Evaluation:  
Conclusion: Nice lens, wish I could find one that focus correctly
Review: I bought the Sigma 50-150 II from Amazon in spite of all the "front focusing" flap on the web, because it looks like the perfect lens for shooting indoor sports. Unfortunately I found out what front focusing means. If you have one and want to see try this: Put a newspaper or other printed material on a table and back away so you are shooting at an angle to the paper. Aim at something on the page that you would like in focus, and take a picture using the AF. Then turn off the AF and manually focus the same spot. For me, the manually focused shots were all in focus, and the AF ones were all out of focus .... Instead, the lines of text a few inches closer to where I was focusing were in focus (i.e. "front focused). I switched from my Canon 40D to an older Digital Rebel, the same thing happened. I then picked up two of my Canon Lens, and both were spot on. I liked the form and feel of the Sigma so much I decided to order another one and try it, hoping it was just a bad copy. The second one had exactly the same issue. I tried some sample shots in a gym were I plan to shoot some indoor pictures, and I noticed the issue shooting in low light at a distance of several meters, not just wide open at 1-m as many have noticed the issue.
I called Sigma and they said I should send in my camera and lens and have them calibrated. I suppose I could have sent just the lens in for calibration, but the fact that I had two samples of the latest Version II models and neither worked on my 40D nor my Rebel did not give me much confidence that it was a variability issue. If you have (or get) a good one, or don't mind if things are slightly out of focus; I'm sure you'll like it (I know I would have). But for me, when I point at something and want it in focus I expect it to be in focus. So they are both going back; I bought a used Canon L lens for a few hundred more. I was really hoping to get the Sigma to work out, because it has so much to offer, but in the end it didn't work for me. Hope you have better luck.
Evaluation:
Conclusion: Wonderful lens for the price
Review: While I don't agree with the review about this being "L" quality, I will say that this lens has not disappointed in any way. Quick, accurate focus, good contrast and no visible distortion. Not even any vignetting, which I had been concerned about.
For under $600, this is a "Wow" lens - 2.8 is going to get you pictures where previously you couldn't get anything. And it's so light and small!
Evaluation:
Conclusion: A bit heavy
Review: I have been using this lens for about a month now. I got the lens because I thought I could use it as kind of every-day-type-of-lens. Altough the lens is very sharp and the optics are not in question, for every day use I think is a bit too heavy. Other than that, I think the lens is excellent.
Evaluation:
Conclusion: good indoor sport lense
Review: I enjoy photographing my three daughters playing basketball. I have the canon 85/1.8 and it is outstanding but is a little far if you are far from the court. I got this lens because of the 2.8 apperature and liked the range. I also have the canon 70-200 4L but have found it to be a bit slow for indoor sports in many gyms.
I have used this sigma lens for summer basketball in highschool gyms and have found it to be very good. It is a little soft with a wash out of colar wide open at 150mm. I use the Tv setting on the XTi and try to keep my time faster than 1/125. the camera sets the apperature and most of the time it stays between 2.8 and 4. it has allowed me to get less motion in the photographs.
The construction and size of the lens is top notch and it is not white. it cost quite a bit less than a canon zoom with a 2.8. I have taken the canon and sigma to games and switched them on occasions when the settings would be the same with each lens. I could not tell the difference in the photographs and neither could any one else i showed them to.
I would recommend this lens highly for this situation and think you will find the focus to be plenty accurate.
Evaluation:
Conclusion: A great lens but unfortunately there are quality control problems
Review: Hi recently got the 50-150. First copy front focus horribly, visible even viewed on screen (without zooming in). Second copy is near perfect. Focal point is just a bit towards the back end of DoF but it's ever so slight and it helps to blur the background so I don't mind. I think most people who think their lens is soft at 150 2.8 really have focus issues. Even mine that front focused, I noticed that the subject's eyes would be soft but the ring on her finger would be incredibly sharp to use an example. The lens is very sharp at 150 2.8 *IF* if focuses correctly. I wish Sigma would get their quality control together.
Also, the min focus distance is 1m but that's for 50mm. At 150mm it will front focus at 1m and that is "normal" for this lens (that's just how it is). I find at 1.5m the focus is fine. Sometimes I like to shoot real tightly cropped portraits so I have to watch out for that so I'm not too close.
If you want to try one, I strongly suggest ordering from a company with a very liberal return policy. Amazon is the best that I know of (and cheapest). Returning my first defective copy was a breeze with amazon and I didn't have to pay shipping charges.
Finally, it's sure the 70-200 2.8 is sharper, however, it's twice the size, weight, and price. For me I prefer something I don't mind keeping in the camera bag, and I appreciate the wide end more than the long end especially for portraits.
|
