charges.

Let me know if you have any questions about the lens.

-Michael

thw · December 29, 2006

Hi there
Hello there, David Banner from DPReview.

So, you have multiple personalities too?

HeldDown · December 29, 2006

In my humble opinion, these shots back up the opinion I formed by testing 2 seperate copies of this lens: wide open, it is HORRIBLY soft. Absolutely inexusable quality in all my experiences.

Just my opinion though.

Matthew Saville · December 30, 2006

Hello everybody,

My opinion of the 50-150 is up on my Smugmug, you can find it here:

http://matthewsaville.smugmug.com/gallery/1998578

And for those who are interested, here's a comparison grid between the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM Macro, the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 EX DC APO HSM, and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM Macro:

http://matthewsaville.smugmug.com/gallery/1998578/2/119351767/Original
This test grid is shot at 150mm and 1M distance, to bring out the worst in the zooms and convince myself that I still need the prime.

The lens is indeed dissapointingly soft at 150mm and close distances. (Although, I must mention and you will notice that it is some odd sort of "artistic" softness- as if a soft focus filter has been applied. It's not flat-out blurry, and so I think that with some strong contrast or other artistic processing, I could get away with using these shots no problem.)

Luckily, other than that my copy is perfectly sharp in all other conditions; I just shot two weddings and a children's play with great results. You can get close to the 1M minimum if you're shooting at 50-100mm, but try to stop down to f/4 andd f/5.6 as you approach 150mm. Near infinity my copy is great at all focal lengths, luckily.

I highly recommend this lens to any who need the particular field of view, and already know they won't be able to afford the $1200+ that the DX VR answer from Nikon will cost.

Also to consider will be the Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 DX, which should be released this spring. Since Tokina played things a little more conservative and didn't try to sqeeze in 150mm like Sigma did, I'm going to bet it'll have better image quality wide open. But I'm hooked on HSM / SWM for now...

Take care all,
-Matt-

JCDoss · December 30, 2006

Matt, you wrote an update at your smugmug site saying that the aperture ring wasn't closing or something like that. Did that issue get resolved, and if so, how?

[edit] Nevermind... I now see that you did send the lens back for service. You should have known something was coming when you found the logo sewn onto the case upside down!!

Matthew Saville · December 31, 2006

JCDoss wrote:

Matt, you wrote an update at your smugmug site saying that the aperture ring wasn't closing or something like that. Did that issue get resolved, and if so, how?

[edit] Nevermind... I now see that you did send the lens back for service. You should have known something was coming when you found the logo sewn onto the case upside down!!

I actually hope that they don't put the logo right side up, I kind of like it upside down, it's a great joke...

I'll be sure to update my review when it comes back!

-Matt-

cunparis · December 31, 2006

Matthew Saville wrote:

This test grid is shot at 150mm and 1M distance, to bring out the worst in the zooms and convince myself that I still need the prime.

The lens is indeed dissapointingly soft at 150mm and close distances.

The lens is known to not focus at 150mm at the min focus distance, you just proved that with your test. If you repeat the test at 1.5m I think you will find the 50-150 does very well against the 70-200 and should be respectable against the prime (the sigma 150 2.8 is an awesome lens, one of the best).

It's frustrating that people post how it's soft at 150 when it's clearly OUT OF FOCUS!

cunparis · December 31, 2006

thw wrote:

Hello there, David Banner from DPReview.

So, you have multiple personalities too?

Yeah, thw was taken.

Matthew Saville · January 1, 2007

cunparis wrote:

The lens is known to not focus at 150mm at the min focus distance, you just proved that with your test. If you repeat the test at 1.5m I think you will find the 50-150 does very well against the 70-200 and should be respectable against the prime (the sigma 150 2.8 is an awesome lens, one of the best).

It's frustrating that people post how it's soft at 150 when it's clearly OUT OF FOCUS!

Hi Michael,

I'm pretty sure the lens didn't exhibit this, I did test it in situations other than a flat, perpendicular surface. But as soon as mine gets back from Sigma service, trust me I'll definitely be giving manual focus a shot and seeing if I can get it to do sharper. I sure hope you're right!

-Matt-

pathfinder · January 1, 2007

cunparis wrote:

........(the sigma 150 2.8 is an awesome lens, one of the best)........

I agree - the 150 macro is very sharp, and a good value.

cunparis · January 2, 2007

Matthew Saville wrote:

Hi Michael,

I'm pretty sure the lens didn't exhibit this, I did test it in situations other than a flat, perpendicular surface. But as soon as mine gets back from Sigma service, trust me I'll definitely be giving manual focus a shot and seeing if I can get it to do sharper. I sure hope you're right!

-Matt-

so far it's been unanimous amongst all 50-150 testers/owners that it does not focus correctly at 1m @ 150mm 2.8. many returned it, a few report that it focuses correctly at 1.5m, and then someone made the observation that the min focus distance is stated for the 50mm end.

i look forward to your tests with the repaired/calibrated lens. Please update the thread.

JCDoss · January 2, 2007

cunparis wrote:

so far it's been unanimous amongst all 50-150 testers/owners that it does not focus correctly at 1m @ 150mm 2.8...

How many people purchased this lens in order to use it at f/2.8, 150mm, and ~1m from their subject? This is why they make macro lenses!

cunparis · January 3, 2007

JCDoss wrote:

How many people purchased this lens in order to use it at f/2.8, 150mm, and ~1m from their subject? This is why they make macro lenses!

I agree, but changing lenses just to do a tight crop on the face isn't feasable.

For me it hasn't been a problem with real shots. It is only a problem for those doing focus tests. Unfortunately most people buy the lens, do the focus test at 1m, and then conclude it front focuses, return it, and then tell everyone it front focuses.

I will admit my first copy front focused on real shots. So that is possible.

apaustria · January 22, 2007

cunparis wrote:

so far it's been unanimous amongst all 50-150 testers/owners that it does not focus correctly at 1m @ 150mm 2.8. many returned it, a few report that it focuses correctly at 1.5m, and then someone made the observation that the min focus distance is stated for the 50mm end.

i look forward to your tests with the repaired/calibrated lens. Please update the thread.

Any news on this?

cunparis · January 23, 2007

apaustria wrote:

Any news on this?

I've been doing portrait sessions with my daughter every weekend. I have a very small studio, about 4x3m so I mainly use this lens at 100mm. A bit more or less depending on where I'm positioned. I find that at f2.8 there is too little DoF (I'm about 1.5m from subject) so I prefer to use f4. At f4 the background, about 2m away, is out of focus. When I PP, I blur the background a bit more just for effect. The back curls of her hair are also very soft and I like the effect. As for the eyes, when she & I don't move and I manage to get a good shot, the eyes are sharp enough at 100% view. You can see very well the individual eye lashes. Often she moves or I move (ever try photographing a 14 month old?) and then the photos are soft at 100% but fine at normal size. I don't like my portraits super sharp anyway, except the eyes..

This lens is the only one I use in the portrait studio. Around the house I use a mix of it and the tamron 17-50 2.8 depending on the type of shot I want. I think the 50-150 is very versatile and the range is fantastic. I appreciate the 50mm end, there is a bigger difference between 50-70 than 150-200.

The Tokina 50-135 is out, and from what I've seen it's not sharper, and it doesn't have HSM/AF-S/USM. I've also seen focusing inconsistencies. So for me the Sigma still has the advantage.

I live in Europe and am going back to the US in a few months, so I could easily sell my Sigma to recover my money and buy something else. But at the current time, I plan to keep the Sigma. The only thing I'd consider being better is the 70-200 2.8 VR but it's bigger/heavier/$$$.

Sigma 50-150 2.8 is great

Comments