# Sigma 50-150 vs 70-200



## pixmedic (Feb 10, 2013)

So...Ive been looking at getting a constant  aperture (terminology fixed thanks to KMH) tele-zoom, and I just don't have the money for a nikkor 70-200. 
I was originally looking at sigmas 70-200 since i have heard some good things about it, but I have recently been thinking about sigmas 50-150. I realize the 50-150 is a DX lens, but i don't have any plans to go FX anytime soon. the D300s does everything we need it to do. I haven't really heard much about the 50-150, and i was wondering if it might be a better choice on a DX body if you didn't really NEED to go out to 200mm much?

I haven't really decided if I want to go OS or non-OS yet, will depend on the budget. 
any thoughts on the 50-150? anyone have it and use it?
also, how about Tokina's 50-135 f/2.8?


----------



## Overread (Feb 10, 2013)

I can see an interest for 50-150mm in crop sensor. 70mm can be a bit long at times, esp indoors or just generally shooting with friends/family etc.. And being able to drop down just a little more to 50mm would be a boon to have. Granted you lose with reach having only 150mm instead of 200mm; but if you're not in need as much for the reach then I could well see a 50-150mm being a very capable crop sensor walkaround and generalist lens (heck its rang is about similar to what a 70-200mm gives on fullframe at least in terms of angles of view - even more so on Nikon with your 1.5 crop)


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 10, 2013)

Blacksheep has the Sigma 50-150mm non-OS ... maybe she will provide some feedback for you.


----------



## greybeard (Feb 10, 2013)

Interesting, it review well.
Sigma AF 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM (Nikon mount) - Review / Test Report


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 10, 2013)

When I have used her lens it has performed exceptionally well.
Very high IQ, even wide open.
IF is handy and quick.
I would get one of my own if I was not hunting for a Sigma 150mm macro.


----------



## BlackSheep (Feb 10, 2013)

The 50-150 is my go-to lens for general shooting, I really like it. It's very small & light compared to many of my other lenses, and travels very well.

I have the older non-OS version. I am very shakey naturally, but I don't find the need for the OS at all with this lens. My Sony body does have stabilizing, so that may be the difference.

If you want to see some photos from that lens, let me know and I can post some.

ETA one of my other go-to lenses is a 100-300, so between those two I have full coverage for my regular shooting. I'm not sure what you have already, i.e. if the 70-200 fills a gap with that extra bit to 200, that may be the way to go. But if you have the range that you want already, I highly recommend the 50-150, it's a really nice little lens.


----------



## KmH (Feb 10, 2013)

You want a constant aperture zoom lens, not a fixed aperture lens.

Most constant aperture telephoto zooms have a max aperture of f/2.8, but can be adjusted to smaller apertures.

A fixed aperture zoom lens, a hallmark of El Cheapo zoom lenses, has just a single usable lens aperture rather than an adjustable lens aperture.


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 11, 2013)

KmH said:


> You want a constant aperture zoom lens, not a fixed aperture lens.
> 
> Most constant aperture telephoto zooms have a max aperture of f/2.8, but can be adjusted to smaller apertures.
> 
> A fixed aperture zoom lens, a hallmark of El Cheapo zoom lenses, has just a single usable lens aperture rather than an adjustable lens aperture.



are you saying the 50-150 is stuck at f/2.8 and cant be adjusted to a smaller aperture? never heard of that. makes it a pretty useless lens if thats the case.


----------



## Overread (Feb 11, 2013)

I think this is what KmH is more getting at in your original post



pixmedic said:


> So...Ive been looking at getting a *fixed *aperture tele-zoom,



Rather than making a statement on the specific features of the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 (which does allow you to change the aperture)


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 11, 2013)

Overread said:


> I think this is what KmH is more getting at in your original post
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ah..ive always heard the term fixed aperture. I didn't realize I was unintentionally giving the photography community misleading information as to the type of lens I was looking for. my bad. I will fix my OP as to not throw anyone else off.


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 16, 2013)

I picked up the 50-150mm (non-OS) for BlackSheep because of it's size and weight compared to any other in the wide aperture zoom range.
It makes it easier to have in our current camera bags
 and more convenient for hand holding.
Focal range fits in the missing middle zone.


----------



## daggah (Feb 16, 2013)

I have the 50-150 2.8 OS.  I chose it because I felt like I'd miss the range on the wide end with a 70-200.  I can tell you that the OS version is not a small or lightweight lens though.  It's big, intimidating, and looks professional (which can be either an advantage or a disadvantage in different situations.)  From what I understand, the Sigma 70-200 OS 2.8 is a little soft on the distant end, but my 50-150 is pretty damn sharp at 150mm.  I have considered getting a 1.4x TC to extend the range a little, but I've never been able to determine if a 1.4x TC is drastic enough to cause a big image quality loss.

I am very happy with the lens itself though.


----------



## mymrhelpdesk (Aug 24, 2013)

daggah said:


> I have the 50-150 2.8 OS.  I chose it because I felt like I'd miss the range on the wide end with a 70-200.  I can tell you that the OS version is not a small or lightweight lens though.  It's big, intimidating, and looks professional (which can be either an advantage or a disadvantage in different situations.)  From what I understand, the Sigma 70-200 OS 2.8 is a little soft on the distant end, but my 50-150 is pretty damn sharp at 150mm.  I have considered getting a 1.4x TC to extend the range a little, but I've never been able to determine if a 1.4x TC is drastic enough to cause a big image quality loss.
> 
> I am very happy with the lens itself though.



I have both of these lenses, they are both very good lenses, mine are both non os lenses the 50-150 f/2.8 ex apo dc non os is much smaller, less intimidating and easily used hand held. Perfect for weddings I get just  about every focal length I need.

That being said the 70-200 f/2.8 ex apo macro dg absolutely, takes gorgeous portraits, it's heavy but if i'm shooting outdoors the 70-200 f/2.8 is what I grab 1st.
I'm a pro 2nd shooter at weddings, my wedding kit consists of Fuji S5 Pro w/50-150 f/2.8 , Nikon D80 w/18-50 f/2.8 and a macro 50mm f/2.8 all Sigma glass, I find I have all the focal lengths I require with those 3 lenses.

I use the 50-150 for about 85% of my shots and the 18-50 for groups, reception family tables etc. the macro is for rings flowers cake etc.

Depends on what you need imho if you are a wedding shooter i'd go 50-150 is perfect indoors my lens is small I've heard new os lenses are larger. I'd look for an older non stabilized one I've never had any reason to need OS. If you are shooting full frame then you really have no choice go to the 70-200 DG, Just have 2 bodies get an 18-70 f/2.8 and you should be fine.


----------

