Originally posted by tarheel13 Jay: What about the size and weight of each lens. I had the 50-135mm in my hands a year back with the lens hood on and it was one big sucker at the end of my camera. I've heard that the 50-150 is lighter and not as long.
You see the weights in the post above - on the cameras, they look and feel
almost exactly the same, actually, and I don't really notice much of a weight
difference. They both look very 'pro', and I've had other shooters come over
to get a closer look and ask about them.
Originally posted by SCGushue My personal experience with the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX DG is that it is extremely sharp across the spectrum of focal lengths. It is sharp wide open, but like any lens improves with stopping down a little. The lens is large and somewhat heavy, but that is what one should expect from a full frame lens of quality build.
I found that there is absolute minimal reduction in image quality when coupled with the dedicated 1.4X APO exender. The 2X works fine too, but as you might expect there is a little less sharpness, though it is quite usable. I carry the 2X at times but most of the time I will use a Pentax A* 600 or a 645 *600 ED IF as there is no compromise at all there.
While I don't "chart test" most of my lenses, I have to say that while most zooms suffer at the upper end of their range from softness and reduction in contrast, this lens does not appear to succumb to those problems. The focal range is simply fantastic and the fact that it is a fixed f4 across the field is a bonus. I do not find CA's or other zoom distortions to be field relevant. And while I love Pentax lenses and prefer sticking with them, I have sold off my A*300/4 and and K 300/4 and have only kept the A*300/2.8 for the occasional outing.
As to as sharp as the 70-200 2.8 EX DG version. Yes, probably as sharp with the caveat that one must rember that the longer any lenses focal length is, there will always be a reduction in resolution in lines per mm. That is simply a fact with longer focal lengths. They will never resolve like 50mm lens.
Now, I noticed your cereal boxes. Interesting to me is that cyan/blue-green balance in the DA was more neutralized under the low light of the kitchen (?) and the balance fo the Sigma shifted to the red-magenta end. That is why I sometimes pick the lens for the environmental light I am shooting in. I also have a logbook, that I note the lens image casts on every site that have photographed in. Overall, the shift isn't bad and is easily corrected in CS3.
And...
from earlier up I assume that you live in Minnesota or nearby Wisconsin. Yeah, winters can be brutal at this time of year. I lived up in North Dakota for seven years. We called the Twin Cities the banana belt because you guys were always soooo much warmer than us.
Stephen
Stephen, excellent, thanks for the detail.
Originally posted by kenyee The Sigma images still look like they have a lot more "pop" (contrast/color). Any difference in focusing speed in that bright lighting?
I may revisit the JPEG settings on the D90, because in my testing/calibration at
home they looked a little bit more natural/muted - out in the technicolor real
world they maybe look a little too punchy. Still, not an unpleasing look for
a festive place like "Nickelodian Universe" in MOA!
Quote: Glad mall security isn't hunting you down as a child perv w/ a camera
I
have had mall security approach me when I inadvertently took shots of
a "security procedure" in progress - apparently they were testing a bomb
disposal procedure or something. Looked to me like a confused mall security
woman standing by a garbage can. But it was a "Security Procedure."
Plus I'm always shooting mostly this guy:
Although, sometimes....