Blackmagic Forum

I think about shooting with an old EF mount Sigma 50-150 2.8 (not OSM).

Somebody told me Sigma didnt know how to build lenses back then and the newly bulid ones like the Sigma 50-100 are much better.
Is that true?

Yes and no.

The new 50-100 is a unique lens. Constant aperture of 1.8 in that zoom range is difficult to create (especially in that size). Optically the newer lens is also better.

With that said, the older Sigma lenses were not bad by any means. Optically or build quality.

Their reputation stems from the fact that they had to reverse engineer the Canon mounts which means their compatibility and autofocus speed was less than stellar on Canon cameras.

We're using a Sigma 17-50 EX F2.8 OS along with the newer 18-35 and 50-100 and it works and looks pretty good.

What I would call a "bad" lens would something like a Panasonic 14-42 (one of the versions they did was abysmal and they fixed it with the later versions).

The original version of the 50-150mm is a dog, not to mention a completely different lens from the OS version. The OS version of the 50-150mm will compete with the 50-100. The 50-100mm is a stop faster and almost a stop sharper, but they're close, much closer than the original 50-150mm.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Rev ... &APIComp=0

Good Luck

Howard Roll wrote:The original version of the 50-150mm is a dog, not to mention a completely different lens from the OS version. The OS version of the 50-150mm will compete with the 50-100. The 50-100mm is a stop faster and almost a stop sharper, but they're close, much closer than the original 50-150mm.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Rev ... &APIComp=0

Good Luck

Waht do you mean by "is a dog"? Does "dog" mean really bad? Unusable?

Unfortunately I can only get hold of the non-OS version:
Sigma EX 50-150mm 2.8 HSM II APO DC

Is the non OS version that much worse?

So you think I should not buy it?

Far from unusable, just in a different class than the others.

Good Luck

It also depends on the camera you're shooting with.

On an original Pocket or Pocket 4K that lens should be ok. On an Ursa 12K...not so much. The problem with that old lens is less sharpness in the corners so the larger the sensor the more issues you'll see. With smaller sensors you'll use the center of that lens more which is less iffy than the corners.

daktulus wrote:

Howard Roll wrote:The original version of the 50-150mm is a dog, not to mention a completely different lens from the OS version. The OS version of the 50-150mm will compete with the 50-100. The 50-100mm is a stop faster and almost a stop sharper, but they're close, much closer than the original 50-150mm.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Rev ... &APIComp=0

Good Luck

Waht do you mean by "is a dog"? Does "dog" mean really bad? Unusable?

Unfortunately I can only get hold of the non-OS version:
Sigma EX 50-150mm 2.8 HSM II APO DC

Is the non OS version that much worse?

So you think I should not buy it?

I don’t know what you’re paying for it and what it is worth to you and your project. Just remember the saying “penny wise pound foolish” when you are looking to buy it. I have used the 17-50mm OS 2.8 with the 18-35mm ART 1.8 just because I needed the OS at one point and they look to be a good pairing with the URSA Mini Pro G2 for what’s it is worth. Although one was darn cheaper than the other, it was not the reason to use it, or at least the only reason. The ART lens are sharper than the HSM. On thing about the Zoom HSM is that they are not easily usable with rod mounted matte boxes. A lightweight clamp matte box does work with it, to some extend.

I picked up a used Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 for $250 when I first bought my G1 Ursa. I still have the lens to this day and am always pleased with it. Of course, the price I paid is partly why I find so little fault with it. I'm now shooting SLRMagic APO Microprimes almost all of the time, but for the price I paid I can't imagine getting rid of it because it's a nice utility lens for run n gun or event stuff that I rarely, but sometimes do. Anytime I need a lens that I don't want to worry about, or if I need a zoom lens, or if I just want to carry two lenses, I use that and the Sigma ART 18-35mm. Construction quality is good, but definitely well below the quality of the ART series. If you use a strong motor follow focus on it (like the Tilta Nucleus), the body can flex and make precise focus a bit difficult, especially at longer focal lengths. It's not a particularly fast lens either, starting at 2.8. Others mentioned the sharpness being a bit soft in corners, etc.. but generally when I'm shooting 100mm, I'm getting very very shallow DOF anyway, so corner to corner sharpness is a bit irrelevant. Actual IQ I found to be more pleasing than the 18-35. It's softer, and has nice out of focus rendering. At least to me. Again, it would depend on the way you intend to use it, but for a nice close up, I always liked what I saw.
The 50-100mm is a cool lens, but I've heard from my buddy focus breathes like crazy. The 50-150 is not parfocal, but also stays fairly close over it's focal length.

If you are on a budget and you see one at a good price, I would not hesitate.
Hope that helps!
Cheers,
-Daniel

Daniel Rheaume wrote:I picked up a used Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 for $250 when I first bought my G1 Ursa. I still have the lens to this day and am always pleased with it. Of course, the price I paid is partly why I find so little fault with it. I'm now shooting SLRMagic APO Microprimes almost all of the time, but for the price I paid I can't imagine getting rid of it because it's a nice utility lens for run n gun or event stuff that I rarely, but sometimes do. Anytime I need a lens that I don't want to worry about, or if I need a zoom lens, or if I just want to carry two lenses, I use that and the Sigma ART 18-35mm. Construction quality is good, but definitely well below the quality of the ART series. If you use a strong motor follow focus on it (like the Tilta Nucleus), the body can flex and make precise focus a bit difficult, especially at longer focal lengths. It's not a particularly fast lens either, starting at 2.8. Others mentioned the sharpness being a bit soft in corners, etc.. but generally when I'm shooting 100mm, I'm getting very very shallow DOF anyway, so corner to corner sharpness is a bit irrelevant. Actual IQ I found to be more pleasing than the 18-35. It's softer, and has nice out of focus rendering. At least to me. Again, it would depend on the way you intend to use it, but for a nice close up, I always liked what I saw.
The 50-100mm is a cool lens, but I've heard from my buddy focus breathes like crazy. The 50-150 is not parfocal, but also stays fairly close over it's focal length.

If you are on a budget and you see one at a good price, I would not hesitate.
Hope that helps!
Cheers,
-Daniel

The 50-100 does breathe like crazy. However, since the image quality is very nice (we use one) we consider the lens as a bunch of primes put together in one neat little (huge) package.

Daniel Rheaume wrote:I picked up a used Sigma 50-150 f/2.8

If you are on a budget and you see one at a good price, I would not hesitate.
Hope that helps!
Cheers,
-Daniel

Are you talking about the OS or the non OS version?

daktulus wrote:Are you talking about the OS or the non OS version?

Should have specified - Non-OS version!
Best,
-Daniel

VMFXBV wrote:
The 50-100 does breathe like crazy. However, since the image quality is very nice (we use one) we consider the lens as a bunch of primes put together in one neat little (huge) package.

I think that's a very cool way to think about zoom lenses in general! Love it!
Cheers,
-Daniel