Sigma 50-100mm f1.8 Art

[Proscribo]

Total light captured is what matters for image quality, not light per unit area. That's why f/2.8 on full-frame is about the same as f/1.8 on 1.6-crop ( 1.8*1.6~=2.8 ).

Overall, this lens will likely produce similar IQ to the 70-200/2.8 on full-frame, but the 70-200+FF combo is wider, longer and has IS.

Unless that extra stop results in motion blur on the FF camera.
IMO the IQ difference is hardly detectable but motion blur really is.

How's that going to happen?

 

[dufflover]

It's highly unlikely the 50-100 on crop either has IS or is better optically than the 70-200/2.8L IS II is on full-frame.

It's also highly unlikely anyone who buys this already owns an FF camera, so what is your point?

The very basis of these "complaints" all revolve around how everyone has an FF camera. Not sure if that's arrogance or ignorance sometimes.

 

[bluenoser1993]

I can't wait to see the reviews and hope that the AF is functional on a 7DII. Canon seems to have blocked the ability of the 18-35 in that body, hopefully Sigma has worked around it for this new lens. My two zooms are the 17-55/2.8 and 100-400II. I use a 50/1.2 and 135/2.0 for DOF work, the 135 also doubles nicely for a sports lens. I find the 50 seldom is used, as it alone is not great for a walk around, and unfortunately those are the time that I've captured most impromptu portraits of the kids with the 17-55.

I'd recently been thinking a 6D to make the primes and my TS-E more effective, but that is more money spent. This lens could potentially improve my range and put money in my pocket if I part with the primes.

I once had a 70-200/2.8 (sold to get the 100-400), and found it wasn't any good out "adventuring" with the kids, as often they would get too close. 50-100 would likely be perfect combined with a 24 pancake in the pocket just in case.

 

[axtstern]

When using a tool (a lens to bend light) I can't tell if I feel more like an Artist or an Architekt/Engineer.
Maybe for this reason the Tools which allow creativity on one side and deliver the Feedback Loop of a precision Instrument always catch my heart.

The Sigma 18-35 1.8 is such a lens and from the Pictures the 50-100 1.8 will deliver the same.

When swapping the 5D3 (And I mentioned this a few times already: I have kicked out the Canon L lenses and walk arround with a Tamron 2.8 Combo that covers 15-70 mmm in 2.8 and VCD) with a crop (most likely the 80D in the future) I intend to save weight and bulk. Now Comes Sigma and makes me fill a bag with the two 1.8 Zooms. Soo I loose a lot on the wide end (15mm fullframe versus 18 mm Crop), loose the Stabilisation (for which I have paid a lot) and get a lot of weight in return... but these lenses bring the fun back into taking pictures. Smooth Zooming, Smooth Focusing, the gun metal Feeling of the tubus and Overall shape that whispers 21st century design.. I love it.

For those who can#t understand what I try to express: Spent 30$ on a Rotring 600

http://www.amazon.com/rOtring-Mechanical-Pencil-Silver-Barrel/dp/B00AZX1P9C/ref=sr_1_2?s=office-products&ie=UTF8&qid=1456155529&sr=1-2&keywords=rotring+600

and you know what I mean

So those who say that a 50-100 Crop is inferior to a whatsoever FF lens... you miss the point.

A quarter century ago I had fun with the TAmron 35-105 2.8 (an ugly plastic beast by modern Standards)
15 years ago I had fun with the Sigma 50-1150 2.8
And this year it will be the 50-100 to toy with.... each time a lens which allowed to do things you could not do before. Each time a challenge to create something in a new way...

Thanks to all you unknown engineers out there to marvel me with the Tools you create

 

[scrup]

Most people here have limited budgets so look at this lens from a value proposition.

What is the best bang for buck on paper.

Its fast, has zoom, presumably excellent optics.

But its expensive, heavy, only works correctly on crop cameras, third party manufacturer, no IS.

These 5 points limit the target market for this lens greatly.
Yes there is no other competitor, but if you have 1500 to spend, there are many other lenses to get before buying this one.

Interestingly if one of the 5 points I mentioned was changed, then this would probably be a killer lens.

 

[cayenne]

So it's a crop lens ... Too bad, I was hoping for another fast FF zoom.
Oh well, my wallet's relieved, at least.

And damn, Sigma keeps shaking things up. Kudos to them.

Me too...cr@p!!

WTF didn't they do this as a full frame lens!!??


cayenne

 

[Lee Jay]

...
I noted that now, but it's still not a relevant comparison because the 16-35/4L has IS, and the 17-40L doesn't.

So? You remarked that the 50-100 was less useful because the focal length range was shorter. By that argument you're also saying the 16-35/f4L is also less useful.

And it is, but the difference is smaller (at the ends 6% better and 14% worse versus 14% worse and 25% worse) and it's compensated for by better optics and IS.

It's also newer and better optically.

It's highly unlikely the 50-100 on crop either has IS or is better optically than the 70-200/2.8L IS II is on full-frame.

Well given that the 50-100/1.8 has not been designed for full-frame, it's a given that the 70-200/2.8L II will outperform the 50-100/1.8 on full frame.

However before you go getting all superior, Sigma have made very worthwhile advances in IQ with their Art series lenses (lets exclude the 24-105.) Additionally, the only way to meaningfully compare the resolution is to get an APS-C camera from Canon and compare 70-100 on the 50-100/1.8 with 70-100 on the Canon 70-200/2.8. Anything else is somewhat spurious.

I seriously doubt the 50-100 on crop will out-perform the 70-200/2.8L IS II on full-frame since the later is so outstanding. At best, Sigma could hope for a tie.

And the new Sigma still lacks IS which is a much, much bigger deal in this lens than it is in the 18-35/1.8 (which I own). I went and looked, and about 75% of my shots with my 18-35/1.8 on crop and my 70-200/2.8L IS II on full-frame, when in limited light, were at 1/60th or slower. I'm obviously using the IS on the 70-200 quite a lot to match the shutter speeds of the much wider 18-35/1.8. In other words, IS in this range is a really big deal.

 

[Dipzero]

According to the Austrian Sigma Facebook site there is something new every hour between 8 and 12
https://facebook.com/473936136018474/photos/a.473958612682893.1073741830.473936136018474/1011012705644145/?type=3&source=48
I'm so excited, maybe a 135 1.8?

 

[Sharlin]

So it's a crop lens ... Too bad, I was hoping for another fast FF zoom.
Oh well, my wallet's relieved, at least.

And damn, Sigma keeps shaking things up. Kudos to them.

Me too...cr@p!!

WTF didn't they do this as a full frame lens!!??


cayenne

Because it would be completely infeasible? Or at least would be so much bigger, heavier and more expensive that nobody would buy it.

 

[deleteme]

Total light captured is what matters for image quality, not light per unit area. That's why f/2.8 on full-frame is about the same as f/1.8 on 1.6-crop ( 1.8*1.6~=2.8 ).

Overall, this lens will likely produce similar IQ to the 70-200/2.8 on full-frame, but the 70-200+FF combo is wider, longer and has IS.

From shooting at 2.8 instead of 1.8. One needs to use a slower shutter speed. Thus the "extra light gathering ability" of the FF is meaningless as you can't use it to raise the shutter speed and maintain the same exposure.
E.G. 1/100 sec@ f 2 vs i/50 @ f 2.8

Unless that extra stop results in motion blur on the FF camera.
IMO the IQ difference is hardly detectable but motion blur really is.

How's that going to happen?

 

[Lee Jay]

Total light captured is what matters for image quality, not light per unit area. That's why f/2.8 on full-frame is about the same as f/1.8 on 1.6-crop ( 1.8*1.6~=2.8 ).

Overall, this lens will likely produce similar IQ to the 70-200/2.8 on full-frame, but the 70-200+FF combo is wider, longer and has IS.

Unless that extra stop results in motion blur on the FF camera.
IMO the IQ difference is hardly detectable but motion blur really is.

Missing the point. The 1 1/3 stop difference in f-stop is about exactly compensated by a 1 1/3 stop difference in high ISO performance, and for exactly the reason that both lenses (f/1.8 on crop and f/2.8 on full-frame) cause the same total amount of light to be captured.

So, shutter speed and noise are the same, but the full-frame 70-200 has IS, and the crop 50-100 doesn't.

 

[SpartanII]

I'm happy this lens is priced at $1099. I will be cost prohibitive for me at the moment and i'm forced to keep working my tokina 50-135mm until I can seriously justify an upgrade.

Looks like pre-orders are available.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1234029-REG/sigma_693954_50_100mm_f_1_8_dc_hsm.html

 

[hubie]

Yes a Canon APS 50-100mm f1.8 has a Full Frame equivalence of a 80-160mm f2.88. So less range and less dof, factor in the greater than one stop of noise advantage a ff camera has for the apparent EV difference of the aperture to get a faster shutter speed and it seems like a strange lens.

But there are a lot of APS users out there and Canon are not making compelling lenses specifically for them, so good luck to Sigma.

Excuse me, but this lens still has 1.8 aperture. So only because you have to rearrange your framing and therefore lose a bit of DOF because you have to step back, there is still more cd/cm² available on the sensor at f/1.8 than at f/2.8. That's the danger with all this unscientific calculations (as tony northrup is famous for to throw in here and then) in order to make a comparison between FF and APS-C... people get confused. You will have more than a stop of brighter illumination, so the noise performance of a smaller sensor can be compensated quite a bit.

Total light captured is what matters for image quality, not light per unit area. That's why f/2.8 on full-frame is about the same as f/1.8 on 1.6-crop ( 1.8*1.6~=2.8 ).

Overall, this lens will likely produce similar IQ to the 70-200/2.8 on full-frame, but the 70-200+FF combo is wider, longer and has IS.

Well, I would say, the amount of light gathered per pixel (with comparable sensor technology) is what counts. So if you get more than twice of the amount of light with one aperture more, your pixels, that are 1/1.6 of the size of a FF sensor should at least deliver comparable SN-performance.

 

[9VIII]

I'm happy this lens is priced at $1099. I will be cost prohibitive for me at the moment and i'm forced to keep working my tokina 50-135mm until I can seriously justify an upgrade.

Looks like pre-orders are available.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1234029-REG/sigma_693954_50_100mm_f_1_8_dc_hsm.html

Excellent. Sweet price, if IQ is clean wide open then this thing will be a bargain.

 

[9VIII]

Yes a Canon APS 50-100mm f1.8 has a Full Frame equivalence of a 80-160mm f2.88. So less range and less dof, factor in the greater than one stop of noise advantage a ff camera has for the apparent EV difference of the aperture to get a faster shutter speed and it seems like a strange lens.

But there are a lot of APS users out there and Canon are not making compelling lenses specifically for them, so good luck to Sigma.

Excuse me, but this lens still has 1.8 aperture. So only because you have to rearrange your framing and therefore lose a bit of DOF because you have to step back, there is still more cd/cm² available on the sensor at f/1.8 than at f/2.8. That's the danger with all this unscientific calculations (as tony northrup is famous for to throw in here and then) in order to make a comparison between FF and APS-C... people get confused. You will have more than a stop of brighter illumination, so the noise performance of a smaller sensor can be compensated quite a bit.

Total light captured is what matters for image quality, not light per unit area. That's why f/2.8 on full-frame is about the same as f/1.8 on 1.6-crop ( 1.8*1.6~=2.8 ).

Overall, this lens will likely produce similar IQ to the 70-200/2.8 on full-frame, but the 70-200+FF combo is wider, longer and has IS.

Well, I would say, the amount of light gathered per pixel (with comparable sensor technology) is what counts. So if you get more than twice of the amount of light with one aperture more, your pixels, that are 1/1.6 of the size of a FF sensor should at least deliver comparable SN-performance.

That's still an oversimplification.

High ISO noise on the 5DS is comparable to the 1DX when you downsample to the same resolution.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Noise.aspx?Camera=779&Test=2&ISO=12800&CameraComp=980&TestComp=1&ISOComp=12800

The 1DX has a slight advantage, but this is as good a demonstration as any that many small pixels can combine to make a low-noise image.
Sure, a smaller pixel will hit the point of providing no useful information in a signal before a large pixel will, but practically speaking, no-one will be using either of those images for anything but security footage.
High resolution images can be manipulated into giving almost equivalent performance in low light, but low resolution sensors can't give you high detail in good light.
The best argument for a low resolution sensor is simply convenience. The only way to make real, flexible, full quality small RAW files is with a low resolution sensor, and depending on your target image size a low resolution body may be the best thing you can get.
Actually I wish Canon would start making 12MP Rebels (with 4K of course), but it's certainly not because there's anything wrong with small pixels.

 

[dufflover]

I seriously doubt the 50-100 on crop will out-perform the 70-200/2.8L IS II on full-frame since the later is so outstanding. At best, Sigma could hope for a tie.

Why do you persist with this comparison?
In that case, will you also include a comparison on price? A crop owner can spend $1500 on this lens, or however many thousands more for a 5D3 (after all if they have a 7/70 a 6D is pathetically slow) and 70-200 II?

Better get CarlMillerPhoto to throw in more MF and 8x10 comparisons ...

 

[TexPhoto]

Can these lenses be mounted on full frame? Just out of interest. Like, you probably wouldn't want to, but is there a physical impediment?

It might but you'll vignette like a mutha.

You can mount Sigma "crop" lenses on Canon FF and 1.3X crop cameras. Tamron as well. The zooms do "vignette like a mutha" at widest setting and zoomed about 1/2 way are acceptable in my experience. I bought a Tamron 11-17 f2.8 to shoot basketball with and it did a really nice job on a 1DS Mark IV.

The 18-35A looks best at 1:1 on Full Frame, and 4:3 gives you some nice "artsitic" looking dark corners. At full 35mm width the vegnetting is black across the entire side of the frame.

Thanks! I guess it could be mounted on a very high res FF sensor and the centre crop would still be useable. Not that it's a very practical setup

That was my plan until I found out that the 5DS costs $1,000 more than a 5D3. The 5DS has 1:1 and 4:3 crop modes that sound like it would be perfect, but for a $1,000 premium, no thanks.

Oh right? Here relative prices are a little different. The 5DS isn't much more than the 5D3 even now, just over £300 different at the cheapest retailer I know of and only ~£500 at a standard retailer.

 

[3kramd5]

I went and looked, and about 75% of my shots with my 18-35/1.8 on crop and my 70-200/2.8L IS II on full-frame, when in limited light, were at 1/60th or slower. I'm obviously using the IS on the 70-200 quite a lot to match the shutter speeds of the much wider 18-35/1.8. In other words, IS in this range is a really big deal to me.

fixed that for you.

 

[scrup]

I love the banter on these camera forums. Its make for interesting reads.

Anyway a 5dmark2 that came out in 2008 still probably has better IQ than a soon to be released 80D.

full frame >> crop >> m4/3 >> 1 inch >> compacts >> phone

 

[TexPhoto]

Can these lenses be mounted on full frame? Just out of interest. Like, you probably wouldn't want to, but is there a physical impediment?

It might but you'll vignette like a mutha.

The 18-35A looks best at 1:1 on Full Frame, and 4:3 gives you some nice "artsitic" looking dark corners. At full 35mm width the vegnetting is black across the entire side of the frame.

Thanks! I guess it could be mounted on a very high res FF sensor and the centre crop would still be useable. Not that it's a very practical setup

That was my plan until I found out that the 5DS costs $1,000 more than a 5D3. The 5DS has 1:1 and 4:3 crop modes that sound like it would be perfect, but for a $1,000 premium, no thanks.

Oh right? Here relative prices are a little different. The 5DS isn't much more than the 5D3 even now, just over £300 different at the cheapest retailer I know of and only ~£500 at a standard retailer.

You can mount Sigma "crop" lenses on Canon FF and 1.3X crop cameras. Tamron as well. The zooms do "vignette like a mutha" at widest setting but zoomed about 1/2 way are acceptable on FF in my experience. I bought a Tamron 11-17 f2.8 to shoot basketball with and it did a really nice job on a 1DS Mark IV. The image cir gel is of course wide enough for a 1.5X crop Nikon, and as it turns out fine on the 1.3X. I did mount it on FF, and the results a 11mm are kind of cool.