Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 DC HSM ART Reportage

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Hi, everyone. I've gotten the new Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 DC HSM ART in hand and have started my review process. I know that many of you are interested in this lens, so I thought I would set up a place to share my findings as I go. First of all, let me just say that my early findings on the AF have been quite good - nothing like my experience with the 18-35mm f/1.8. Sigma has clearly worked hard on the AF speed and accuracy here - bravo! Image quality is unsurprisingly excellent at f/1.8.

And so, here is my first look video where I break down the build, dimensions, and handling along with a few image samples: http://bit.ly/1MVA3xm

Here is an image gallery that I will be regularly updating: http://bit.ly/1T0vT3F

I'll add a few images here and there to this thread along with links to new videos and articles.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Bottom two samples are the way the lens frames at 50mm and then at 100mm. The vignette is actually fairly well controlled (the two images posted here have received the Adobe profile for the lens, though) - one of the upsides to a honking big lens with a larger 82mm front element.

 

[andrei1989]

awesome
can hardly wait for the full review
as mentioned i'm really interested in this lens. it's a bit bigger than i expected though but not too much..
these first samples are wide open i assume, right?

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

awesome
can hardly wait for the full review
as mentioned i'm really interested in this lens. it's a bit bigger than i expected though but not too much..
these first samples are wide open i assume, right?

Absolutely. There seems little reason to stop down unless more DOF is wanted.

 

[StudentOfLight]

That tripod foot is so annoying. Are you sure it's not removable? It's so badly positioned/shaped that even though it's tiny still gets in the way, but because it's so tiny it's also not big enough to use a carry handle. It seems to detract more value than it adds.

I could forgive a focus ring being partially obstructed (Many people, myself included, might mainly rely on autofocus with a 70-200 focal range), but obstructing the zoom ring, that's major. Zooming is critical lens operational requirement. Why compromise that! ???

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

That tripod foot is so annoying. Are you sure it's not removable? It's so badly positioned/shaped that even though it's tiny still gets in the way, but because it's so tiny it's also not big enough to use a carry handle. It seems to detract more value than it adds.

I could forgive a focus ring being partially obstructed (Many people, myself included, might mainly rely on autofocus with a 70-200 focal range), but obstructing the zoom ring, that's major. Zooming is critical lens operational requirement. Why compromise that! ???

I agree completely. B&H indicates that it is non-removable, and I didn't spot a way to remove it. I will check the manual in the box today, though. It is a real design shortcoming.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I checked the manual and there is no mention of removing the tripod collar - only the ability to rotate it. I'm afraid it is as bad as it seems.

 

[andrei1989]

if it matters..on my 70-210 the collar is removable by pulling on the locking knob but on the 400 it isn't at all...
but yeah...if the manual doesn't say so...it probably isn't removable

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Autofocus accuracy seems much improved over previous ART lenses. I intend to run a more serious test, but so far so good. This was a pretty narrow DOF at near minimum focus distance, 100mm, f/1.8, but as you can see a very nice result. (Canon EOS 80D - center group zone).

Last Fall's Leftovers (Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 ART) by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

 

[Proscribo]

Autofocus accuracy seems much improved over previous ART lenses. I intend to run a more serious test, but so far so good. This was a pretty narrow DOF at near minimum focus distance, 100mm, f/1.8, but as you can see a very nice result. (Canon EOS 80D - center group zone).

Starts to sound too good.. how about tracking AF? This lens would surely fit my needs very well, it's just the AF that I'm concerned about. However I'm not sure if I can resist buying this if I happen to have some money lying around at some point, no matter how good (or bad) the AF is.

 

[Luds34]

That tripod foot is so annoying. Are you sure it's not removable? It's so badly positioned/shaped that even though it's tiny still gets in the way, but because it's so tiny it's also not big enough to use a carry handle. It seems to detract more value than it adds.

+1 if you're going to be stuck with it, at least be big enough to use as a handle.

 

[9VIII]

That tripod foot is so annoying. Are you sure it's not removable? It's so badly positioned/shaped that even though it's tiny still gets in the way, but because it's so tiny it's also not big enough to use a carry handle. It seems to detract more value than it adds.

+1 if you're going to be stuck with it, at least be big enough to use as a handle.

I always use an Arca plate to hold onto, I'm not sure if the size of the intedgral foot itself is much of an issue.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

That tripod foot is so annoying. Are you sure it's not removable? It's so badly positioned/shaped that even though it's tiny still gets in the way, but because it's so tiny it's also not big enough to use a carry handle. It seems to detract more value than it adds.

+1 if you're going to be stuck with it, at least be big enough to use as a handle.

I always use an Arca plate to hold onto, I'm not sure if the size of the intedgral foot itself is much of an issue.

I'm wondering if there is room for such a plate. The collar is really close to the mount. It probably will work, but this is a wonky design.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

By the way, by popular demand I shot a segment for those wondering what happens when mount this lens on a full frame body.

If you're interested, take a look here: http://bit.ly/24ceEI6

 

[9VIII]

That tripod foot is so annoying. Are you sure it's not removable? It's so badly positioned/shaped that even though it's tiny still gets in the way, but because it's so tiny it's also not big enough to use a carry handle. It seems to detract more value than it adds.

+1 if you're going to be stuck with it, at least be big enough to use as a handle.

I always use an Arca plate to hold onto, I'm not sure if the size of the intedgral foot itself is much of an issue.

I'm wondering if there is room for such a plate. The collar is really close to the mount. It probably will work, but this is a wonky design.

That is a grade A lame excuse.

You're one of the only people in the world who has one of these and you're telling me "probably?"
You think Sigma would design a Tripod mount that doesn't perfrom its primary function?

I can think of some cases where it might actually be a problem but right now no-one is coming close to looking at the issue logically.
This thread sounds like a room full of people whining about something just because they think it's ugly.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

That tripod foot is so annoying. Are you sure it's not removable? It's so badly positioned/shaped that even though it's tiny still gets in the way, but because it's so tiny it's also not big enough to use a carry handle. It seems to detract more value than it adds.

+1 if you're going to be stuck with it, at least be big enough to use as a handle.

I always use an Arca plate to hold onto, I'm not sure if the size of the intedgral foot itself is much of an issue.

I'm wondering if there is room for such a plate. The collar is really close to the mount. It probably will work, but this is a wonky design.

That is a grade A lame excuse.

You're one of the only people in the world who has one of these and you're telling me "probably?"
You think Sigma would design a Tripod mount that doesn't perfrom its primary function?

I can think of some cases where it might actually be a problem but right now no-one is coming close to looking at the issue logically.
This thread sounds like a room full of people whining about something just because they think it's ugly.

And yet despite your statement that I'm one of the few people in the world with this lens in hand you still think I don't know what I'm talking about. Interesting.

You may love the design, but in the midst of many other things that I am raving about, I find the implementation of the tripod collar to be the poorest that I've personally encountered thus far. It seems to be in the way no matter where you adjust it. That's my opinion, of course, but no one is saying otherwise.

 

[9VIII]

I'm wondering if there is room for such a plate. The collar is really close to the mount. It probably will work, but this is a wonky design.

What you're saying here is that you're not sure if the lens is capable of taking a plate without getting in the way of the camera body. That's silly, first because it would take all of 30 seconds to grab a plate and see if the holes line up when mounted to a camera body, so you never should have even thought of saying it in the first place, and second because you're implying that Sigma went through the process of creating a lens, which they know will receive more attention than almost anything else they make, without ever mounting it to a tripod using a quick release system.

If your initial assertion is correct, and you had taken 30 seconds to look at a lensplate and see if the holes line up, and it turned out that they didn't, then I would have absolutely nothing left to say but "well Sigma really screwed up there".
But instead of bothering to perform a preschool level task that would leave no room for debate, you go and make one of the most absurd statements a person could possibly make about prouct design.
Your sentence may as well have read "man this camera lens is weird, I wonder if it's going to be able to mount to a camera?"


Maybe you're right, Maybe it is a horrible design. Who knows? The point is that it's silly to debate something that could be answered so easily.
You're spreading speculation and doubt where there should be information.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I'm wondering if there is room for such a plate. The collar is really close to the mount. It probably will work, but this is a wonky design.

What you're saying here is that you're not sure if the lens is capable of taking a plate without getting in the way of the camera body. That's silly, first because it would take all of 30 seconds to grab a plate and see if the holes line up when mounted to a camera body, so you never should have even thought of saying it in the first place, and second because you're implying that Sigma went through the process of creating a lens, which they know will receive more attention than almost anything else they make, without ever mounting it to a tripod using a quick release system.

If your initial assertion is correct, and you had taken 30 seconds to look at a lensplate and see if the holes line up, and it turned out that they didn't, then I would have absolutely nothing left to say but "well Sigma really screwed up there".
But instead of bothering to perform a preschool level task that would leave no room for debate, you go and make one of the most absurd statements a person could possibly make about prouct design.
Your sentence may as well have read "man this camera lens is weird, I wonder if it's going to be able to mount to a camera?"


Maybe you're right, Maybe it is a horrible design. Who knows? The point is that it's silly to debate something that could be answered so easily.
You're spreading speculation and doubt where there should be information.

You are obviously assuming that I have an Arca plate like you describe just sitting around to mount on the lens. I don't.

The point, however, is that there is about 3-4mm of clearance between the tripod ring and the focus ring. It is hard to access the zoom ring naturally as it is; adding more bulk is only going to complicate the issue.

I've reviewed many lenses with tripod collars - removable and otherwise. This is (in my opinion) the poorest design that I have seen...and that is not speculation. It's not because I'm against the lens - I like it a lot, actually.

By the way, I am interacting with other photographers on a forum. I haven't even shared a review yet. Get off your high horse.

 

[9VIII]

You are obviously assuming that I have an Arca plate like you describe just sitting around to mount on the lens. I don't.

Yes, I am assuming that you are going to test aspects of a product that you're actively saying negative things about.

Have you tried using the lens with the tripod foot spun to the top so that it's not in the way of your left hand?

The point, however, is that there is about 3-4mm of clearance between the tripod ring and the focus ring.

That sounds like a design that would make handholding a lens with a tripod foot much easier, as well as making it much more compact for travel. It's a brilliant, highly practical and well thought out design.

 

[Alex_M]

Dustin,

can you rotate the tripod collar to 180 degree so that it sits on top of the lens? If you can, then it should not get in the way of the zoom ring operation? It is not ideal, of course, but apart from being annoying / visually displeasing functionally still could serve as a simple solution to the issue.
Can you ask Sigma as to what was the reason behind their non-removable tripod collar solution for the lens?
Thank you.

I checked the manual and there is no mention of removing the tripod collar - only the ability to rotate it. I'm afraid it is as bad as it seems.