Things that make you go HMMMMMMM.
I was blown away by the current blue ribbon. There's certainly something to be said for being able to do macro from a distance when it comes to live subjects.
I have indeed been accused of being a bit of a fan of macro shooting before (see these very forums), and at the same time, I'm also a big fan of fast aperture lenses.
For me, I can't handle the f/3.5 of a 180mm f/3.5, which is out of my price range anyhow.
On the other hand, both the Sigma 150mm and the Canon 100mm have the same aperture. This is pretty exciting as the 150mm is still quite a bit longer and has a more distant minimum focal distance...
Important issues on these lenses include the Internal Focusing, HSM/USM, full time manual focus override and well, most of their other features as well.
So that brings me to the real questions:
How do they compare as to handling and focusing speed?
What about sharpness/contrast?
What about that Floating Internal Focusing system. I noticed that some Sigma lenses are labelled as IF lenses, but this one is not, with a FIF designation. They say that it has a non-rotating front element, but is FIF and IF synonymous? Or is it the other way round and the front element doesn't rotate, but the barrel still extends...?
Another issue that I am seriously wondering about is the depth of images. With a longer lens, typically scenes flatten out and it is more challenging to maintain the depth of the scene. Does it become difficult to maintain depth in the pictures?
It definitely looks like a REALLY interesting alternative.
The 100mm might still win out due to its versatility as a portrait lens, which is another area where the longer focal length might be a negative factor with the 150mm...
Any comments? Do you also use the 150mm as a portrait lens? |
