Sigma 50-150 OS on C300

[Paul Cronin]

Prior to buying this lens I have a question. Has anyone had experience with this lens pulling/pushing "Live" zoom during an interview?

[Kevin McRoberts]

I have its predecessor (non-OS) in Nikon mount. It works spectacularly for this purpose... completely parfocal and smooth zoom and focus. It's about as close as I have to a cinema lens that isn't a cinema lens.

[Paul Cronin]

Wow Kevin that was fast, thank you.

Great new, that was the answer I was looking for, sounds like a great buy. I think I will go with the OS version.

[Stephen Brenner]

Another option is the Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 which is quite sharp and also parfocal.
It's discontinued but I was able to find one. It doesn't have OS.

[Paul Cronin]

Thanks Stephen but OS is important to me if I ever use it handheld.

[Gabe Strong]

Paul,

Problem is, the IS version is very big and heavy, whereas the non-IS version (now discontinued and
a bit hard to find) is nice and light. So having the IS version almost seems to cancel out the ability to
go handheld. I have a bit of information about this, a review of the non IS version and some video
shot with it on actual projects, at my blog.
www.gforcevideo.com
and click on the 'blog' button if you are interested.

[Paul Cronin]

Thanks Gabe,

I checked out your blog and appreciate your input. As for weight I feel it is not bad compared to my Canon 70-200 2.8L II. Now, I know people will say why don't you just use that lens? Well at the same time I am shooting with the C300 I stop and take stills for the same client with my 1DX, or it is the second camera, so I need the Sigma for the C300 while the 70-200 is on the 1DX.

[Paul Cronin]

Lens arrived today and seems great. Will put it to work shortly on a few jobs.

Much smoother focus and zoom ring then the Canon 17-55 that is on the camera most of the time. Also the OS is very good in both modes. Makes me wonder how the 17-50 Sigma is compared to the 17-55 Canon?

[Brett Sherman]

This is probably next on my list of lenses to get. I would use it for low light telephoto and shallow depth of field interviews where I can get enough distance from the subject. I'd be curious to hear your feelings about it once you use it in the field.

I evaluated the Sigma 17-50mm, but ultimately went with the 17-55 so I didn't have to deal with the "backwards" focus. I just liked the feel of the Canon better. But, the Sigma is a good lens too.

[Paul Cronin]

Brett will let you know the end of next week after I use it on a job. I do have the 17-55. Works well but is not very smooth.

[Al Yeung]

Originally Posted by Paul Cronin

Makes me wonder how the 17-50 Sigma is compared to the 17-55 Canon?

I used the Sigma 17-50 OS for Sony mount on the FS100 via the LA-EA1 adapter. The OS was in effect, but negligibly subtle. From that experience I've had the impression that Sigma can't do OS properly. But the 50-150 seems different.

[Paul Cronin]

Thanks Al,

The 50-150 does seem to have a nice OS.

Hard to beat how well it works on the 17-55, but I don't like the jumps when panning since it is a one stage OS.

[Rickey Brillantes]

I have both the Sigma 17-50 2.8, and the Sigma 50-150 2.8 OS, and I can tell you that I love this lens on my crop camera. The Sigma 17-50 when I first bought is was a bit stiff when zooming, but after a long period of use its now smooth.

A great lens for it's value, you wont be disappointed.

[Paul Cronin]

Thanks Rickey,

Have you also tried the Canon 17-55 to compare?

[Paul Cronin]

So first impression after using on a few clips with my last shoot. The Sigma has smooth zoom and focus better then my Canon 17-55, but the Sigma is softer picture. Not a problem just something to be aware of when setting up the camera for the lens.