WOW Sigma 50-100 f1.8 aps-c
- Thread starter mikew_RIP
- Start date
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
I like the concept a lot and I hope it lives up to the expectations I have of Sigma Art series lenses in general. That $1,400 price tag, though...
Assuming that's accurate, that's getting a little rich for my blood. The closer we can get to $1,000 for one these the more interested I'll be in owning one.
Last edited:
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Well, on a DX camera this is essentially a 70-200mm f1.8. You'll pay $2K for a 70-200mm f2.8 on your D750, I'm more than excited at the idea of a 50-100mm f1.8 for a D500 for 2/3 that price. For street and particularly for portraiture this would be the bomb.
ooh, i hadn't thought of product photography. Nets you a nice 50, 85 and 100 in one package.
Is the D500 going to be a 1.5 crop factor or higher? 200mm or 150mm comparable to FX?
The lens does sound interesting! As you mentioned, it would be a fantastic portrait lens, and since it will be an f/1.8, most likely it would be preferred over the 70-200mm f/2.8 on FX. Probably a little shorter in length and lighter in weight, I'm guessing. But a constant f/1.8 telephoto zoom...mmmm!
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Sorry, bad math - it's 75-150mm, but still an amazing portrait lens on a DX.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Is $1099 close enough?
Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens for Nikon F 693955 B&H
It is for me. Sure wish they'd package these with the dock though.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
Ooooh my, would you look at that... Full warranty and everything. You may have just help me spend a portion of my tax return.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
I'm in a bind now. I was going to sell my D7000 IR camera to fund a D500, but now I'm wondering if I should wait and see how good an IR lens this is and then maybe sell the IR converted D800 instead (though I love that camera)? This has created more problems than it's solved.
My only concern would be the lack of image stabilization, but I've largely been shooting without it of late so it's more a potential inconvenience than anything.
Order is in.
rocketman122
Senior Member
My guess is they realize the dx market is still kicking strong and they know the d500 will bring a lot of people whod be interested in this. IQ should be like the 18-35 art or 24-35 art, stellar.
not easy shooting weddings with a 70-200 on dx. good for the long end, not when you need 70mm and its acting like a 100mm lens. range is a bit less but IQ should be top notch. I have no doubt.
not easy shooting weddings with a 70-200 on dx. good for the long end, not when you need 70mm and its acting like a 100mm lens. range is a bit less but IQ should be top notch. I have no doubt.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
Selling your IR/D800?! I know you're just tossing ideas around and I don't know if I'm the guy to talk you off that ledge or not but... That seems like a LOT to give up.
With the D500 around the corner, a high quality DX lens like this isn't a terrible idea if you don't already have a 70-200 2.8.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
If it's sufficiently sharp, and I mean corner to corner and across the entire focal length, I see it being a worthy replacement for a couple fast primes such as the 50mm & 85mm as well as serving as a 70-200mm equivalent on a DX body. I can see that being pretty appealing to someone who wants to get as much flexibility as possible out of as few lenses as possible or with as little lens swapping as possible. I'm not all THAT averse to lens swapping but I know some people are.
Reviewing the specs, I see she's gonna be a big girl; taking 82mm filters and weighing in at just over three-and-a-quarter pounds! Let that sink in for a moment... The Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 seems almost svelte in comparison, using 77mm filters and weighing in at just over two-and-half pounds. My Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 takes an 82mm filter but weighs a "feathery" pound-and-three-quarters.
Reviewing the specs, I see she's gonna be a big girl; taking 82mm filters and weighing in at just over three-and-a-quarter pounds! Let that sink in for a moment... The Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 seems almost svelte in comparison, using 77mm filters and weighing in at just over two-and-half pounds. My Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 takes an 82mm filter but weighs a "feathery" pound-and-three-quarters.
Hmm...without OS/VR, that's a lot to hold steady by hand.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
Being a DX lens, yes; I have to agree that IS a point worthy of consideration. In the final analysis, though, I'm over it.
But that's only in consideration of my shooting style and does not make your point any less valid.