Sigma 50-100mm F1.8 ART Lens Preview: Is it worth $1,099?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 фев 2016
- Sigma just unleashed on the world the fastest F1.8 zoom lens. This is a 50-100mm F1.8 ART lens designed for cropped sensor cameras that costs $1,099. froknowsphoto.com/sigma-50-100...
The Nikon Version will give you the 35mm equivalent of 75-150mm and the Canon would be 80-160mm.
Sigma has been crushing the market for the past few years when it introduced it's new lens initiatives the Art, Contemporary and Sport lines.
Check out the video for my thoughts on who this is for.
Please subscribe here on RUclips bit.ly/frotube
Get your FREE GUIDE to capturing motion in Low Light Right Here froknowsphoto.com/ just look for the orange box.
![Jelly Roll - Dead End Road (From Twisters: The Album) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_Mb8CqKW4R8/mqdefault.jpg)
I enjoy your videos but I disagree with you on this lens just like how I disagreed on your opinion on the 18-35mm. I think the point here is that with these lenses, an apsc sensor camera could take comparable pictures to that of a full frame. With this two lenses (18-35mm, and the 50-100mm), an apsc camera has the range now to cover the most useful focal lengths. 35mm,50mm,80mm, and 160mm. Everyone knows that the nikkor 70-200mm is really a 70-160mm so the sigma only going to 160mm is not a deal breaker. So to conclude my point, for around $3000 (canon 70d(1000)+18-35mm(800)+50-100(1000)) you could take almost comparable pictures to that of a full frame for a lot cheaper. A good canon body alone is almost $3000. I know this setup is not for professionals but for a serious hobbits like myself, I would recommend this setup.
Also the fact that the 2.8 Full Frame lenses Jared is proposing will end up giving you F4.5 (rougly similar to a F4 lens on fullframe.. but FOR A LOT more money). Jared is just to suck in his ways in "The best of the best with honors SIR!" that he forgets that people have to start from somewhere. APS-C is the perfect place to start to find your love for photography before actually emptying your pockets and regretting it. Yes its not 100% extreme professional, but like Jared also says, "any camera can take professional pictures" and it being a "professional" camera is hearsay.
Although I lost my train of thought, this lens is remarkable especially for a hobbist wanting to get more serious with events/family/sports photography and anything dimly lit or in need of background obliterating BOKEH! a FF or APS-C lens with F1.8 is equivalent/will give you similar results to an F2.8/2.9 lens on a Fullframe camera. It also helps that the Sigma 18-35 & 50-100 are both great wide open (at F1.8) compared to other lenses where your best sharpness is abit less then its maximum aperture.
Also this doesnt address anyone thats staying on APS-C or has a dedicated APS-C Camera for that 1.6x crop. I personally use my 80D soley for TimeAttacks/Airshows/Wildlife, as the native 1.6x crop will be cleaner/clearer then any teleconverter you could buy.
It's still an f1.8 lens when it comes to low light ability and the shutter speed that you can attain. The fact that it is more similar to an f2.8 lens applies only to the depth of field, not it's ability to gather light.
Of course, I didn't say other wise.
So you can operate at half the ISO compared to 2.8 on FF, and at the end of the day and with similar sensor technology, the 1.8 APSC image and the 2.8 FF image will look "the same" with about the same amount of noise, even though the ISO value was different.
The two sets of gear are then equivalent (no need to "go FF"), but the size/weight advantage of the the APSC gear may not be impressive anymore.
Marco Sunder I agree, however the bokeh and depth of field will be a little different with the full frame sensor. It's all irreverent really... I'm sure this lens will do a good job, it's just a matter of whether people want to spend that kind of money for an APSC only optic.
+Richard Harmer Agree, but it is probably a nice proof of concept.
Just because someone is rich doesn't mean she wants to carry the heaviest gear.
+Marco Sunder The Sony Alpha 7 line is fullframe and they're very light. And the original a7 is under 1000$ :D
this is only marketing. Canon and nikon want you to upgrade to overpriced fullframe cameras so they don't give us the fast lenses which apsc sensors need. Sigma finally noticed that and I hope other companies will follow. Thanks a lot Sigma!!!
You're probably right. Their senior technical manager, Steve Heiner, treats D750 as a non professional camera! Imagine that!
So not only they want you to buy a full frame camera, but they want you to buy D810 if you're a professional. He also said that Nikon doesn't pull out features from cameras to make them less interesting than more expensive models.
Again, not true. Their basic model D3xxx misses many software features that are implemented in D5xxx like bracketing, 14bit raw, interval timer, multiple exposure.
With their rhetoric they managed to influence many reviewers to talk about the "upgrade path" to full frame and to mention DX only lens as a negative point in the reviews. DX only lens is a positive thing actually. It costs less since there's less glass in it and it's less heavy on many occasions.
.... and sigma only needs to deliver a 1.8 that is sharp at full aperture. they can build whatever they want, but not properly. even tokina is sometimes better. example: sigma10-20/2.8 to tokina 11-16/2.8. o wonder!
Im sure they knew for a long time but its not until recently Sigma is taking themselves seriously! They are no longer that cheaper/cheaply made 3rd party lens maker. Someone seriously kicked some pride up their asses and they are making FREAKING amazing lenses that are rivaling Nikon/Canons lineup for quite abit less in some cases. They are also filling parts of the market where there are voids that the Canon/Nikon dont care for.
It's quite simple. For those who are sticking with a crop sensor body, this is a fantastic buy. For those already mainly using a full frame camera, well then, this is not up their alley. I have a feeling the optics on this will be very good, and it should allow APS-C users to get very nice portrait shots without using primes. It can probably replace 50mm and 85mm primes, and be more versatile as well. It's like the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8. It doesn't have as much of a zoom range as most zoom lenses, but it is not meant for that. It is meant to to take the place of two prime lenses, with the quality of a prime, and be even more versatile than owning two primes. I applaud anyone who makes something NEW, that has never been seen before. This is an example of that. And the price is not bad considering that their 50mm 1.4 Art prime (perhaps not so different...but we'll see the IQ tests later) is just $150 less.
With 1.4 TC it shoul dbecome a f 2.8 Full frame lens, Has anyone tested?
This review was biased as hell. All you did was compare apples to oranges (FF to APS-C). There's obviously a market for APS-C users who prefer faster FPS. Your issue is that you don't see it as an investment, but regardless this is a phenomenal APS-C lens well worth the value. End of story!
This lens is clearly a companion to the 18-35 F/1.8, both of those lenses are for photographers who have no interest in upgrading to a full frame camera simply out of need.
The performance gap between aps-c and full frame is slowly closing, and more and more people are investing in higher end crop bodies, or moving over to crop mirrorless, such as the fuji x series.
This lens (and the 18-35) are for people who prioritize aperture over reach, myself being one of those people. I use the 18-35 every day and always appreciate the extra stop of light, especially when shooting concerts. I imagine that people in my situation would love this lens, as a 150mm equiv is usually enough for most people.
It's the sort of thing that you know if you need it or you don't. If you need the reach, don't buy it. If you want the 1.8, buy it.
I work at a camera store and I never recommend these lenses to people starting out, because you are correct in that new photographers don't know if they will move to full frame in the future, which would make this lens obsolete.
You missed the whole point of the lens: It's worth it because it effectively turns your crop sensor camera into a full frame one when it comes to light gathering ability, bokeh and ISO noise. Same as with the 18-35mm f1.8 And guess what.. Not everyone is looking to upgrade to full frame, so for some of us, these new f1.8 Sigma zooms are a Godsend! Especially on my Pentax K-3II, which has IBIS, this lens will outperform ANY FF DSLR with a f2.8 zoom in low light.
The Sigma 18-35 1.8 is sharper than all my Nikon wide and normal prime lenses on my D7100. Full Frame or not.
And I expect this lens to be even sharper than the 18-35 1.8!
And given the fact that there are no dedicated DX/APS(C) telephoto lenses this fast out there, (not mention the fact that it's also a zoom), this lens covers a hole in the market. There is no other lens like it!
And the fact is, that given a sharp and fast lens on an DX/APS(C) body, you get the same if not better results than on an Full Frame equivalent body and lens.
So I would say that by choosing a great DX/APS(C) format camera, like the D7200 or D500, and these two Sigma lenses, the 18-35 1.8 and 50-100 1.8, you not only save money, size and some weight but also get the same professional results as Full Frame. Which in turn eliminates the need to go Full Frame.
+Narek Avetisyan Very well put! incredible how not many people commenting know this. I'd like to add that if you mount those great Sigma Art lenses on a Pentax K3, with its on-board image stabilization, you can very sharp low-light pictures.
I have the 18-35 art and I am not blown away about it yet, it short focuses bad. I have the dock on the way but definitely not impressed, am actually pretty disappointed I bought it.
I second what you've said, this gem made the full frame advantages extremely subtle.
And yeah, even the sharpest FF prime in production may actually perform worse than this zoom on a Crop sensor.
That lens is basically an all in one portrait lens (85, 105, 135mm in equiv FF) for APSC, for people doing portraits and weddings this is a must have, along with the 18-35/1.8. And yes, you can do portraits and weddings with an APSC camera :)
It can also be used for video in S35 mode.
+Kindersama kinda...yeah. pretty much. at least my set, consisting of 10-24(slow lens) 35 1.8 60f2 macro and 85mm 1.4 probably cost less than these two, and does the ultrawide and macro stuff (while not being fast in the wideangle :( . still, they are for sure a good way to go. as i said in another post, id mainly consider spending that much on apsc -only lenses, although they act as many, if you are a sports shooter as fullframe highfps cams are damn expensive. well. i love my primes. they love to see me running around to get my framing....keep me healthy :D
"Grow into full frame"? I have a little bit of an issue with that :)
Full frame is just a format. It isn't better than APS-C, because that is also just a different format. It just depends on how you use your camera!
For example, you shoot a lot of portraits and concerts. In that case full frame makes sense because you have the potential for better bokeh through shallower DOF and full frame sensors generally have the better low light capabilities.
However, as of right now I would never consider a full frame body for myself. I shoot mainly with tele lenses, so I want to have the APS-C crop factor that gives me more reach. A few weeks ago there were two other photographers at the zoo at the enclosure where I was standing. They both had a 5DS R and *gigantic* tele lenses beyond 300mm on *huge* tripods. Meanwhile I was there with my D7000, my 80-200/2.8 and my 300/4. They had a tiny bit more reach but I was MUCH more mobile with my setup! I didn't have to move 10+ kilos on a tripod when the animals moved, I could just move myself. All because the crop sensor allows me to carry smaller lenses without sacrificing my reach :)
Oh also, if FX was the answer to all sensor problems there would be no market for something like the new D500^^
Don't take this the wrong way, I just geta little cranky when I hear someone say that FX is kind of the way to go for a photographer because I completely disagree with that.
The reason people say FX is the way to go, is because this is the first APS-C factor lens that is actually not a pile of shit
I just shot a wedding using this lens on my GH4. I was really nervous after purchasing it but looking back at my raw footage it won me over. It's one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used. And the focus was extremely fast. Not having OS also scared me, but if you're using a fluid head it's not an issue at all. It's a great lens.
Jared you should make a review of this lens in a D500 whenever you have the chance.
I think we need to come to accept that for a variety of reasons there are people who shoot crop sensor cameras. Look at the popularity of the Sony a6000 for example. For those people this will be a welcome addition.
Not everyone has the need or desire to move to full frame. And the sensors and IQ are so good across the board now, far fewer people seem to feel compelled to make that jump if they don't really need it.
$1100 is not bad if you know how good the "Art" series has been.
I have the 18-35 art and I am not blown away about it yet, it short focuses bad. I have the dock on the way but definitely not impressed, am actually pretty disappointed I bought it.
+danieljckson what body have you got it on?
Canon T3i, I know its an entry lvl and an older one at that and the problem may have more to do with my camera then the lens but that being said all my other lenses focus great and sharp and the 18-55 doesn't seem sharp in some situations where I don't think the short focusing is the problem but I will save judgement until I get the dock and work with it some more.
+danieljckson very rare for an "art" lens to be that bad, if the dock doesn't fix it then take it back and exchange for another copy...it really is a fantastic lens.
Have to agree with MrKdr, try another one and you should be fine. We've shot commercials with ours and are always happy with the final image
When I shot with a 70-200 on an APS-C body, it was an ok focal length for working out doors, but seemed a little tight when I wanted to shoot full length portraits indoors. (70mm wasn't quite wide enough) Then when I switched to a 35mm sensor the 70-200 became a very useful all around lens. (I found myself switching lenses much less often) So I can see why Sigma chose the focal range they did. I hope many APS-C users will find this lens useful and produce some awesome shots with it. As for me I already have all the lenses I need for now, so I'm passing this one up.
I can see this being used for video. Most video cameras (pretty much all of them, from the C100 to the Red Epic) are S35 and, if they need this focal length, this is a pretty good lens since they won't be going to full frame any time soon. Also, to my understanding, it's better to use crop lenses on crop bodies rather than FF lenses on crop bodies (but I may be wrong).
Thank you Jared. I have to ask....Can't this lens be used on a full frame camera, just in DX mode ? I use my Sigma 50-150 F2.8 in DX mode on my D750 and love it.
Yes, it's worth the price. I shoot full frame, but one of the reasons is not just ISO performance, but the lenses. Until now, companies haven't made serious APS-C lenses that equal the same as a 2.8 zoom. This will give the result similar to 2.8 on a full frame camera. Plus, if you put a two thousand dollar lens on an APS-C camera, it probably won't render as many megapixels as the kit lens. Which is a real downside of crop, until now. It does more than just crop the center of the glass. For example, a 24-70 2.8 ii on a 5D mark iii will give you about 19 megapixels, you'll get about 7 megapixels with the same lens on a 7D mark ii. These new APS-C lenses from Sigma are doing what should have been done long ago. They can get the same kind of detail and results as full framers, it's just they've never had the lenses to do so with.
+nagol5178 Finally one who got it. I never again buy an L lens for my Canon crop, it was so disappointing. This Sigma lens would have been a way better choice.
I use the 18-35 lens and I love it. This price is kind of a commitment to crop sensors or Super 35 sensors for video. I think this will be a huge asset to C100, Sony FS---, BMD Ursa owners who use that size sensor.
My reason for buying this lense was first of all I'm shooting on an APS-C Body (Sigma SD1), then this lense is, in terms of image quality, much better than the 70-200.
Especially wide open. This lense was made for portrait and artistic shots rather than sports or nature so 100mm is really more than enough for me.
I use this lens on my 80D and absolutely love it. No fucus problems what so ever. Its like owning a bunch of prime lenses all in one lens. Is it worth it, yes, a verry big yes. My portrait photography is so much better now. And its a realy sharp lens even at f1.8!
The 50-150 will be sharper on cropped sensor cameras than a 70-200 since it was made for it. Also, there is no lens that is like this, so calling it expensive when there's nothing for an apples to apples can't be justified. Also, I recommend you to watch Crop or Crap by Zack Arias. FF compared to APS-C is not that big of a difference.
+Timothy Tasmin 50-100*
I think this lens is for someone sticking with high end pro aps c like nikons dx or canons 80d and 7dmkii with no intention of going fullframe. Idk only time will tell.
Okay I realized that this video is a couple of years old. I'm curious has your opinion changed with the release of Nikon's D500? I own this camera and have been taking in a lot of reviews this week to make a decision on whether to purchase this lens. I do own a full frame d3 s as well
I just want a very blurry background. for a Sony a6000 Is it wise to get this? for what I need it for? or should I get the 200 2.8? I don't care about full frame for the future is making everything smaller and affordable. full frame will become obsolete in the future
Hi Jared, I have 5D mk3 & 24-105 f4, I am intend to add 1 backup body. but on budget. What you suggest, should I go for 70D + sigma 18-35 1.8, or add 70D + Tamron 24-70 f2.8 which can be used on both bodies. thanks
Since there is a crop factor of 1.5x on my Nikon d5300, would that 50-100 be a good alternative to the 70-200 since the crop factor makes the 50-100 a 75-150?
its design for photography but this will be perfect use for video use with crop sensors, majority of cinema cameras are cropped. This lens is very sharp!
Hey Fro, just a heads up. I looked up the 50-100 f/1.8 on Sigma's site, and they have the lens listed at $1099 as you said. When you select a Canon mount however, the price doubles to $2198. I'm guessing this is an error, as there is no option for a Nikon mount. For the record, this is as of 2/23/16 at 7:53 PM.
Would your opinion change if you can use a 1.7 teleconverter on the lens without significant loss of quality?
I completely ignored this lens until theD500 was announced. Now I'm intrigued. Still not sure if my D700 update will be the D500/750/810. Shooting mostly weddings but doing more and more sports.
Loved your review. I was thinking of this lens as THE NEW TELEPHOTO FOR VIDEO. Would be nice if you shared your thoughts on this.
This lens is a dream come true for a DX shooter shooting indoor high school (poor light) basketball/volleyball. That extra stop+ vs a 2.8 will make, say, an ISO 12,800 shot (@ 1/800th, 2.8) come down to within reason noise-wise at 1.8.
F2.8 compared to F1.8 is TWICE the light, and you get pro-grade bokeh. For a D7100/7200 and D500 user this is a PRO 75-150mm lens
I for one, live in the crop sensor (canon) world. A moderate zoom with constant f.1.8 glass is worth noting. My Canon 70-200 f2.8 on my 7D MK II gives me more reach (112 - 320mm), but also renders the f2.8 to f4.48, not to mention that the 70-200's designed optical performance can't be realized (DXOMark) on a crop body. The f1.8 Sigma on the crop sensor seems like a gaping hole compared to F4.48, and will likely out resolve my 70-200 by a good margin when used on a crop body. What are your thoughts Jared?
I am interested to know which market they are targeting for this lens . Regarding the lens itself, I have the same thoughts as the speaker....
One thing that I think you missed taking about was adapting this to use on micro four thirds. Using metabones you could keep autofocus and have a 100-200 f1.8. While not as much of a zoom range as a 70-200 it might be worth it to some people for that extra stop of light while still being able to keep up to that 200mm look for nice face compression in portraits or just being able to get closer for sports.
i wonder what happen to theese lenses wich are made for crop sensor cameras if you use a extension tube to reduce the distance!? would it make it better or feel like a real 50-100mm? BTW, sorry if my english is not that good, im a hispanic.
I'm really torn between buying this lens for my Nikon D3200 or upgrade to Nikon D610 and buy Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8. Need your opinion on this. Tamron has VC while sigma doesn't. I've been thinking if I can get a sharp pictures in low light with sigma.
Personally I am stuck, I have a Canon 60d with battery grip and have aquired a Fuji x pro1. I enjoy the them both however in need to move up in focal length. Question is where to go, I need lens build on a lens collection but in the future I would need to upgrade my body. Leaving the question, can I afford FF Dslr bodys. If not would this lens be worth it?
FIRST
+Jared Polin ahahaha! good one. trollin' the trolls.
+Jared Polin haha good one.
The point of this lens I think is to provide the Dx shooter and shooter that wants to stay on Dx. A 70-200 f2.8 will not give you the same look in term of bokeh on a Dx. This lense will give you the look of the 70-200 on FX but on a Dx body.
+Jared Polin Since you shoot indoor sports, why don't you try this lens on 7D mark II or D500 for indoor sports. That should be a good application for a lens of this range.
+Jared Polin Bokeh = "Boh-Ke" Bow and Kettle..."Bo-Ke" lol....Its Japanese
I'm seeing a lot of use for this lens in video. C300, BlackMagic Ursa, RED Dragon. They all use a crop sensor.
+Uniden The C300 is a super 35mm Cmos sensor.
Jared Polin Which is about the same as APS-C and works with the same lenses.
+Uniden
it sounds like 35mm (aka fullframe) but yeah its 1.4 crop, this will be insane on that
haha I'm literally looking up reviews before I buy this lens for this exact reason. We use the Sigma 18-35 1.8 all the time on our Red Dragon and my Blackmagic Pocket and love it. So I'm assuming this will be great too. Sigma's been killing it lately with its art series
Does anybody know if this works with Sigma's teleconverters? Might not be the obvious choice, but you get the 1.8 without the converter, and then a 100-200mm lense as a cheap ad up version with the 2x converter instead of an 70-200. Although the max aperture will be slightly slower then and no OS...
Nikon D500 + Sigma 50-100mm f1.8 = wet dreams
All we need from Sigma now is, a 24-70 F1.8/F2.0 with OS with weather sealing and a awesome reasonable price and it will bring Canon 24-70 IS II and Nikon 24-70 2.8 ED to its knees.
+ACiD_ “Th3xRaVeNx” ReinX not possible :) Well, theoretically it is, but it would be huge as f*ck and expensive as f*ck.. Do some research into how lenses are made, why they have their respective specifications in regards to what it costs to develop, test and manufacture.. I'm sure someone will make something like that, but to stay within reason costs it has to either utilize newly developed technology / techniques or compromise on some area of the lens.
I actually did but hopefully we can see it soon :)
I will never go to FX, I have been using DX back to D70 and still think it's the best way.
The 50-100 is a new way to do stuff, I just look forward to more zooms at 1.8
Here’s my thing. I love my 77D, one of the reasons is I love to shoot sports (my son) and I get so much more out of my lenses, 70-200 2.8 L. And more because it’s and APS-C. I print, frame great photos. Don’t think I want a full frame. Love your channel! Your thoughts?
Gene
Such a cool lens, wish it was for fx sensors though
Is it not the point, that with this lens, and the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8, that you do not need to upgrade to full frame? Would a 7DII, with these lenses, and maybe 135 f2 would make a formidable alternative to full frame? On top of the range and roughly 2.8 bokeh, you are still getting f1.8, which will allow a lower iso to make the issue of noise more even?
Hello there, I have a question:
I have a Nikon d3300, it's my first DSLR and I only have the kit lens, which lenses do you recommend? I was considering buying a 50 mm f/1.8 AF-S lens for about $210, but which other lenses you recommend? (prime or zoom lens, doesn't matter, price point: below $600)
Thank you!
+Jairo Alonso I have got the nikon 50mm f1.8 and sigma 18-35mm f1.8 and I am very happy with these lenses
Apparently, Frodo don't know photo. The full frame equivalent of this lens is approx. 75-150 f2.8, not 1.8, depending on the crop factor on your camera. Why is this even still an issue?
Jared doesn't understand that this is a crop sensor camera lens, not a full-frame sensor camera lens. If you want a lens that will give you the sharpest possible image on your crop sensor camera, then you need to get a lens designed for crop sensors, not full frame sensors. So this lens will presumably (and if this lens is anywhere as good as their 18-35 f1.8, then I'm sure it will) give you sharper images on your crop sensor camera than a 70-200 f2.8 lens designed for a full frame sensor.
This or the sigma 50-150 f2.8 os hsm? Both are made for crop sensor and are about $1000 but the larger range means about a stop and a third less light
Got this lens and even tho it's heavy I rarelly take it out of my Nikon D500 when I want to do indoor or outdoor portraiture. However I only payed 675€ for it. Bought it second, made all the possible "revision" tests and I don't regret and I am that guy that always buys NEW. This was my first time going second and so you can be sure I was very careful doing those tests. Best part: The copy I got has no focus issues whatsoever... :')
Will this lens work on the canon EOS R ? Thanks.
Glad they came out with this lens. They cater well to the crop sensor these guys.
The lens I primarily am waiting for is the 35-70mm f/2 lens for full frame. I enjoyed the focal length on the Contax Zeiss despite it being f/3.5. But it'll kick ass if it's anything like the 24-35mm they came out with recently.
I think some people are still missing the point regarding this lens... What other DX lens is there available to get an equivalent to the full frame 85mm -135mm range that is even comparable for shooting portraits? It fills a gap, it s an equivalent to a full frame 2.7 75-150mm lens and it seems to be sharp, but even if it weren't... what would be the alternatives??
This with the new D500 will have full frame bodies sweating bullets...and yes it is an amazing lens for an apsc...
+Frank Nazario Yeah the a6300 as well. I went from full frame to it and I am happy. Not everything is about sensor size. I will go back to full frame one day, but right now for a photo/video combo the a6300 can't be beat.
+Frank Nazario Fuck full frame, a gimmick i dont see lasting, and i dont see the attraction at all, especially with the new APS-C stuff coming out!!
Would you have to multiply the crop factor with 1.8????
If I was using a DX camera and staying there, I'd definitely take a look at this lens. I can see this being aimed at portrait photographers. No OS and zoom range kinda limits sports shooting. But as a portrait range, I can see it being a nice addition, perhaps even for weddings. Up to the photog, but the lens is in its own category that's worth looking at.
I don't know if I'm right here, but I feel like this lens together with the 18-35 1.8 are aiming into giving more options for people who shoot video. Since there isn't great glass for cropped sensors, and the most common large sensor size for video is a Super 35mm size, it feels like this is more for people who likes the run n gun aspects of dslr sized bodies and lenses, but actually works with an actual video camera (C100, Blackmagic, FS7, etc). A 50-100mm being just 1.8 is crazy, but it does feel expensive with other 70-200mm options which also includes IS.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you use a full frame f/2.8 lens on a DX body, don't you have to multiply the f-number by the sensor's crop factor? For example, f2.8 * 1.5 = f4.2. So you're not going to get the same bokeh/DOF. I don't see the advantage of buying an even more expensive FF lens for a crop body unless your planning on buying a FF camera in the near future.
i feel that this lens will benefit video production more than stills. the wide aperture lets in allot of light and the fact that it is parfocal. I see this being used with the 18-35 for video production. Combine both those on a gh4 with a metabones speed booster and you have a very capable camera for low light filming.
+bob345 But without OS it seems like video work would be a bit of a pain
SteveOTheMan16
os is unnecessary for video work as the fluid head or rig you should be using will stabilize it for you.. How many cinema lenses have you seen that have image stabilization?
***** That's true for higher end video work. I'm more of a photo guy, oops haha. That makes sense.
+bob345 Yeah Jared is definitely not thinking about video use in this quick look. Folks use full frame for video but in my experience it is more likely video will be done on APS-C or smaller sensors though I agree with him about the range. I have the Sigma 50-150 2.8 its a great lens would of been nice to have that extra range.
+kamenwaticlients I definitely agree about the range. it is very short. not in unusable, but shorter than I would like. I'm sure sigma would have made it with a larger range if it was practical to make engineering and production wise. It's likely because it would have driven the cost far too high.
Back in the day I had a Nikon 75-150 f/3.5. I loved it! It was the perfect Glamour lens. Shame on Nikon for not keeping an updated version of that lens in its catalog. This 50-100mm from Sigma is as close as you get.
Isn't there a whole issue of using full frame glass on a crop sensor camera not being as sharp as glass designed for a crop sensor? Or is that one of those tastes great less filling arguments?
+Rumblestrip.NET Yes, there is and you are right - at least that how it is on A-mount.
+Rumblestrip.NET my full frame lens 24-70mm 2.8L lens on T2i worked amazingly well. It is slightly less sharper on a crop sensor yes, but some people who build up their lenses first then cameras have no issues with this. I did. I got a T2i, then got a L lens, then moved up to a 6D. I'm happy.
+Rumblestrip.NET Hey there, when you put full frame on a cropped sensor body you may actually get sharper images.
+Jared Polin How would it do on a mirrorless. Gh4 Or the eos m3.
Jared Polin
Can you give a specific real life example maybe a video about it?
My experience is just the opposite, FF lenses are less sharp on A-mount APS-C body's (A77) than FF for sure (A99).
So jared, what about a review on it, now that it's out? :)
i just ordered this lens. i only have the 18-50mm kit lense that came with my canon 80d
in your video about the sigma 50-150 2.8 i remember you saying to buy for the camera you have today because you dont know when you will upgrade to FF, i still agree with that, ( i bought the 50-150 and a second 7100 to do weddings) but in this case the zoom just doesnt seem worth it 50-100 is a fairly small zoom i feel like you would go to zoom out and wish it would go that little bit farther. it was the same reason i didnt buy the 18-35 1.8
I personally think that all photographers should have a full frame and a crop sensor camera if possible. With the new D500 it is even more true. Each has its own advantages. If you plan on always having a crop camera around (as I do) I think this lens is worth it. You get better low light ability, (1.8 in a zoom would be really nice) and the look of a full frame in terms of bokeh. To me the shorter range is worth the trade off.
I want a D500 and after I get it this lens may be my next purchase.
Exactly my feelings on the subject.
I don't think that you get better low light ability. Imo you could get much better low light ability with a stabilized 70-200 f2.8 lens, because you get 2-3 f-stops by stabilisation. I agree, that you get an equivalent bokeh compared to a 75mm-150mm f2.8 on a full frame sensor.
+Lars Schmidt - True, but to me the ability to maintain faster shutter speeds in most cases is far superior to stabilization. It has it's advantages but stabilization does not prevent subject motion blur.
Professional video guys I think would love this. I know many of them who raved about the Sigma 18-35 1.8, and this one being Parfocal is definitely awesome for shooting video. Great thing about prof. video cameras is that most of them shoot Super 35 format, so crop lenses are good!
The meaning with the Sigma f1.8 zoom is to get fullframe dept of field with a crop sensor camera. The noise level should also be very similar to a fullframe (f/2 on crop sensor has about the same light "trapping" ability as f/2.8 on fullframe). So if you dont intend to move to fullframe i thinkt the cost could be justified.
between the 2, the lens that takes better photos is the one i would buy.. a 50-100 1.8 would be great. a 70-200 2.8 would also be great. i am quite happy with my crop sensor camera so i am fine with a crop sensor lens. i picked up the 18-35mm art lens and love it. my 150-600mm sport is also amazing. something in the 50-100 range would be right up my alley. the 70-200 would also work.. i need to replace my nikon 18-200mm lens some time. so i guess it would depend on which one seemed to take better photos.. that would be cool if you could do a comparison video on the two lenses some time.
I use full frame, but I could see this lens as the perfect complement to a 7DmkII user with a 100-400mm or the D500 user. Basically, people purchasing the top of the line APS-C bodies, who choose APS-C sensors for a variety of reasons, will see the value in this lens. I used the 18-35 f1.8 Art when I shot crop and was very impressed by that lens.
I think it's meant to take the place of your primes, or at least the 50,85 and 135. All the portrait primes, I wonder if it will be sharpe enough.
You make some good points, I'm looking to upgrade to the Nikon d500 and was seriously considering this sigma 50-100 but I think I'm gonna get more out of that new tamron 70-200 g2 lens.. idk it is a tough decision!!
I know it's discontinued, but why no mention of sigma' s 50-150mm? I have it and absolutely love it!
You forgot to mention one thing....A full frame lens an a crop sensor will produce much softer images due to magnification....that is the reason why the 18-35 is much sharper (even in the corners) than the equivalent nikon FX G primes.
Also the apperture needs to be multiplied when using a crop sensor, so a 70-200 f2.8 is acctually an f4.
For people using the 7D series and now buying the D500 and also videographers filming with super 35 cameras this lens is a must have...
Will do a great job on the D500 Nikon. Add the 18-35mm to it and you have brilliant set up. That is if you don't intend going full frame.
I do see why people will want this lens. Sigma already has proven (with the 18-35mm f/1.8) that there's a market for this kind of lenses. I'll explain the case of the 18-35 as it is what have been measured.
If you already have a crop sensor camera (like the 70d) and you what to achieve better results you can: a) Buy the sigma 18-35 for the camera you already have. b) Upgrade to a Full frame camera (like the 6D, which have the same amount of MP as the 70D) and get the Sigma 24-70 (which is the lens that the 18-35 wants to mimic, although it's not totally equivalent) c) Get the 24-70 now and wish for the upgrade of the camera any time in the future.
If you choose the first option, you'll have a 1.5 stop (roughly) more of light that with the other options. That will compensate for the 1.5 stops (roughly) cleaner images the second option provides. The first option, will give you a 15 P-Mpix (yes, this is based on DXOMark measures, I don't have the lens and cameras here to do the comparison) and the second one, 16 P-Mpix. So with both options you get pretty similar results in terms of low light capability and sharpness, and one envolves paying for a new camera.
If, you choose the last option, that will be similar in cost to the first one, you'll end up with a 1.5 stop more noise, and a 10 P-Mpix picture. So, a significant amount of more noise and less sharpness.
And I'm not even considering that the 70D have much better focus system, an articulating touchscreen and many other advantages over the 6D.
I know it will always be better to have a full frame body and professional lenses, but for those, like me, that don't have the budget to upgrade the camera and get a new lens, this seems like a very nice option.
+Jared, you can get the 50-150 F2.8 for $800 used with os, i own the lens, its a beauty
As a mainly wildlife and nature photographer I don't really see myself going to full frame due to the "extra" reach, so I invested in some better DX glass like their 18-35 1.8 and 8-16. I could definitely see myself with this at some point in the future. Sigma has been knocking it out of the park the last 5 years. Hopefully they continue the trend!
Now whether I should throw money at this, a new telephoto, or a D500 is the real question... :)
The point of this lens is you don't go to full frame, you stay at crop. The only problem is the range vs the weight of the lens. if it didn't weigh so much, the objections would go away. i guess sigma wanted to put really good optics into this lens.
But if you use full frame glass on crop sensor, you generally loose a lot of detail as that lens is tailored for a larger sensor.
the thing is that if you are using aps-c from a long time and expensive bodies (7dmkii in my case), you want similiar quality in lenses, because you know that maybe will never pass to FF. And in that case, the options of a good tele zoom are fews. I wanted the sigma 50-150 2.8 with OS but, it is discontinous. The fact that this lens doesn't have OS i think is the mayor problem, because you're right, you need it for that range of mm.
is it built for film makers using GH4?
I think you forgot that some people actually prefer APS-C and that sensor size will continue on into mirorless so with a converter your not looking out if your a nikon shooter at least.
I have been really considering getting the 50-100 until you drove home the lack of IS, I think I'll just go for the 70-200 instead. doubt I can go for the canon but maybe the tamron or sigma.
Looking fwd to trying this on the m6 ii
It makes sense for some artistic portrait photography.
The aperture is f/2.8 full frame (Canon). It's cool that someone is making "Pro" level lenses for APSC bodies. I'm looking forward to Sigma/Tamron's 85mm primes.
Absolutely. Professional work can be turned out by crop sensor cameras and if one chooses that route (especially with bodies that contain pro-level features like the D500) then the price for a professional grade lens makes sense. It's not about WHEN someone moves to FF, but the fact that they don't have to.
It's a 70-200 killer for Canon Cinema series (that are APS-c) and for the upcoming a6300 (cropped), and for the a7r2 too (movie mode cropped).
Hell yes this is worth it! Pair this the 18-35mm f1.8 Art I already own, plus eventually the 120-300mm f2.8 Sport and talk about a hell of a set of zooms for my Canon 70D. I already own the 50-150mm f2.8 and while I will hate to give up the OS for video work (honestly rarely shoot at a low enough shutter speed for event work), this lens takes away almost all the need to wait for an 85mm f1.4 Art and replaces my need for the 50mm f1.4 Art if the T-Stop stays close to 2.0 on the new 50-100.
I'm sure someone is going to test this lens on a full frame camera and make comparisons between crop and full frame, if it looks good for full frame I will definitely buy it for my D700.
Yeah, buy this for the any cinema camera with a super 35 sensor which is the same as a APS-C crop sensor. This lens is a steal for that application.
I've bought two of this lens for my A6300 and D500. It outperforms my Nikon 70-200mm F/2.8 VR2 in terms of sharpness IMO and is extremely good for shooting portraiture. Worth the purchase for dedicated APSC camera users who don't mind heft of this lens.
I have this lens and it’s amazing on my Canon EOS R7. I am a hobbyist at the moment. I bought this lens because I love the 85mm look and looks amazing for street, city-scape and nature photography. I love the “closeness feel”. I do agree that Sigma has to update their Art lens and make an RF version. There aren’t a lot of options for Canon APS-C. I am currently rocking the Sigma 30mm f1.4 (48mm equivalent), 50-100mm f1.8 (80-160mm equivalent, Canon 10-18mm F/4.5-5.6 IS for day time video and Tokina 11-20mm f2.8 for wide photos).
I will be in Japan in the fall and having a 1.6 crop factor is a great advantage because I can be a bit back from the crowds. I like to take photos from a distance rather than being up close.
At the end of the day it more about the photographer who knows and understand his/her gear and what they’re going after. Great video!
Getting this for my Red Weapon Carbon. Its a perfect addition to the 18-35 1.8
When I get the 8K sensor I'll take the Art Primes, but as many mentioned...I get more light with these "crop" lenses instead of a 2.8 lens and not every situation needs Fullframe. Thx to Red I can switch between different sensor sizes.
Does this works out with the APS-H Camera sensors !!!
There is no such information in page !!
+thariq hussain Yes but you will get some vignetting at the wider end of the lens.
What do you think about Tamron announcement?
50-150mm for APS-C is similar to a 70-200mm on a full frame. So for people who don't want to drop 2k on a full frame camera, but still want a nice lens, this is great, even for the high price.