sigma telezooms and os

[chr1s]

i've been looking at sigma lenses tonight with a view to buying myself a telezoom in the near future... not neccesarily a sigma, but that's all i've looked at so far. is there a reason they don't all seem to have optical stabilisation? surely o.s., or i.s. is a desirable feature on a longer zoom... have they just missed a trick!?

i'm looking for lenses in the 50-150/200mmish region, and so far have only looked at sigmas options

the
Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 ex dc II hsm
Sigma 50-200mm f4-5.6 dc os hsm (ok so this one has os, but is also the cheaper alternative)
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 ex dg macro hsm II

what are your thoughts on these lenses, do you own one? can you recommend it? do you find the lack of some form of stabilistaion restricts you?

any other recommendations up to 5/600 from other manufacturers welcome (to go on a canon 450d btw)

the lenses are to be used as general purpose zooms, so a bit of everything really, but also to capture downhill mtbing through possibly dull forested areas. probably also some uk wildlife shots.

[El_Sid]

I suspect there are a number of reasons why Sigma (as well as Tamron and Tokina) have been fairly tardy as regards in-lens stabilisation.

1) In-lens IS requires an optical redesign to accommodate the stabilising unit and subsequently retooling for manufacture.

2) Not all makes/model use, need or are compatible with in-lens IS. Some old models aren't able to use it due to power or activation issues while some makes use sensor based in-camera IS system which eliminate the need for in-lens systems. Since Sigma lenses are used across a multiplicity of makes they need to ensure/minimise possible compatibility issues wherever possible. Were they making lenses purely for their own SD or SA cameras doubtless they would have come up with something sooner.

3) It takes time to design an IS system that doesn't sufficiently infringe the intellectual property rights of the existing systems to bring about court action. Similarly negotiating a licence to use existing technology is likely to be a protracted undertaking...

Is IS a desirable option? On the whole I think yes. OK it's something else to go wrong but it does assist image sharpness and extend the handholding range for most users. Is it absolutely necessary? Perhaps not. The high ISO/low light ability of DSLRs, particularly recent models, can extend the range of situations where hand held use is possible albeit at a slight loss in IQ resulting from noise. None of my current lenses has IS and while I probably will buy IS equipped kit in the future I find I can manage quite well without it.

Once you get to really long lenses IS is possibly less of a necessity. Long (400mm+), fast (f4 or better) lenses tend to be so big and heavy that a monopod, tripod or simple bean bag may be more useful in supporting lenses of this size as well as stabilising them...

Even then IS has it's limitations; eg if you want to freeze action shots in low light IS won't help since you will likely want a fast shutter speed - which means larger apertures and/or higher ISO.

[chr1s]

thanks for a comprehensive answer!

i was thinking again today about my questions and wondering if i'd asked the right ones, or maybe phrased them badly, but you've pretty much covered everything

cheers!

[Boxy]

Don't overlook the Canon 55-250 f4-5.6. Not sure of your budget and whether you specifically need the faster lenses but the Canon has IS and is around £220. I'm delighted with mine and reviews I read before buying all suggested it punches above it's weight - I wouldn't disagree. Canon claim the IS is worth 4 stops.

[Barney]

the lenses are to be used as general purpose zooms, so a bit of everything really, but also to capture downhill mtbing through possibly dull forested areas. probably also some uk wildlife shots.

OS isn't really going to help you with this type of shot as you'll typically need a faster shutter speed to freeze the subject that you would require to prevent camera shake.

I have the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 ex dc hsm. It's a good lens, not too large and good counter point to a 24/28-70 type lens.

[daft_biker]

I find a 50mm f/1.4 is more useful than a telezoom for downhill bike shots...I've used a 24mm a fair bit too. 24mm means being pretty close so fine for shots of mates on the trail but not ideal for races. The 50mm allows a comforable working distance on a 450D or similar.

Have been tempted to get a 35mm for bike shots on my 40D...should let me shoot from a few metres as I don't like being half a mile away with a 100mm and I don't really do race pics so it's likely long enough for my needs. No point hauling a big heavy lens up a hill when a wee lens will do

For freezing bike action I'd aim for 1/250th or faster so OS or IS is not likely to be an issue. On sunny days 1/2000th isn't that unusual...well beyond where IS is going to be of any use on these lenses.

If you want AF to have a chance of tracking action in dark forests faster lenses can really help...and a flash can be a big help too.

Not sure a 50mm is much use for the wildlife you have in mind though

[Panda_]

My post isn't much help to you but some of the comments are useful for me so I have an idea what to shoot when I head to the trails now!

Out of curiosity daft_Andy; did you head over to fort william for the DH champs?

[daft_biker]

Nah, never went up to watch....it's a long way to go to not get to ride it. Have photographed Scottish champs there before (I crashed in practice ) and have been up most years since it opened just to play on it...since about 2002 or 2003? It's an awesome course...as brutal and nervewracking as they come

There's not a lot of trees so long lenses shouldn't be a problem up there....it can be a problem getting a clean line of sight from a distance in forests though.

[chr1s]

cheers guys

now thinking of getting the sigma 18-50 f2.8 ex dc macro and the sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 ex dc hsm or canon equivelent... when funds allow