New Sigma 50-150 telephoto

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Robert Coe, Sep 17, 2012.

  1. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    Has anyone here tried the new Sigma APS-C 50-150mm f/2.8 lens with image
    stabilization? I have the old, unstabilized version; and until I got use of a
    high-end 70-200 last year, it was one of my favorite lenses for event
    photography. It's pretty sharp, and both the focus and the zoon are internal,
    so it doesn't collect dust. The only serious knock on it was that its AF
    wasn't particularly fast.

    The new lens claims to be even sharper and to focus faster than the old one,
    and it preserves the internal focus and zoom. Initial reviews have been
    favorable, but that doesn't tell you much; early reviews often come from
    fanboys. If it's as good as they claim, it could be a winner (assuming, of
    course, that one can overlook Sigma's reputation for poor quality control). A
    50-150 arguably fits into the typical APS-C lens lineup better than the 70-200
    does, since so many walkaround zooms top out around 50mm.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Sep 17, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Robert Coe <> writes:

    > A 50-150 arguably fits into the typical APS-C lens lineup better than
    > the 70-200 does, since so many walkaround zooms top out around 50mm.


    (Snipping the part about versions, since I don't know anything about the
    changes in that lens.)

    I found that the 70-200 fit me like a glove on DX. The only problem was
    that, when I unexpectedly went back to FX (which is a huge win for
    low-light with moderate lenses, which I do a lot of) I found myself
    struggling with my telephoto reach truncated at 200mm-fov-equiv.

    I've never found a satisfactory solution, either. There are even slower
    zooms (f/2.8 is already a slow lens) that go to 300 or 400, and I've got
    a 120-400 that's useful outdoors or in brightly lit sports arenas, but
    it's not nearly as nice as having a 105-300mm-fov-equiv/2.8 in my bag.

    And my shorter zooms have been 24 or 28 to 70 equivalents, so no gap.

    One of the things DX taught me is that the 200mm limit on good lenses
    that weren't both huge and expensive was more technological than user
    preference.

    --
    Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 17, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Robert Coe

    Me Guest

    On 17/09/2012 12:46 p.m., Robert Coe wrote:
    > Has anyone here tried the new Sigma APS-C 50-150mm f/2.8 lens with image
    > stabilization? I have the old, unstabilized version; and until I got use of a
    > high-end 70-200 last year, it was one of my favorite lenses for event
    > photography. It's pretty sharp, and both the focus and the zoon are internal,
    > so it doesn't collect dust. The only serious knock on it was that its AF
    > wasn't particularly fast.
    >
    > The new lens claims to be even sharper and to focus faster than the old one,
    > and it preserves the internal focus and zoom. Initial reviews have been
    > favorable, but that doesn't tell you much; early reviews often come from
    > fanboys. If it's as good as they claim, it could be a winner (assuming, of
    > course, that one can overlook Sigma's reputation for poor quality control). A
    > 50-150 arguably fits into the typical APS-C lens lineup better than the 70-200
    > does, since so many walkaround zooms top out around 50mm.
    >

    The 50-150 f2.8 OS doesn't make sense:

    It weighs 95% as much as 70-200 f2.8 Fx zooms.
    It costs about 75% as much as the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS.
    Resale value will be poor, as it's a Sigma, and also it's an Aps-c
    format lens in the quality/price range where people think about the
    possibility of changing to 35mm format in the future. At $1,000 (street
    price) it's way over-priced for what it is.
    There are good APS-c wide zooms which top out in the 70-85mm focal
    length range if you really don't want to "lose" the 50-70mm range.
    The 50-70mm range is usually able to be compensated for by "zooming with
    your feet" if you need to frame everything perfectly ex-camera.
    If you also need "fast" at about 50mm, then you can get a very
    inexpensive 50mm f1.8.
    The weight of this lens (and the 70-200 f2.8s) is substantial, as you'll
    know if you used the 70-200 you tried for long enough.
    I hope I've put you off - you don't need a review of the lens optical
    performance - there's enough information to be gleaned from specs and
    pricing to show that even if it performs well, it's at best a poor
    solution to a problem which doesn't exist.
     
    Me, Sep 17, 2012
    #3
  4. Robert Coe

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/17/2012 2:02 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > Robert Coe <> writes:
    >snip>



    > One of the things DX taught me is that the 200mm limit on good lenses
    > that weren't both huge and expensive was more technological than user
    > preference.
    >

    My 80-400 Nikon is sharp and clear. The only issue sis very slow focus.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 17, 2012
    #4
  5. Robert Coe

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/17/2012 6:49 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-09-17 15:38:02 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >> On 9/17/2012 2:02 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >>> Robert Coe <> writes:
    >>> snip>

    >>
    >>
    >>> One of the things DX taught me is that the 200mm limit on good lenses
    >>> that weren't both huge and expensive was more technological than user
    >>> preference.
    >>>

    >> My 80-400 Nikon is sharp and clear. The only issue sis very slow focus.

    >
    > You can say that again!
    > ...and low light performance is abysmal.
    >
    > If you have good light and little need for fast focus it is great.
    >


    Yup!
    I tried it on a borrowed D4. the focusing speed was much faster. If it
    only was AF-S......

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 18, 2012
    #5
  6. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:04:50 +1200, Me <> wrote:
    : On 17/09/2012 12:46 p.m., Robert Coe wrote:
    : > Has anyone here tried the new Sigma APS-C 50-150mm f/2.8 lens with image
    : > stabilization? I have the old, unstabilized version; and until I got use of a
    : > high-end 70-200 last year, it was one of my favorite lenses for event
    : > photography. It's pretty sharp, and both the focus and the zoon are internal,
    : > so it doesn't collect dust. The only serious knock on it was that its AF
    : > wasn't particularly fast.
    : >
    : > The new lens claims to be even sharper and to focus faster than the old one,
    : > and it preserves the internal focus and zoom. Initial reviews have been
    : > favorable, but that doesn't tell you much; early reviews often come from
    : > fanboys. If it's as good as they claim, it could be a winner (assuming, of
    : > course, that one can overlook Sigma's reputation for poor quality control). A
    : > 50-150 arguably fits into the typical APS-C lens lineup better than the 70-200
    : > does, since so many walkaround zooms top out around 50mm.
    : >
    : The 50-150 f2.8 OS doesn't make sense:

    Have you tried one? I thought my old 50-150 was just about right.

    : It weighs 95% as much as 70-200 f2.8 Fx zooms.

    Yeah, but a bottom of 70 leaves a 15mm gap between it and, say, the Canon
    17-55 (which I have).

    : It costs about 75% as much as the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS.

    Huh? Isn't that the same lens? Or are you talking about a FF version? I'm not
    aware that such exists.

    : Resale value will be poor, as it's a Sigma, and also it's an Aps-c
    : format lens in the quality/price range where people think about the
    : possibility of changing to 35mm format in the future.

    Been there, didn't do that. When the 5D3 came out at $3500 and its new walker
    came out at $2300, I punted and bought a second 7D. That said, I did
    tentatively resolve to buy only FF lenses from now on. You never know.

    : At $1,000 (street price) it's way over-priced for what it is.

    I paid about $750 for the old, unstabilized version four or five years ago,
    and I thought I got my money's worth. $1K is arguably not exhorbitant for the
    same lens with IS and faster AF.

    : There are good APS-c wide zooms which top out in the 70-85mm focal
    : length range if you really don't want to "lose" the 50-70mm range.
    : The 50-70mm range is usually able to be compensated for by "zooming with
    : your feet" if you need to frame everything perfectly ex-camera.

    Depending on where you are and what you're doing. It can be hard (or at least
    embarrassing) to "zoom with your feet" at an awards ceremony, with all the
    wives and mothers cursing you for getting in their way. ;^)

    : If you also need "fast" at about 50mm, then you can get a very
    : inexpensive 50mm f1.8.
    : The weight of this lens (and the 70-200 f2.8s) is substantial, as you'll
    : know if you used the 70-200 you tried for long enough.

    The 70-200 wasn't a loaner; I still have it. I'll have to give it back if I
    quit my job; in the meantime, they'd have to pry my cold, dead fingers from
    around it. But yes, it is heavy. Which is why the old 50-150 still makes it
    into my bag sometimes.

    : I hope I've put you off - you don't need a review of the lens optical
    : performance - there's enough information to be gleaned from specs and
    : pricing to show that even if it performs well, it's at best a poor
    : solution to a problem which doesn't exist.

    No need to put me off, I wasn't going to buy it (except possibly for my wife,
    who probably wouldn't like the weight). It just sounds like an interesting
    lens. Like my old 50-150, but bigger, heavier, and more expensive. But with
    stabilization and (allegedly) faster AF.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Sep 18, 2012
    #6
  7. Robert Coe

    Me Guest

    On 18/09/2012 2:40 p.m., Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:04:50 +1200, Me <> wrote:
    > : On 17/09/2012 12:46 p.m., Robert Coe wrote:
    > : > Has anyone here tried the new Sigma APS-C 50-150mm f/2.8 lens with image
    > : > stabilization? I have the old, unstabilized version; and until I got use of a
    > : > high-end 70-200 last year, it was one of my favorite lenses for event
    > : > photography. It's pretty sharp, and both the focus and the zoon are internal,
    > : > so it doesn't collect dust. The only serious knock on it was that its AF
    > : > wasn't particularly fast.
    > : >
    > : > The new lens claims to be even sharper and to focus faster than the old one,
    > : > and it preserves the internal focus and zoom. Initial reviews have been
    > : > favorable, but that doesn't tell you much; early reviews often come from
    > : > fanboys. If it's as good as they claim, it could be a winner (assuming, of
    > : > course, that one can overlook Sigma's reputation for poor quality control). A
    > : > 50-150 arguably fits into the typical APS-C lens lineup better than the 70-200
    > : > does, since so many walkaround zooms top out around 50mm.
    > : >
    > : The 50-150 f2.8 OS doesn't make sense:
    >
    > Have you tried one? I thought my old 50-150 was just about right.
    >
    > : It weighs 95% as much as 70-200 f2.8 Fx zooms.
    >
    > Yeah, but a bottom of 70 leaves a 15mm gap between it and, say, the Canon
    > 17-55 (which I have).
    >
    > : It costs about 75% as much as the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS.
    >
    > Huh? Isn't that the same lens? Or are you talking about a FF version? I'm not
    > aware that such exists.
    >
    > : Resale value will be poor, as it's a Sigma, and also it's an Aps-c
    > : format lens in the quality/price range where people think about the
    > : possibility of changing to 35mm format in the future.
    >
    > Been there, didn't do that. When the 5D3 came out at $3500 and its new walker
    > came out at $2300, I punted and bought a second 7D. That said, I did
    > tentatively resolve to buy only FF lenses from now on. You never know.
    >
    > : At $1,000 (street price) it's way over-priced for what it is.
    >
    > I paid about $750 for the old, unstabilized version four or five years ago,
    > and I thought I got my money's worth. $1K is arguably not exhorbitant for the
    > same lens with IS and faster AF.
    >
    > : There are good APS-c wide zooms which top out in the 70-85mm focal
    > : length range if you really don't want to "lose" the 50-70mm range.
    > : The 50-70mm range is usually able to be compensated for by "zooming with
    > : your feet" if you need to frame everything perfectly ex-camera.
    >
    > Depending on where you are and what you're doing. It can be hard (or at least
    > embarrassing) to "zoom with your feet" at an awards ceremony, with all the
    > wives and mothers cursing you for getting in their way. ;^)
    >
    > : If you also need "fast" at about 50mm, then you can get a very
    > : inexpensive 50mm f1.8.
    > : The weight of this lens (and the 70-200 f2.8s) is substantial, as you'll
    > : know if you used the 70-200 you tried for long enough.
    >
    > The 70-200 wasn't a loaner; I still have it. I'll have to give it back if I
    > quit my job; in the meantime, they'd have to pry my cold, dead fingers from
    > around it. But yes, it is heavy. Which is why the old 50-150 still makes it
    > into my bag sometimes.
    >
    > : I hope I've put you off - you don't need a review of the lens optical
    > : performance - there's enough information to be gleaned from specs and
    > : pricing to show that even if it performs well, it's at best a poor
    > : solution to a problem which doesn't exist.
    >
    > No need to put me off, I wasn't going to buy it (except possibly for my wife,
    > who probably wouldn't like the weight). It just sounds like an interesting
    > lens. Like my old 50-150, but bigger, heavier, and more expensive. But with
    > stabilization and (allegedly) faster AF.
    >
    > Bob
    >

    I think the new OS 50-150 is quite a bit heavier than the older non OS
    version you have, hence most of my negative comments.
    Yes - Sigma make a 70-200 f2.8 OS, less than 100g heavier than the OS
    50-150, and about $1250 street price. It's probably okay.
    I'm not a Canon owner. There are two things in Canon land that I really
    envy. One is the 17mm TSE, the other is the 70-200 f4 L IS. The latter
    is what you should be getting your wife for Xmas. I have used that lens,
    and it's an absolute gem (on 5D and 5DII bodies). In fact I'd go so far
    as to say that if I decided to buy a Canon body, I'd buy the darned lens
    first, then cart it around camera stores to decide which body suited it
    best.
     
    Me, Sep 18, 2012
    #7
  8. PeterN <> writes:

    > On 9/17/2012 2:02 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >> Robert Coe <> writes:
    >>snip>

    >
    >
    >> One of the things DX taught me is that the 200mm limit on good lenses
    >> that weren't both huge and expensive was more technological than user
    >> preference.


    > My 80-400 Nikon is sharp and clear. The only issue sis very slow focus.


    My Sigma 120-400 is sharp, clear, and focuses very fast.

    However, both it and your Nikon are f/5.6 at 400mm -- very very slow.
    Unusably slow for a lot of things, forcing me to ISO 6400 sometimes for
    things. It's a drag -- but I can't afford $5k for the 200-400/4, and
    it's an anvil to lug around (well, not as bad as even more super
    super-teles, but pretty bad).
    --
    Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 18, 2012
    #8
  9. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:

    > On 2012-09-17 15:38:02 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >> On 9/17/2012 2:02 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >>> Robert Coe <> writes:
    >>> snip>

    >>
    >>
    >>> One of the things DX taught me is that the 200mm limit on good lenses
    >>> that weren't both huge and expensive was more technological than user
    >>> preference.
    >>>

    >> My 80-400 Nikon is sharp and clear. The only issue sis very slow focus.

    >
    > You can say that again!
    > ...and low light performance is abysmal.
    >
    > If you have good light and little need for fast focus it is great.


    I use the Sigma 120-400 to shoot roller derby in indoor arenas. Luckily
    the main one I shoot in is pretty well lit -- I was shooting 1/350 f/5.6
    ISO 6400. Shooting from track level (the whole arena is flat, no way to
    get higher than standing), players get in front of each other a lot, so
    the AF gets a real workout, losing and reacquiring the target
    constantly. This Sigma is an unltrasonic, though, so it focuses quite
    fast. (Was about half the price of the Nikon, and generally got better
    reviews at the time I bought it. It's done very well for me at the
    price point. Obviously it has a smaller zoom range.)
    --
    Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 18, 2012
    #9
  10. Robert Coe

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/18/2012 1:05 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
    >
    >> On 2012-09-17 15:38:02 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >>
    >>> On 9/17/2012 2:02 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >>>> Robert Coe <> writes:
    >>>> snip>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> One of the things DX taught me is that the 200mm limit on good lenses
    >>>> that weren't both huge and expensive was more technological than user
    >>>> preference.
    >>>>
    >>> My 80-400 Nikon is sharp and clear. The only issue sis very slow focus.

    >>
    >> You can say that again!
    >> ...and low light performance is abysmal.
    >>
    >> If you have good light and little need for fast focus it is great.

    >
    > I use the Sigma 120-400 to shoot roller derby in indoor arenas. Luckily
    > the main one I shoot in is pretty well lit -- I was shooting 1/350 f/5.6
    > ISO 6400. Shooting from track level (the whole arena is flat, no way to
    > get higher than standing), players get in front of each other a lot, so
    > the AF gets a real workout, losing and reacquiring the target
    > constantly. This Sigma is an unltrasonic, though, so it focuses quite
    > fast. (Was about half the price of the Nikon, and generally got better
    > reviews at the time I bought it. It's done very well for me at the
    > price point. Obviously it has a smaller zoom range.)
    >


    I've been invited to do a roller derby shoot. I had planned to use my
    70-200 with a 1.7 extender. Any tips?


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 18, 2012
    #10
  11. PeterN <> writes:

    > On 9/18/2012 1:05 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
    >>
    >>> On 2012-09-17 15:38:02 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On 9/17/2012 2:02 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >>>>> Robert Coe <> writes:
    >>>>> snip>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> One of the things DX taught me is that the 200mm limit on good lenses
    >>>>> that weren't both huge and expensive was more technological than user
    >>>>> preference.
    >>>>>
    >>>> My 80-400 Nikon is sharp and clear. The only issue sis very slow focus.
    >>>
    >>> You can say that again!
    >>> ...and low light performance is abysmal.
    >>>
    >>> If you have good light and little need for fast focus it is great.

    >>
    >> I use the Sigma 120-400 to shoot roller derby in indoor arenas. Luckily
    >> the main one I shoot in is pretty well lit -- I was shooting 1/350 f/5.6
    >> ISO 6400. Shooting from track level (the whole arena is flat, no way to
    >> get higher than standing), players get in front of each other a lot, so
    >> the AF gets a real workout, losing and reacquiring the target
    >> constantly. This Sigma is an unltrasonic, though, so it focuses quite
    >> fast. (Was about half the price of the Nikon, and generally got better
    >> reviews at the time I bought it. It's done very well for me at the
    >> price point. Obviously it has a smaller zoom range.)

    >
    > I've been invited to do a roller derby shoot. I had planned to use my
    > 70-200 with a 1.7 extender. Any tips?


    It's a fun sport to shoot. I think it's easier to get adequate derby
    shots than baseball, football, or basketball. For one thing, there's no
    "ball" or other magic token that moves around much faster than the
    people and which you have to keep track of. (The very best shots for
    any sport are all equally hard of course -- how good it can be just goes
    up with what's possible to the very best photographers.)

    I use my 70-200 bare a lot, and with a 1.4x some, more than I use the
    120-400, so if you can get trackside you'll be fine on reach I think.
    Although lighting varies with the venue of course, and the one I know
    best is probably brighter than average.

    Lots of people shoot off-camera flash for derby. That has benefits (if
    it's permitted) if you can rig it well and have enough flashes and radio
    triggers, but I haven't gone to that yet; partly because the available
    light where I shoot is good enough to handle it well. If you *are*
    using off-camera flash, you can adjust the exposure to put the
    background a stop or two below the players, which helps remove
    distractions; I like the look.

    Even direct flash can produce tolerable results (if permitted). I shot
    a dozen that way as a test, and was able to edit them up to look quite
    nice. It was constraining to have to think about repeat rate, though.
    I couldn't do more than three or four shots at full repeat, and even two
    a second (manually triggered) ran the flash down fairly soon. Also,
    pushing shoe-mount flashes to their limit really can melt them:
    <http://www.flickr.com/photos/carak/1439774570/>.

    At least at the bouts I go to (fairly small league), there are often
    lots of children around, sometimes the children of players and sometimes
    just spectators. Children are of course photographic gold :), if
    you've got a use for feature pictures as well as the action shots. Also
    *parents* of players fairly often.

    Look into the really basic intros to the sport (Wikipedia will do) --
    that's enough to get started in photography (if you don't already know
    about it). Basically, the two "jammers" (the ones with stars on their
    helmet covers) are the ones the "pack" (everybody else) needs to block
    or assist, so essentially everything of interest happens right around
    one or the other of them. So keep your eye and lens on them during play
    and push the button when appropriate :).

    There really is some use for high-speed sequence shooting. Often when
    you see something *start* to happen you'll shoot (you don't know where
    it's going or who is about to skate into the frame and block the view),
    but then it develops rapidly into something even more interesting -- say
    the skater behind the one just knocked off her feet now trips over the
    downed skater and also goes flying, or something. Be a shame to miss
    it! I configure my camera for max frame rate (that's camera-specific,
    but for me it includes things like 12 bits per channel rather than 14; I
    need the smaller files for speed more than I need the dreamily smooth
    tonality!), but have trained myself to shoot single or even fairly quick
    multiple single shots more than just mashing the release. But being
    *able* to mash the release when I need to is also very important.

    Here are my shots from four bouts last Saturday
    <http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2012/09150-bruise/>. That's
    from 1440 that made it onto my computer (I mostly don't take the time to
    erase in-camera, but if I happen to notice a technical dud when I have
    time to push the button, I will).

    (Apologies if anything I've said is insultingly basic. I'm guessing
    what level of advice might be useful, and it's easier for you to skip
    stuff you already know than to do another go-round to get more info in
    some area so when in doubt I've included more info.)
    --
    Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 18, 2012
    #11
  12. Robert Coe

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/18/2012 4:05 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > PeterN <> writes:
    >
    >> On 9/18/2012 1:05 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2012-09-17 15:38:02 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 9/17/2012 2:02 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >>>>>> Robert Coe <> writes:
    >>>>>> snip>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> One of the things DX taught me is that the 200mm limit on good lenses
    >>>>>> that weren't both huge and expensive was more technological than user
    >>>>>> preference.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> My 80-400 Nikon is sharp and clear. The only issue sis very slow focus.
    >>>>
    >>>> You can say that again!
    >>>> ...and low light performance is abysmal.
    >>>>
    >>>> If you have good light and little need for fast focus it is great.
    >>>
    >>> I use the Sigma 120-400 to shoot roller derby in indoor arenas. Luckily
    >>> the main one I shoot in is pretty well lit -- I was shooting 1/350 f/5.6
    >>> ISO 6400. Shooting from track level (the whole arena is flat, no way to
    >>> get higher than standing), players get in front of each other a lot, so
    >>> the AF gets a real workout, losing and reacquiring the target
    >>> constantly. This Sigma is an unltrasonic, though, so it focuses quite
    >>> fast. (Was about half the price of the Nikon, and generally got better
    >>> reviews at the time I bought it. It's done very well for me at the
    >>> price point. Obviously it has a smaller zoom range.)

    >>
    >> I've been invited to do a roller derby shoot. I had planned to use my
    >> 70-200 with a 1.7 extender. Any tips?

    >
    > It's a fun sport to shoot. I think it's easier to get adequate derby
    > shots than baseball, football, or basketball. For one thing, there's no
    > "ball" or other magic token that moves around much faster than the
    > people and which you have to keep track of. (The very best shots for
    > any sport are all equally hard of course -- how good it can be just goes
    > up with what's possible to the very best photographers.)
    >
    > I use my 70-200 bare a lot, and with a 1.4x some, more than I use the
    > 120-400, so if you can get trackside you'll be fine on reach I think.
    > Although lighting varies with the venue of course, and the one I know
    > best is probably brighter than average.
    >
    > Lots of people shoot off-camera flash for derby. That has benefits (if
    > it's permitted) if you can rig it well and have enough flashes and radio
    > triggers, but I haven't gone to that yet; partly because the available
    > light where I shoot is good enough to handle it well. If you *are*
    > using off-camera flash, you can adjust the exposure to put the
    > background a stop or two below the players, which helps remove
    > distractions; I like the look.
    >
    > Even direct flash can produce tolerable results (if permitted). I shot
    > a dozen that way as a test, and was able to edit them up to look quite
    > nice. It was constraining to have to think about repeat rate, though.
    > I couldn't do more than three or four shots at full repeat, and even two
    > a second (manually triggered) ran the flash down fairly soon. Also,
    > pushing shoe-mount flashes to their limit really can melt them:
    > <http://www.flickr.com/photos/carak/1439774570/>.
    >
    > At least at the bouts I go to (fairly small league), there are often
    > lots of children around, sometimes the children of players and sometimes
    > just spectators. Children are of course photographic gold :), if
    > you've got a use for feature pictures as well as the action shots. Also
    > *parents* of players fairly often.
    >
    > Look into the really basic intros to the sport (Wikipedia will do) --
    > that's enough to get started in photography (if you don't already know
    > about it). Basically, the two "jammers" (the ones with stars on their
    > helmet covers) are the ones the "pack" (everybody else) needs to block
    > or assist, so essentially everything of interest happens right around
    > one or the other of them. So keep your eye and lens on them during play
    > and push the button when appropriate :).
    >
    > There really is some use for high-speed sequence shooting. Often when
    > you see something *start* to happen you'll shoot (you don't know where
    > it's going or who is about to skate into the frame and block the view),
    > but then it develops rapidly into something even more interesting -- say
    > the skater behind the one just knocked off her feet now trips over the
    > downed skater and also goes flying, or something. Be a shame to miss
    > it! I configure my camera for max frame rate (that's camera-specific,
    > but for me it includes things like 12 bits per channel rather than 14; I
    > need the smaller files for speed more than I need the dreamily smooth
    > tonality!), but have trained myself to shoot single or even fairly quick
    > multiple single shots more than just mashing the release. But being
    > *able* to mash the release when I need to is also very important.
    >
    > Here are my shots from four bouts last Saturday
    > <http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2012/09150-bruise/>. That's
    > from 1440 that made it onto my computer (I mostly don't take the time to
    > erase in-camera, but if I happen to notice a technical dud when I have
    > time to push the button, I will).
    >
    > (Apologies if anything I've said is insultingly basic. I'm guessing
    > what level of advice might be useful, and it's easier for you to skip
    > stuff you already know than to do another go-round to get more info in
    > some area so when in doubt I've included more info.)
    >


    Thanks,

    I will have first choice of location, Flash is not permitted. I assumed
    ringside, but is one spot better than others.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 18, 2012
    #12
  13. Robert Coe <> wrote:

    [50-150mm]

    >: It weighs 95% as much as 70-200 f2.8 Fx zooms.


    > Yeah, but a bottom of 70 leaves a 15mm gap between it and, say, the Canon
    > 17-55 (which I have).


    A non-problem.
    People used to have lens choices like 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 55 or 55mm,
    85mm, 100mm, 135mm ... and not a zoom in sight. It worked.

    I have -40mm, 50mm and 70-mm. I don't have problems with the
    "missing" 10mm and 20mm.

    However, the 50-150mm has a 50mm gap between it's end and the
    70-200mm's end This is about the difference between a 150mm
    without and with a 1.4x teleconverter.


    >: There are good APS-c wide zooms which top out in the 70-85mm focal
    >: length range if you really don't want to "lose" the 50-70mm range.
    >: The 50-70mm range is usually able to be compensated for by "zooming with
    >: your feet" if you need to frame everything perfectly ex-camera.


    > Depending on where you are and what you're doing. It can be hard (or at least
    > embarrassing) to "zoom with your feet" at an awards ceremony, with all the
    > wives and mothers cursing you for getting in their way. ;^)


    It can be even more hard and embarassing to zoom the missing 50mm
    in with your feet shooting the big cats at the zoo. :)

    Anyway, if you have to switch between your -55 and your 50-
    lens --- which is gonna happen, if you don't plan ahead and
    be at the right spot at an awards ceremony --- you're going
    to lose the shot anyway. If you can plan, you can plan for
    the gap.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 18, 2012
    #13
  14. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:23:11 +1200, Me <> wrote:
    : On 18/09/2012 2:40 p.m., Robert Coe wrote:
    : > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:04:50 +1200, Me <> wrote:
    : > : On 17/09/2012 12:46 p.m., Robert Coe wrote:
    : > : > Has anyone here tried the new Sigma APS-C 50-150mm f/2.8 lens with image
    : > : > stabilization? I have the old, unstabilized version; and until I got use of a
    : > : > high-end 70-200 last year, it was one of my favorite lenses for event
    : > : > photography. It's pretty sharp, and both the focus and the zoon are internal,
    : > : > so it doesn't collect dust. The only serious knock on it was that its AF
    : > : > wasn't particularly fast.
    : > : >
    : > : > The new lens claims to be even sharper and to focus faster than the old one,
    : > : > and it preserves the internal focus and zoom. Initial reviews have been
    : > : > favorable, but that doesn't tell you much; early reviews often come from
    : > : > fanboys. If it's as good as they claim, it could be a winner (assuming, of
    : > : > course, that one can overlook Sigma's reputation for poor quality control). A
    : > : > 50-150 arguably fits into the typical APS-C lens lineup better than the 70-200
    : > : > does, since so many walkaround zooms top out around 50mm.
    : > : >
    : > : The 50-150 f2.8 OS doesn't make sense:
    : >
    : > Have you tried one? I thought my old 50-150 was just about right.
    : >
    : > : It weighs 95% as much as 70-200 f2.8 Fx zooms.
    : >
    : > Yeah, but a bottom of 70 leaves a 15mm gap between it and, say, the Canon
    : > 17-55 (which I have).
    : >
    : > : It costs about 75% as much as the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS.
    : >
    : > Huh? Isn't that the same lens? Or are you talking about a FF version? I'm not
    : > aware that such exists.
    : >
    : > : Resale value will be poor, as it's a Sigma, and also it's an Aps-c
    : > : format lens in the quality/price range where people think about the
    : > : possibility of changing to 35mm format in the future.
    : >
    : > Been there, didn't do that. When the 5D3 came out at $3500 and its new walker
    : > came out at $2300, I punted and bought a second 7D. That said, I did
    : > tentatively resolve to buy only FF lenses from now on. You never know.
    : >
    : > : At $1,000 (street price) it's way over-priced for what it is.
    : >
    : > I paid about $750 for the old, unstabilized version four or five years ago,
    : > and I thought I got my money's worth. $1K is arguably not exhorbitant for the
    : > same lens with IS and faster AF.
    : >
    : > : There are good APS-c wide zooms which top out in the 70-85mm focal
    : > : length range if you really don't want to "lose" the 50-70mm range.
    : > : The 50-70mm range is usually able to be compensated for by "zooming with
    : > : your feet" if you need to frame everything perfectly ex-camera.
    : >
    : > Depending on where you are and what you're doing. It can be hard (or at least
    : > embarrassing) to "zoom with your feet" at an awards ceremony, with all the
    : > wives and mothers cursing you for getting in their way. ;^)
    : >
    : > : If you also need "fast" at about 50mm, then you can get a very
    : > : inexpensive 50mm f1.8.
    : > : The weight of this lens (and the 70-200 f2.8s) is substantial, as you'll
    : > : know if you used the 70-200 you tried for long enough.
    : >
    : > The 70-200 wasn't a loaner; I still have it. I'll have to give it back if I
    : > quit my job; in the meantime, they'd have to pry my cold, dead fingers from
    : > around it. But yes, it is heavy. Which is why the old 50-150 still makes it
    : > into my bag sometimes.
    : >
    : > : I hope I've put you off - you don't need a review of the lens optical
    : > : performance - there's enough information to be gleaned from specs and
    : > : pricing to show that even if it performs well, it's at best a poor
    : > : solution to a problem which doesn't exist.
    : >
    : > No need to put me off, I wasn't going to buy it (except possibly for my wife,
    : > who probably wouldn't like the weight). It just sounds like an interesting
    : > lens. Like my old 50-150, but bigger, heavier, and more expensive. But with
    : > stabilization and (allegedly) faster AF.
    : >
    : > Bob
    : >
    : I think the new OS 50-150 is quite a bit heavier than the older non OS
    : version you have, hence most of my negative comments.
    : Yes - Sigma make a 70-200 f2.8 OS, less than 100g heavier than the OS
    : 50-150, and about $1250 street price. It's probably okay.
    : I'm not a Canon owner. There are two things in Canon land that I really
    : envy. One is the 17mm TSE, the other is the 70-200 f4 L IS. The latter
    : is what you should be getting your wife for Xmas. I have used that lens,
    : and it's an absolute gem (on 5D and 5DII bodies). In fact I'd go so far
    : as to say that if I decided to buy a Canon body, I'd buy the darned lens
    : first, then cart it around camera stores to decide which body suited it
    : best.
     
    Robert Coe, Sep 19, 2012
    #14
  15. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:23:11 +1200, Me <> wrote:
    : I think the new OS 50-150 is quite a bit heavier than the older non OS
    : version you have, hence most of my negative comments.
    : Yes - Sigma make a 70-200 f2.8 OS, less than 100g heavier than the OS
    : 50-150, and about $1250 street price. It's probably okay.
    : I'm not a Canon owner. There are two things in Canon land that I really
    : envy. One is the 17mm TSE, the other is the 70-200 f4 L IS. The latter
    : is what you should be getting your wife for Xmas. I have used that lens,
    : and it's an absolute gem (on 5D and 5DII bodies). In fact I'd go so far
    : as to say that if I decided to buy a Canon body, I'd buy the darned lens
    : first, then cart it around camera stores to decide which body suited it
    : best.

    Why do you prefer the f/4 to the f/2.8? Because it's lighter? The 70-200 I
    have is the f/2.8L IS II, and it's plenty sharp for my eyes. But it is heavy,
    and I seldom carry it outdoors for that reason. I consider it mainly an indoor
    event lens, and it's hard to beat in that role (although maybe a bit long for
    my 7D's).

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Sep 19, 2012
    #15
  16. PeterN <> writes:

    > I will have first choice of location, Flash is not permitted. I
    > assumed ringside, but is one spot better than others.


    DOH! Um, gosh, that's a good question, and I really should have thought
    of saying something about that already.

    I've mostly been shooting from kind of the edge of turn 3 (third turn
    after the jammer start line; end of the other straightaway). That gives
    me the best shot at the FIRST action in each jam (they always start the
    same place). Usually the jam goes on for several revolutions of the
    track, so corner 1 is equivalent after the first revolution, if the
    lighting is the same. (Where I shoot, the lighting is NOT the same, as
    a consequence of which I basically skip the back straightaway that the
    team benches are along; the lights back there are off to let the
    projector that provides the scoreboard be seen by the audience.)

    Playing around Saturday, I'm starting to like shooting from the apex or
    even the outside of the ends of the oval. The tradeoff is that it lets
    me see the front of the pack for less time, but it lets me see people's
    faces when they look in and behind them more (and they look in and
    behind them a LOT).

    (I believe my "turn 3" terminology is correct and standard; if it seems
    not to be, assume that my description is right and the turn # I'm using
    is somehow wrong.)

    Also, mostly I try to get down at least to sitting on the floor. I'm
    taller than most derby girls (even on their skates), plus a lot of the
    action happens when people are crouching and leaning forward. Also, it
    helps block out background clutter, too.
    --
    Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 19, 2012
    #16
  17. Robert Coe

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:04:52 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <>
    wrote:

    >PeterN <> writes:
    >
    >> I will have first choice of location, Flash is not permitted. I
    >> assumed ringside, but is one spot better than others.

    >
    >DOH! Um, gosh, that's a good question, and I really should have thought
    >of saying something about that already.
    >
    >I've mostly been shooting from kind of the edge of turn 3 (third turn
    >after the jammer start line; end of the other straightaway). That gives
    >me the best shot at the FIRST action in each jam (they always start the
    >same place). Usually the jam goes on for several revolutions of the
    >track, so corner 1 is equivalent after the first revolution, if the
    >lighting is the same. (Where I shoot, the lighting is NOT the same, as
    >a consequence of which I basically skip the back straightaway that the
    >team benches are along; the lights back there are off to let the
    >projector that provides the scoreboard be seen by the audience.)
    >
    >Playing around Saturday, I'm starting to like shooting from the apex or
    >even the outside of the ends of the oval. The tradeoff is that it lets
    >me see the front of the pack for less time, but it lets me see people's
    >faces when they look in and behind them more (and they look in and
    >behind them a LOT).
    >
    >(I believe my "turn 3" terminology is correct and standard; if it seems
    >not to be, assume that my description is right and the turn # I'm using
    >is somehow wrong.)
    >
    >Also, mostly I try to get down at least to sitting on the floor. I'm
    >taller than most derby girls (even on their skates), plus a lot of the
    >action happens when people are crouching and leaning forward. Also, it
    >helps block out background clutter, too.


    I've never seen - let alone photographed - a roller derby, but I've
    photographed greyhound races. I always shoot from a beginning of the
    straight-away as the dogs come around the fourth curve. There's
    action as the dogs come out of the curve, and I can pan on the action
    at the beginning of the homestretch.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 19, 2012
    #17
  18. Robert Coe

    Me Guest

    On 19/09/2012 1:12 p.m., Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:23:11 +1200, Me <> wrote:
    > : I think the new OS 50-150 is quite a bit heavier than the older non OS
    > : version you have, hence most of my negative comments.
    > : Yes - Sigma make a 70-200 f2.8 OS, less than 100g heavier than the OS
    > : 50-150, and about $1250 street price. It's probably okay.
    > : I'm not a Canon owner. There are two things in Canon land that I really
    > : envy. One is the 17mm TSE, the other is the 70-200 f4 L IS. The latter
    > : is what you should be getting your wife for Xmas. I have used that lens,
    > : and it's an absolute gem (on 5D and 5DII bodies). In fact I'd go so far
    > : as to say that if I decided to buy a Canon body, I'd buy the darned lens
    > : first, then cart it around camera stores to decide which body suited it
    > : best.
    >
    > Why do you prefer the f/4 to the f/2.8? Because it's lighter? The 70-200 I
    > have is the f/2.8L IS II, and it's plenty sharp for my eyes. But it is heavy,
    > and I seldom carry it outdoors for that reason. I consider it mainly an indoor
    > event lens, and it's hard to beat in that role (although maybe a bit long for
    > my 7D's).
    >

    Yes - because it's lighter, much less expensive, and darned good.
    Perhaps check exif on files you've taken using the f2.8, even indoors,
    and see how often you actually use it fully wide.
    The f4 version is possibly better suited to FX than DX, as you've got
    the extra stop of high ISO flexibility, as well as the extra stop of
    shallow DOF if you need it, and you don't really "lose" the potential
    300mm "dx advantage" with a Canon 5DII, as it's plenty sharp enough to
    get a 10mp or so "dx crop" from the 35mm frame.
    The time I used the 700-200 f4L on a 5DII, the images taken at f4 were
    great throughout the focal length range. Contrast was good. I bet that
    flare is less of a problem than it may be with the f2.8. The AF seemed
    to be blisteringly fast. The IS seemed to be very effective. It's
    weather sealed, it felt good (well made) but light weight. It's a pro
    lens - nothing feels "budget" about it at all. Current list price is
    less than the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS, and not much more than the 50-150
    OS. I think that's a great price for what it is.
    Nikon users have been talking for years about how an equivalent is
    needed, there are always rumours that one is "coming soon". When (or
    if) it does, I bet they shaft us for price, but it will still sell like
    hot cakes if it's any good.
    I am fed up with the weight of my kit, I'm getting older, and the kit
    has been getting heavier.
     
    Me, Sep 19, 2012
    #18
  19. tony cooper <> writes:

    > I've never seen - let alone photographed - a roller derby, but I've
    > photographed greyhound races. I always shoot from a beginning of the
    > straight-away as the dogs come around the fourth curve. There's
    > action as the dogs come out of the curve, and I can pan on the action
    > at the beginning of the homestretch.


    That sounds like about the same idea, yes.
    --
    Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 19, 2012
    #19
  20. Me <> writes:

    > On 19/09/2012 1:12 p.m., Robert Coe wrote:
    >> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:23:11 +1200, Me <> wrote:
    >> : I think the new OS 50-150 is quite a bit heavier than the older non OS
    >> : version you have, hence most of my negative comments.
    >> : Yes - Sigma make a 70-200 f2.8 OS, less than 100g heavier than the OS
    >> : 50-150, and about $1250 street price. It's probably okay.
    >> : I'm not a Canon owner. There are two things in Canon land that I really
    >> : envy. One is the 17mm TSE, the other is the 70-200 f4 L IS. The latter
    >> : is what you should be getting your wife for Xmas. I have used that lens,
    >> : and it's an absolute gem (on 5D and 5DII bodies). In fact I'd go so far
    >> : as to say that if I decided to buy a Canon body, I'd buy the darned lens
    >> : first, then cart it around camera stores to decide which body suited it
    >> : best.
    >>
    >> Why do you prefer the f/4 to the f/2.8? Because it's lighter? The 70-200 I
    >> have is the f/2.8L IS II, and it's plenty sharp for my eyes. But it is heavy,
    >> and I seldom carry it outdoors for that reason. I consider it mainly an indoor
    >> event lens, and it's hard to beat in that role (although maybe a bit long for
    >> my 7D's).
    >>

    > Yes - because it's lighter, much less expensive, and darned
    > good. Perhaps check exif on files you've taken using the f2.8, even
    > indoors, and see how often you actually use it fully wide.


    I'm guess quite possibly less than 50% of the time. On the other hand,
    I resort to fast lenses when it's dark.

    The concept of deliberately getting a zoom I plan to use a lot slower
    than f/2.8 is kind of appalling to me, I admit. That's *already*
    sacrificing a lot of speed by my standards.

    Depends what you shoot, of course.
    --
    Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 19, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jimmy Smith

    100mm telephoto vs telephoto macro

    Jimmy Smith, Jun 22, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    3,181
    Bill Hilton
    Jun 23, 2004
  2. rolento

    Sigma 24-60 DG compare with sigma 24-70 DG

    rolento, Nov 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    492
    rolento
    Nov 13, 2004
  3. friglob
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    513
    Michel Souris
    Feb 6, 2006
  4. Mikevt1

    Sigma or OEM Sigma as Quantaray

    Mikevt1, Oct 16, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,438
    Graham Fountain
    Oct 17, 2006
  5. banjo
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    3,547
    David Ruether
    Feb 26, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page