08-10-2011, 12:05 PM
[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1312961304' post='10566']
Yes, but the price and weight increase and WD decrease also puts it further away from the excellent (and cheap) Tamron 180/3.5. Not an easy decision.
If most of my macro subjects were insects I'd pick the Tamron, as WD would be more important than OS or max aperture. If not, the 100/2.8 IS L looks to be a better all-around lens because it's much smaller and lighter.
As a consumer I applaud Sigma for thinking out of the box and giving us unique lens options but despite its unique capabilities, I think that the target market of the 150/2.8 OS is rather small.
[/quote]
While I agree that if pure WD is the motivation, any 180mm would be superior to a 150mm or shorter, I think the bigger question is to stabilise or not. There you only get two choices (in Canonland) the 100L and now the Sigma 150 OS. While the 100L was somewhat interesting to me, I never bit as from memory it doesn't easily take teleconverters so would significantly limit its potential. The Sigma 150mm OS is a more natural choice there. I also think a 150mm with optional 1.4x TC is the more versatile choice over a straight 180, and now you can get the 150 with OS it is pure win.
The Sigma 150mm non-OS was and still is hugely popular, and I do not doubt the OS version would be different there. I am wondering if I should pay the extra to upgrade from the non-OS...
Yes, but the price and weight increase and WD decrease also puts it further away from the excellent (and cheap) Tamron 180/3.5. Not an easy decision.
If most of my macro subjects were insects I'd pick the Tamron, as WD would be more important than OS or max aperture. If not, the 100/2.8 IS L looks to be a better all-around lens because it's much smaller and lighter.
As a consumer I applaud Sigma for thinking out of the box and giving us unique lens options but despite its unique capabilities, I think that the target market of the 150/2.8 OS is rather small.
[/quote]
While I agree that if pure WD is the motivation, any 180mm would be superior to a 150mm or shorter, I think the bigger question is to stabilise or not. There you only get two choices (in Canonland) the 100L and now the Sigma 150 OS. While the 100L was somewhat interesting to me, I never bit as from memory it doesn't easily take teleconverters so would significantly limit its potential. The Sigma 150mm OS is a more natural choice there. I also think a 150mm with optional 1.4x TC is the more versatile choice over a straight 180, and now you can get the 150 with OS it is pure win.
The Sigma 150mm non-OS was and still is hugely popular, and I do not doubt the OS version would be different there. I am wondering if I should pay the extra to upgrade from the non-OS...
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.