Sigma 50-150mm first version or 50mm and Nikon 55-200

sorabh

Senior Member
Hi Guys

I own a Nikon d3200 with no intention of upgrading to full frame any time soon.

I sold the kit lens (18-55mm) and replaced it with a 35mm which I find works well for landscapes and holiday snaps without distortion

I now want something which is more of a portrait lens.

Option 1: 50mm prime 1.8 and a Nikon 55-200mm

OR

Option 2: 50mm-150mm sigma 2.8 (non IS first version)

I would love to buy the 85mm prime or the 70-200mm but I simply cannot afford it and for what I do (amateur photography of friends and family) I cannot justify the price. so it's really down to these two options.

If any of you have used the Sigma 50-150mm lens I'd love to hear from you !

Thanks guys
 

jay_dean

Senior Member
I used to have the non OS Siggy 50-500, i thought it was a great lens which can produce great results. I think its often overlooked by the Sigma 150-500
 

sorabh

Senior Member
Im also thinking about the tamron 28-75 but I dont like the way tamron renders colours and find their lenses to be a little soft. Could just be me..
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Im also thinking about the tamron 28-75 but I dont like the way tamron renders colours and find their lenses to be a little soft. Could just be me..
What is it about Tamron's color rendition you don't like?

Tamron is turning out some superb glass these days and I wouldn't hesitate to shoot with their 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD on my D7100. I think it would make a great all-around sort of lens on a DX body.

Fast, relatively compact, versatile and the IQ is quite good.
....
 

sorabh

Senior Member
What is it about Tamron's color rendition you don't like?

Tamron is turning out some superb glass these days and I wouldn't hesitate to shoot with their 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD on my D7100. I think it would make a great all-around sort of lens on a DX body.

Fast, relatively compact, versatile and the IQ is quite good.
....


:) Thanks for your response

Im basing it on past and very old tamron lenses I used and I guess compared to the Nikon lenses they will always come out second. This lens does not have VR reduction I presume? Not sure if I would need at these lengths anyway ....My situation was I sold my kit 18-55mm lens for a 35mm prime - i think it works very well for landscapes and family in them - it works even in low light (soemthing the kit lens couldnt do)

but i just want something where I can take a slight more close up of my family - im unable to do that with the 35mm because of the distortion :(
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
:) Thanks for your response

Im basing it on past and very old tamron lenses I used and I guess compared to the Nikon lenses they will always come out second. This lens does not have VR reduction I presume? Not sure if I would need at these lengths anyway ....My situation was I sold my kit 18-55mm lens for a 35mm prime - i think it works very well for landscapes and family in them - it works even in low light (soemthing the kit lens couldnt do)

but i just want something where I can take a slight more close up of my family - im unable to do that with the 35mm because of the distortion :(
You might want to consider the Nikon 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR. It's not the fastest of lenses but it's a very capable and very flexible lens. Another good choice would be the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD. Though it won't shoot as long, or as wide, as the Nikon it's f/2.8 across the focal length which is pretty nice.

Either lens would be a good match for your D3200 and both are (relatively) compact and light weight.
.....
 
Last edited:

jay_dean

Senior Member
Cheers Jay - did you find it quite heavy? I wouldnt want to carry around a very heavy lens
Well, it depends what you'd class as heavy. There's some that talk about lenses being heavy, and i think they're not that bad at all. Lighter than a Nikon 55-300mm its not by a margin, but then again, its a better lens by far. I'd say its a bit of a beast (if memory serves), but i found it quite usable. I throw something heavier around now and don't really think about it, and i'm not as big as Arnie or anything. Attached to a Black Rapid strap, it'll be fine to carry around for extended periods. @mikew has been using an OS one quite recently, he might chip in and give his opinion.
 

RON_RIP

Senior Member
I am going to second the 18-140. If I am not mistaken, Cameta is offering a refurbished for around $ 265 . The better ISO capabilities of of today's cameras allows for slower glass with little loss of resolution.
 

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
Well, it depends what you'd class as heavy. There's some that talk about lenses being heavy, and i think they're not that bad at all. Lighter than a Nikon 55-300mm its not by a margin, but then again, its a better lens by far. I'd say its a bit of a beast (if memory serves), but i found it quite usable. I throw something heavier around now and don't really think about it, and i'm not as big as Arnie or anything. Attached to a Black Rapid strap, it'll be fine to carry around for extended periods. @mikew has been using an OS one quite recently, he might chip in and give his opinion.

Think we are talking two different lenses in this thread,the sigma 50-150 and the sigma 50-500,in answer to the 50-500 on a black rapid most people should find it no problem.
 

Roy1961

Senior Member
Contributor
i carry my 50-500 sigma on a BR strap and do not find it heavy, last year i shot a mud run for about 2 hours, it got heavy then, will use my momopod this year.
 
Top