Sigma 50-100mm f1.8 Art

[privatebydesign]

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.

 

[winfel]

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

You mean the right thing but just for the sake of correctnes. It has of course MORE depth of field. Effectively thre will not be much difference between 2.8 and 2.88 though, so it will be virtualy the same DOF.

 

[privatebydesign]

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

You mean the right thing but just for the sake of correctnes. It has of course MORE depth of field. Effectively thre will not be much difference between 2.8 and 2.88 though, so it will be virtualy the same DOF.

Yes you are correct of course!

 

[Lee Jay]

It is a 2x zoom lens. And if they had of delivered 130mm, people would have said "why not 150mm (3x)?" So Sigma have stuck to a plan.

Sure, but the full frame equivalent, the 70-200/2.8: IS II
...

This isn't the APS-C equivalent of the 70-200/2.8.

Correct - it's actually worse than that, which was my point.

Worse in which way?

Less range - 80-160 versus 70-200.

So what if there is less range?

So, less range is less useful.

The 16-35/f4L has less range than the 17-40/f4L but you will be hard pressed to find anyone that says the 17-40 is better.

The 50-100/1.8 on crop is not faster than the 70-200/2.8 on full-frame. So that was an irrelevant comparison.

This is not the 70-200/2.8 for APS-C, it is a 50-100/1.8 for APS-C.

It's the closest thing to a 70-200/2.8 on full-frame, but it's not as good - less range, about the same "speed" (light collection), no IS.

 

[Nininini]

What does it matter if there is a full frame equivalent? Why is this even being debated.

Why do people always need to mention there is a "full frame equivalent" in APS-C threads, as if it somehow threatens the full frame market.

The majority of APS-C owners do not own full frame cameras, do not plan to ever buy full frame cameras, have no desire to use full frame cameras and often can't justify the price of full frame cameras and lenses, so the fact there is a full frame equivalent is irrelevant.

 

[1nterl0per]

Kudo to Sigma for giving consumers options that OEM doesn't offer. However, we have to wait and see if the 50-100mm f/1.8 + an APS-C body can compete against an FF body such as the Canon 6D + 70-200mm f/2.8 non IS dollar for dollar vs. IQ.

 

[9VIII]

What does it matter if there is a full frame equivalent? Why is this even being debated.

Why do people always need to mention there is a "full frame equivalent" in APS-C threads, as if it somehow threatens the full frame market.

The majority of APS-C owners do not own full frame cameras, do not plan to ever buy full frame cameras, have no desire to use full frame cameras and often can't justify the price of full frame cameras and lenses, so the fact there is a full frame equivalent is irrelevant.

If we had a Full Frame SL1 I would agree, but in my case I had a 5D2 and I got rid of it in favor of just using crop, because I love the balance of the 400f5.6 with a compact 500 gram body.
And, the sensors will always be cheaper too. In my case that means saving about $3,500 (the price difference between a Rebel and a Canadian 5DS), and that disparity will probably never go away.
If I could get a Full Frame Rebel or a 500 gram 6D I would be jumping for joy, but until that point I'll be shooting crop, and it's nice to have some lenses that maximize the performance of my body of choice.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

sounds like a perfect portrait zoom lens for the crop sensor? 80-160 FF equivalent. Perfect companion to the excellent Sigma 18-35 1.8 DC Art lens.

Sigma keeps shaking things up. This is a perfect portrait lens. It'll be a good excuse to get my 7DII

 

[anden]

Excellent!

I am shooting school sports and family with 7D2 and mostly 50-150 2.8 OS, 50 1.4 Art, and 85 1.8 (and 10-22). The flexibility of the zoom is awesome but in some venues the lighting really requires 1.8, so I am looking forward to trying this lens.

 

[Larsskv]

Sigmas new APS-C lens line up seems too me like an alternative to upgrading to FF, for APS-C users. The next time a 7DII owner asks on this forum is he should upgrade to FF, some will ask why, since you get practically the some DOF and same noise with the 50-100 f/1.8 as with a 70-200 f/2.8 in FF.

Personally I think the zoom range on Sigma 18-35 and 50-100 is too small, and I don't see a strong reason for my own shooting, to chose them over a prime lens. I don't think the 18-35 go wide enough either. Further, both lenses are a bit to heavy, I think.

 

[whothafunk]

The only problem is the shallow depth of field - with the 1.8 is too big compared to the 2.8.

Say you're shooting a soccer player who is leaning forward while running. Because you use center focusing point due the superb focusing abilities (dual cross type), you focus on his belly, meaning his face will be severely blurred, which is no no.

I find it funny when seeing people shooting indoor sports with the 50 1.4 because they can use low ISO. But what the hell, what exactly is in focus?

 

[ExodistPhotography]

What the heck is this less zoom range is less effective mess? If that was the logic everyone would be using only 18-300mm or 28-300mm (cough full frame peeps) and every other lens on the market would not be useful? Seriously thats about ill logical as it comes. A lot is to be said about sharpness and less chroma.. Seriously though just get a superzoom for walk-abouts and a 18-35mm and this new 50-100mm for when you need quality..

 

[dufflover]

What does it matter if there is a full frame equivalent? Why is this even being debated.

Exactly!

Thank you finally someone mentioned this point too! To me it is supposed to be an APS-C version of an FF equivalent, just like the 18-35mm is alternative to someone shelling out for a FF+24-70, this is the alternative to doing that and a 70-200mm (it's basically a 70-200 on a Speedbooster - 70/1.4 ~50, 200/1.4 ~ 125mm). Fine so it's an 80-160mm equivalent on an FF camera ... now tell me how that's relevant to the person who only has a crop body and can either put on a 70-200mm/2.8 or a 50-100mm/1.8 - if they want the wider aperture, guess what it wins.

Though the lack of OS is a little surprising, not that I'm trying to claim it's easy either; just an average modern tele feature, usually.

 

[Alex_M]

sigma 24-35 2.0 dg price: $999 - Amazon
sigma 18-35 1.6 dc price: $799 - Amazon

50-100 dc will be $100-200 more expensive than 18-35, but should be a bit cheaper that 24-35 dg ( full frame)

in real terms, price for 18-35 in Australia is US$550.00 (brand new, 2 years warranty)
price for 24-35 in Australia is US$707.00 (brand new, two years warranty).

Which source said US$750??? Heck, I'd get this lens for that price, weight be damned.

 

[funkboy]

Back when I shot crop cameras, I was clamoring for something exactly like this: a fast short-tele 2x zoom that is not ungainly heavy by nature of being exclusively APS-C. (Internally, it might be a 70-135 f/2.5 with a backwards 1.4x TC).

But now I've moved on to the 6D...

 

[Alex_M]

I beg to differ.. 50 mm , F1.4 on APS-C crop camera and at 6 m distance to subject, Depth of Field:

Total 0.77 m
In front of subject 0.36 m
Behind subject 0.41 m

I would be happy with that.

...
I find it funny when seeing people shooting indoor sports with the 50 1.4 because they can use low ISO. But what the hell, what exactly is in focus?

Not the crowd on the other side of the court, that's for sure

 

[lightthief]

What does it matter if there is a full frame equivalent? Why is this even being debated.

Why do people always need to mention there is a "full frame equivalent" in APS-C threads, as if it somehow threatens the full frame market.

I think, not everybody does this, because they are "evil". At least, i am not - but i did the same calculation. 3.5 years ago, i used only APS-C and i had a good feeling, what does a focal length mean. But know, i use FF only. If someone talks about focal lengths on APS-C, i transfer them to FF-numbers. This helps me to get a idea of for what this lens can be used in my photography.

It is the same thing like meters/feet, celsius and fahrenheit, kg and lbs,... everybody lives in a system of units and numbers and everybody knows "his" system better than others peoples system. If you ask me, how long is one side of my room, i estimate it in meters and calculate it into feet for you.

Nothing "bad" here.

Back to the 50-100: Well done, Sigma!
I like this new ideas of lenses. I hope, Canon remembers their 3 or 4 years old patent of that 55-110 2.0 IS.

lightthief

 

[Lee Jay]

So, less range is less useful.
...

The 16-35/f4L has less range than the 17-40/f4L but you will be hard pressed to find anyone that says the 17-40 is better.

The 50-100/1.8 on crop is not faster than the 70-200/2.8 on full-frame. So that was an irrelevant comparison.

Neither is the 16-35 faster than the 17-40.

The 16-35/2.8 isn't faster than the 17-40/4?

Most of the reason the 16-35 is preferred is that it's a whole stop faster.

 

[slclick]

So, less range is less useful.
...

The 16-35/f4L has less range than the 17-40/f4L but you will be hard pressed to find anyone that says the 17-40 is better.

The 50-100/1.8 on crop is not faster than the 70-200/2.8 on full-frame. So that was an irrelevant comparison.

Neither is the 16-35 faster than the 17-40.

The 16-35/2.8 isn't faster than the 17-40/4?

Most of the reason the 16-35 is preferred is that it's a whole stop faster.

There are two 16-35's. The two of of were thinking of different versions. (f/2.8 vs f/4)

 

[Lee Jay]

So, less range is less useful.
...

The 16-35/f4L has less range than the 17-40/f4L but you will be hard pressed to find anyone that says the 17-40 is better.

The 50-100/1.8 on crop is not faster than the 70-200/2.8 on full-frame. So that was an irrelevant comparison.

Neither is the 16-35 faster than the 17-40.

The 16-35/2.8 isn't faster than the 17-40/4?

Most of the reason the 16-35 is preferred is that it's a whole stop faster.

There are two 16-35's. The two of of were thinking of different versions. (f/2.8 vs f/4)

Still a major difference - one has IS, one does not.