Favorite Sigma (SA) Mount Lenses?
Hi, never had the 50-100 but from all rave reviews and samples it’s obviously a very fine lens, most likely better also than the 50-150 OS (which as said is very good, optical formula is different vs non-OS versions), and also the latter is quite bulky and heavy, being the same as the 70-200 F2.8 lens for FF. OS works but is of course pretty archaic in its “click-clack” action, so to some extent you could probably get away with the 50-100 faster aperture in dim light.
Ah forgot in the list the 30 F1.4 Art, a pretty good and light kit lens, definitely a keeper, had also the previous EX version which was instead pretty bad, af least until F4-5.6 so I would advise against it between the two, it’s clearly inferior.
Thanks for your input @tirpitz and for reviving this thread!
A lot has changed since last year. I sold my SD10 off to a fellow forum member. Excellent old DSLR. Just can't keep every camera was the only reason I passed it on (my shelves are straining lol). But I've kept the SDQH. Still have not shot nearly enough with it, but mostly because of a long winter and hard to carry in a backpack while biking unlike other compact cameras so it's seen less use.
But I have built up quite the handy collection of lenses for it to really try and get the most out of the camera.
- Sigma SA 18-35mm f1.8 ART - Just arrived today actually. Finally ordered after waiting quite a while for a good deal. This may be the most popular lens and I'm guessing there's a good reason for it. Seems to be widely praised across systems.
- Sigma 50-100mm f1.8 ART - Snagged this for a good deal and it's excellent. I can't compare to the 50-150 because I've never owned it.
- Sigma 100-400mm - Also bought for a great deal because AF is broken, so using it for landscape stuff. Not like this system is good for wildlife anyway.
- Sigma 500mm f4.5 - Bought for an excellent price. Tried it twice, and decided to sell it immediately. First of all, it's unwieldy like non else. Second, the autofocus is worthless on the SDQH with it, and I mean truly worthless. Without good focus aids manual focus was also really hard. Still fun to try for the cheap price.
Sigma 100-400 manual focus bird shot:
Trying to do landscape with a Sigma camera by Snappiness, on Flickr
Sigma 100-400 handheld shot of train:
Train by Snappiness, on Flickr
Sigma 50-100 starting my garden:
Planting Seeds by Snappiness, on Flickr
I need to upload more pics. There are more!
And then for fun, a shot of the 500mm on the camera. Massive!
Uploaded files:
I've heard the EX version of the 30mm isn't great, but with how reasonably priced the art is, I don't see a reason to buy the EX anymore, unlike the 50mm ex, which has the advantage of being smaller than it's Art series counterpart.
I have no doubts about the image quality of the 50-100, I just find it's size/weight daunting. I really feel like it's too big for me to actually carry out on a photo walk, unlike the 50-150. But it is interesting that the OS version of the 50-150 is optically different than the non-os version, I didn't know that. My copy is just basically impossible to use at the 150 end hand-held.
Where/how do you find all these great deals? I feel like I'm pretty active in keeping up with the used sites and ebay, but I've only seen a really great deal a handful of times. Are you finding these on buyee or other sites?
The SDQH with the telecoverter and the 500mm is hilariously big. But to your point about it being a bad wildlife system; I understand sports/wildlife was Sigma's niche for a long time as a third party lens manufacturer, but it's really frustrating that SA mount has so many of these lenses but other basic and glaring holes in their lineup like the lack of 35mm and 85mm prime equivalent lenses on crop bodies.
I like that train shot. If you pixel peep you can even see the heat distortion coming off the train in the distance which is really cool.
I think that the reason the 18-35 is so popular is actually because it's a great video lens. From my understanding watching videos about it, 18-35 is about all most video makers want for focal lengths, combined with a wide aperture and it being so reasonably priced makes it hard to pass up. It's also common I guess for videographers to manually focus and the mechanical focus of DSLR lenses is something I've come to really appreciate when compared to focus by wire.
================
I've considered picking up the 100-400 as my 'long' lens. But I think I remember reading that the 150-600 is a better lens and it's not actually that much more expensive. But do either of you have any thoughts about it the 150-600? After reading both of your positive reviews I'm kinda tempted to keep my eye out for the 100-400
I tried to sell my SD1, but I think the price has dropped on them, or at least people weren't willing to pay what I wanted for it so it never sold. But now I'm glad it didn't sell, it does have a different character to it compared to the Quattro Foveons, probably because of the different arrangement of the RGB layers and I personally think it has better ergonomics and is easier to carry around. I can't really figure out why, but the Quattro's always feel a little clunky regardless of the size of the lens attached to it.
I like the 100-400. I think I've read the same reviews about the 150-600 being better. The other nice thing is that the 100-400 is not that big and pretty light. The reason I picked it up was mostly the great deal, combined with my new found interest in telephoto landscape work. Seems sharp enough wide open and stopped down is good.
For SA mount lenses my best finds so far have been on Adorama Used (random, I know) and MPB. I've seen stuff pop up on other sites before, but SA lenses are just sparse to begin with so it's harder to find in other places.
In my experience the 100-400 it’s a pretty good and sharp lens, I had the 150-600 in Canon mount and, apart being obviously longer and much heavier and bulkier, I don’t recall it being any better in the 100-400 range, but I didn’t have the chance to use them side by side. To me the 100-400 is a nice compromise in terms of size/weight/IQ for that type of lens.
Returning to the 50-150 F2.8 OS, please be mindful that it’s actually not that much lighter and smaller that the 50-100 F1.8.
P.S. the 18-35 is so praised because it's actually very very good for the price, it's almost like a bunch of primes stuffed into a zoom lens (fast aperture included), it performed really really well on both my SDQ H and SD1 (with some focus accuracy issues on the latter, but that's not news for that camera).
Regarding the two cameras, I've usually found the Quattro colors more vibrant and pleasant than the Merrils, but the way it hard clips highlights pretty easily I found really bothering (the H has a little bit more leeway in that regard, maybe half a stop max vs the regular SDQ) and more often than not SFD becomes a necessity.
Quote from Lorenzo Rossi on May 7, 2024, 1:53 pmIn my experience the 100-400 it’s a pretty good and sharp lens, I had the 150-600 in Canon mount and, apart being obviously longer and much heavier and bulkier, I don’t recall it being any better in the 100-400 range, but I didn’t have the chance to use them side by side. To me the 100-400 is a nice compromise in terms of size/weight/IQ for that type of lens.
Returning to the 50-150 F2.8 OS, please be mindful that it’s actually not that much lighter and smaller that the 50-100 F1.8.
I just looked up the size/weight of the two. At least the non-OS version of the 50-150 and the 50-100, and they are indeed very different. The 50-150 weighs about half as much as the 50-100 and is about an inch and a half shorter and 2/3rds of an inch smaller in diameter. Here are the links I used:
https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sigma/50-150mm-f2.8-ex-dc-hsm-apo/specifications/
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1234029-REG/sigma_693954_50_100mm_f_1_8_dc_hsm.html/specs
If that is true about the OS version of the lens I will probably just skip it entirely and just get the 50-100 if I wanted to upgrade.
I agree that the SDQH is more vibrant that the SD1. I also find that it's more contrasty sooc. But I always found the SD1 to be more prone to blowing highlights. Either way, I usually shoot both cameras at a -0.7 or -0.3 exposure comp. to fight the problem.
You make a good point about the 100-400 vs the 150-600 in terms of size and weight. Thanks!
Hi, the 50-150 OS is a completely different design vs the previous OS version, indeed it's housed in the corresponding 70-200 F2.8 FF lens:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=804
It weighs 300g less than the 50-100, but it's 3cm longer (a bit less in diameter of course), so up to you to decide if the weight saving is worth or not.
Strange what you say about the SD1 blowing the highlights, since in my experience Merrill sensors have actually quite a lot of leeway in the highlights and have to be shot (in RAW of course) a bit overexposed since they have a terrible shadow recovery capability, exactly the contrary that happens with the Quattros. Furthermore, the Merrills have a decent rolloff before clipping (save for some bluish color cast above a certain level), while the Quattros have that awful hard clipping due to the analog converter that Sigma reintroduced with that sensor (it was also present in the DP1X and some other cameras before the Merrill, which experienced the same issue).
