photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
lightrules | profile | all galleries >> Lens Tests by LightRules >> Sigma 50-150 f2.8 EX DC HSM Test tree view | thumbnails | slideshow

Sigma 50-150 f2.8 EX DC HSM Test

Dec 20 2006: Tested here is the newly released Sigma 50-150 f2.8 EX DC HSM versus Canon's 70-200 IS siblings. My comments are at each test page.

Sigma 50-150 B&H pricing $680
Canon 70-200 f4IS B&H pricing $1060
Canon 70-200 f2.8IS B&H pricing $1700

Overall Assessment: The Sigma is a strong performer overall, although its border performance and close focusing accuracy should be better. Its CA control is at a very high level, and its flare resistance is similarly impressive. The Canon L's are generally sharper and more contrasty at most subject distances, but only pixel-peeping is going to reveal the true nature of this difference. The Sigma is built very well, the focus and zoom rings well-dampened and very grippy and large. Ergonomically, it's the best of the three lenses here, as it balances the best (albeit it is the only one APS-C designed). While I highly recommend this lens, make sure to check out your copy's close focusing accuracy. Others have reported similar misfocusing as I have here, so if you happen to have the same issue, be sure to send it in for calibration. Otherwise, at roughly $650 USD, it's a very good optic. The f2.8 speed makes it highly attractive for this zoom range, and its diminutive size only adds to its overall appeal.
01
01		 02
02		 03
03		 04
04
05
05		 06
06		 07
07		 70-200 f4 IS Weight
70-200 f4 IS Weight
50-150 f2.8 Weight
50-150 f2.8 Weight		 70mm Test
70mm Test 		150mm Test
150mm Test 		210mm Test [Kenko Pro 1.4xTC]
210mm Test [Kenko Pro 1.4xTC]

comment | share
Jurgen Treue Photography17-Aug-2009 01:08
I've owned the Sigma 50-150mm for over 12 months now.. I love this lens and it's my most used.. On my 20D it's sharp as a tack wide open at all focus distances and focal lengths.. On my new 50D it front focused but with some AF Micro adjustment all is good..

This is the quality I'm getting out of the Sigma 50-150

http://www.pbase.com/jurgentreue/image/109411007
Guest 23-May-2008 23:16
The only concern that i have is the close focus issue that you mencioned. I've been searching another opinions about the sigma and it's disconcerting the number of people complaining about the close focus issue. Damn the Sigma control quality. I'll give Sigma a chance but if i encounter this issue twice, i think i'll go for the Canon. Thanks for your response. Greetings!
lightrules22-May-2008 16:13
Of course having f2.8 in this small of a package is a significant point, so I would recommend the Sigma so long as it's not having a close focus issue. Optically it's very good. The Canon is an excellent lens in every way, but f4 is f4 and that's 1 whole stop slower.
Guest 22-May-2008 07:29
Hi lightrules. Nice comparative but i have a little doubt. Which one do you recommend more? The Sigma 50-150 or the Canon 70-200 F4 (No IS)?
lightrules17-May-2008 15:13
Chris, AF speed on the 50-150 is quick, very close to the Canons. The Sigma 70-200 also has pretty quick AF. They all should as they feature ring AF. So in terms of AF, they are all adequate for the job. The question is if you want f2.8 or f4. Best wishes.
Chris 17-May-2008 13:54
Hi Lightrules,

I'm torn between these lenses and the Sigma 70-200. 1) I wonder if you could comment on the AF speed of the 50-150 as compared to the Canon f/4 IS. 2) Right now I have a 17-55 IS and 85 f/1.8 which I use with a 40D. As a companion to these lenses, do you have an opinion about which (50-150 or 70-200) would be better for generally outdoor, daytime tracking of little fast-moving kids? I have found the Sigma 18-200 OS not up to that task.

Thanks!
Guest 07-Nov-2007 13:39
I bought my 50-150 and absolutely love it for: sharpness, focussing speed, weight and $$$
I am getting into band photography and have found this to be a brilliant performer. I was using the Nikon 50mm 1.8D for low light, however I did some rough testing against the Sigma at 50mm and I have to tell you I was blown away. The Sigma outperforms the 50mm at f2.8 and f4 and the Nikon only catches up by f5.6. And what about flare control, its brilliant. It really depends on your uses for this lens, however if I had the Nikon 70-200 or 80-200 I would be sacrificing 20-30mm at the wide end. I personally think I must have got a good one, as I have heard very different opinions on the net. Heres a gig shot purely with the 50-150 to give you an idea: http://photos.fasterlouder.com.au/sa/Bluejuice/
LuisFaustino 14-Jun-2007 00:35
Hi,
I had the 50/150 and returned it a week after.
Focus was'nt good at 150mm and I got lots of flare and CA (green colored, not red)
Anyway, I very much liked the focal distance interval (i'm with EOS-30D) and size of the lens!

Bye
lightrules30-Mar-2007 16:53
Hi Mark, I replied to your email about the Sigma at 135mm. Take care.
Guest 30-Mar-2007 15:45
Hi,
As always your reviews are very interesting and informative. One question: how is the performance of the Sig 50-150 at 135 f/2.8? The Tokie is supposed to be good at this range, haven't seen the Sig tested at 135. If you ever did a head to head of those two, it would be great....
lightrules23-Dec-2006 18:57
Michael, your comments are very representative of my own findings and opinion. Enjoy the light with your 50-150.
Guest 23-Dec-2006 18:54
Thank you for a very good test. I choose the sigma 50-150 2.8 for its small size, light weight, and last but not least, lower price. My first copy front focused terribly, even at long focus distances. My second copy is fine. A bit out of focus at min focus distance (1m) but at 1.5m it is ok. In my portrait tests it did great. I was somewhat surprised at just how close the sigma performs to the canons at 70mm. At 150mm I could see the canon's were a bit sharper and in a few comparisons the canons had more contrast (but in a few I think the sigma had more). I'm not usually a pixel peeper (only when I get a new lens and want to test it) so I think at normal viewing/printing size, it would be hard to distinguish the sigma from the canons. The edge performance is much better on the canons but that's no surprise, they are full frame lenses.

Overall, I'm quite pleased with my Sigma. It's light enough to keep it in my bag and carry it around all day and that was really my main concern, even more important than image quality. I wish it focused better at min focus distance for those real tight portraits, and I wish it had a tripod mount (the 150 2.8 macro has one, why not the 50-150?).

Finally, people should be aware that the min focus distance is for 50mm and that at 150mm it's unreasonable to expect it to focus this close. Yes the Canons do it but the Sigma can't. At 1.5m or 2m, the Sigma focuses well. So far in the forums lots of people are reporting front focus but I think it's because they're using Jackson's focus test chart and they're too close. If you really need to focus this close then the 70-200's are a better bet.
Tom Yi 21-Dec-2006 03:56
Nice test. I probably won't be selling my Canon 70-200f2.8L for this lens either, but for a person looking for a compact and fast telephoto zoom, this offers an excellent deal. The corners are a bit softer than the Canon (not a surprise since the Canons are for FF) and at 150mm, the Sig seems to get a touch softer. I'd doubt this would be a hugh thing if you process the shots.
click on thumbnails for full image