# Review - Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 DC Art



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 25, 2016)

Discuss our review of the Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 DC Art here.


----------



## Etienne (May 25, 2016)

This would be a great lens for the Cinema cameras: C100, C300
Too bad they didn't add IS


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 25, 2016)

Etienne said:


> This would be a great lens for the Cinema cameras: C100, C300
> Too bad they didn't add IS



Sigma has stuck to a certain formula pretty closely with the ART series. Neither weather sealing nor stabilization are a part of that formula. Most of them don't need OS, but this one probably could have benefited from it. That would have made it even bigger and heavier, though.


----------



## Jacen (May 25, 2016)

First, excellent review, as always. 

As someone who's primary focus is portraits I feel that this lens is as given as a 70-200 on fullframe. It's definately a lens I would've picked up had I chosen the 7D2 over the 5D2. (As it is I went for the budget, fullframe, option.)

A very interesting lens from Sigma indeed. Maybe having a fullframe camera won't be as given for a semi-pro, in the future with this direction Sigma is taking. Sooner or later one or more of the other companies are bound to perk up and realize that there is money to be made here too.


----------



## danski0224 (May 25, 2016)

Sigma has a couple of new Foveon cameras coming up...


----------



## cpreston (May 25, 2016)

Most of the reviews I have seen have not mentioned the focus breathing of the lens. The lens is only a 50-100mm at infinity. When focused to it's minimum distance of about .9m, it's actually closer to a 75mm to 150mm.


----------



## clicstudio (May 25, 2016)

Sigma is getting to be cool.
I hope they do a 24-105 F2.8 Lens! That would be a dream!


----------



## zrz2005101 (May 25, 2016)

Hello,

nice review as always. 

I'm curious on how the lens will perform on the good old 1DMKIV?

Thanks


----------



## stpr (May 25, 2016)

Nice review and lens. Lack of OS is a shame for a lens of this weight 
I hope they will bring a 35-70/1.8 Art for crop as well, I think this would generally fit my used focus lengthes more. Also something like a 45-135/2.8 would be nice as a crop version of the 70-200/2.8.


----------



## pj1974 (May 26, 2016)

Thanks for the really helpful review, Dustin.

I have been following Sigma's progress in lenses for many years. They have stepped up their range and quality in a relatively brief time, to offer some really great lenses.

Regarding the 50-100mm f/1.8, I'm so glad to hear (aka 'read') that in your experience, Dustin, it autofocuses better than other Sigma / ART lenses. Having both experienced poor autofocus (AF) accuracy and consistency on a few Sigma lenses myself, as well as having read many others report inaccurate and/or inconsistent AF, meant that I have not bought any of their ART lenses to date.

I currently own 2x Sigma UWAs for APS-C: the amazing 8-16mm and the very good 10-20mm. Because AF is not critical for 99.9% of my UWA photos, I often use these lenses in manual focus (MF) or apply hyperfocal distance principles to get the shot I want. I'm particularly very happy with the Sigma 8-16mm which I have used for some years now and is unequalled in its UWA range on APS-C. Love what 8mm can give me (which is an equivalent of 12.8mm on a "FF"/35mm sensor perspective).

The bokeh, sharpness, draw and contrast of Sigma's new 50-100mm are obviously at a very high level. It has a lot going for it, having awesome IQ between 50mm and 100mm is a 'nice' package indeed.

Allow me to make some observations and comparisons with this Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 ART lens, and some other lenses.

I have used two versions of Sigma's 50-150mm f/2.8 lenses for APS-C, and the larger / OS version is particularly impressive, however 3 things put me off it for me:
- it did not nail focus quite as confidently and accurately as native brand lenses
- the size and weight felt very similar to using a 70-200mm f/2.8 (so if I really wanted a f/2.8 telezoom, I would probably go for a 70-200mm f/2.8 )
- possible issues 'down the track' (e.g. compatibility issues of using it in live view, or with other advanced functionality)
However Sigma's 50-150mm f/2.8 does great as a less expensive telezoom option. In fact, several of my 'official' wedding photos were taken by a friend with the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8. 

The Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 has certain attractions for me over the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8, however I would probably still prefer neither as an 'ideal'. I have my Canon 70-300mm L which is such a great, versatile travel zoom - and has that 300mm reach advantage for wildlife and birds which are more my 'focus'. As I do not photograph sports, I have no real need for a fast telezoom. 

The size and weight of this 50-100mm lens, though, is somewhat of a 'turn off' for me. My style of low light / portrait photography requires a small, versatile, lens. This lens is really large, and with a 82mm filter it is quite imposing on subject, and with its length and weight, doesn't give me the flexibility I like when shooting portraits (I do have a great 10-stop 82mm ND filter - thanks to Breakthrough Photography).

But perhaps the greatest factor for me, is Sigma's choice not to implement OS (aka Sigma's 'image stabilisation') on this lens. I really find that a lot of my photos 50mm and beyond (particularly from 70mm) really benefit from having IS/OS.

My most used low light lens is actually the 50mm f/1.8 STM, which does a great job for what it's worth. Decent image quality already from f/1.8 and very sharp from f/2.5 onwards. Light, focusses very well (AF on this lens is worlds superior and a totally better / different experience to Canon's 50mm f/1.8 II, of which I had two copies.

The preference I would have for an 'ideal' low light lens is similar to proposed by stpr (welcome, new CR forum member!) Yes, I would use a good quality 35mm - 70mm f/1.8 *a lot*. If such a lens was made, was relatively small, lightweight, had fast, accurate, consistent AF and (icing on the cake) was also stabilised that would have my money! Canon, Sigma (& Tamron, and other lens manufacturers...are you listening). I have hope that Sigma MIGHT produce such a lens.

The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 and 24-35mm, though I would also hope that their is a way that any 3rd party lenses will be able to maintain full compatibility with Canon's PDAF and any future technology and advances. Reading of certain lenses and accessories from 3rd parties in particular not being compatible with various models of new cameras means I will probably stick to mainly having Canon lenses & accessories. Ok, ideally Canon would come out with an EF-S 35-70mm f/1.6 (!) USM IS ... THAT would be seriously great. Or even without IS, if they build an effective 5-stop, 5-axis IBIS into their next DSLR and (semi-pro) EOM bodies! One can dream, right! :

On a final, and side note... the other evening at home (here in Australia) - I looked at one of your video reviews, Dustin. It was of the 80D. I enjoyed watching that (I'm quite impressed with Canon's 80D). So I was glad to read that you were using the 80D for part of the real world testing and review of Sigma's 50-100mm f/1.8 lens.

Well, that's enough from me for now.... regards....

Paul 8)


----------



## 9VIII (May 26, 2016)

cpreston said:


> Most of the reviews I have seen have not mentioned the focus breathing of the lens. The lens is only a 50-100mm at infinity. When focused to it's minimum distance of about .9m, it's actually closer to a 75mm to 150mm.



That's actually really good to hear, I love using telephoto lenses for closup and near-macro type shots, Sigma seems to be designing with this in mind.
It also means they're using a similar design to the Canon 70-200f2.8, which lets you shoot tight headshots, as opposed to the Nikon 70-200 which breathes in the opposite direction and reduces your ability to focus on small objects.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 26, 2016)

pj1974 said:


> Thanks for the really helpful review, Dustin.
> 
> I have been following Sigma's progress in lenses for many years. They have stepped up their range and quality in a relatively brief time, to offer some really great lenses.
> 
> ...



Add some photos and you've pretty much written a review yourself


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 26, 2016)

zrz2005101 said:


> Hello,
> 
> nice review as always.
> 
> ...



I've had a number of people wondering about 1.3 crop bodies. It just might work fairly well there. 

I've certainly never had so many people asking me to test a crop sensor lenses on full frame before!!


----------



## pj1974 (May 26, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> pj1974 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the really helpful review, Dustin.
> ...



;D Ha ha... thanks Dustin for your encouragement.

So... as I don't own a cat... (or does the cat 'own' its human?) and therefore I cannot post the obligatory 'cat on internet image'... will the following do?

_Recent photo with my 7D @ 100mm, but not the Sigma 50-100mm, rather the Canon 100mm USM macro. Reference point for 'what 100mm can look like'_ 

Paul


----------



## Luds34 (May 26, 2016)

9VIII said:


> cpreston said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the reviews I have seen have not mentioned the focus breathing of the lens. The lens is only a 50-100mm at infinity. When focused to it's minimum distance of about .9m, it's actually closer to a 75mm to 150mm.
> ...



+1

If I recall, a few years ago Matt Granger had a pretty solid roundup of 70-200s including Canon, Nikon, and (at the time) the new Tamron that had a particular test that highlighted this really well.

Either way, I agree, I like when the focus breathing works in that direction for portrait shots.


----------



## Maximilian (May 26, 2016)

This is not "my" lens but I think Sigma is cool to do this great stuff for APS-C. 

And - once again - thank you, Dustin, for puting that lens in the spotlight which it deserves.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 26, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> This is not "my" lens but I think Sigma is cool to do this great stuff for APS-C.
> 
> And - once again - thank you, Dustin, for puting that lens in the spotlight which it deserves.



I'm in the same boat. I don't shoot APS-C much, but I'm glad such lenses exist. It might save some people an unnecessary move to full frame, and APS-C bodies do offer a lot of bang for the buck.


----------



## CanonGuy (May 26, 2016)

Off topic, anything on the rumoured 85 art? After owning killer 35 and 50 copies, I'm Soo excited for that lens!!!! 

http://photorumors.com/2016/05/25/confirmed-sigma-85mm-f1-4-art-lens-to-be-released-soon/


----------



## Cory (May 26, 2016)

I mostly use my 10-18 and 35 2.0 IS. Would love a 50 because I do like that perspective a lot, but it's too close to 35 to spend the money (IMHO). I LOVE using my 85 1.8, but it's a little long in some cases and in other cases a little more might be nice.
Do I sound like maybe a candidate for this lens? Also, any quick subjective comparison at 85 to the Canon 85 1.8? I do like how Sigma renders colors and contrast and this one does seem like the ****.
Thanks for any insight as I ponder putting my 85 on ebay.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 27, 2016)

Cory said:


> I mostly use my 10-18 and 35 2.0 IS. Would love a 50 because I do like that perspective a lot, but it's too close to 35 to spend the money (IMHO). I LOVE using my 85 1.8, but it's a little long in some cases and in other cases a little more might be nice.
> Do I sound like maybe a candidate for this lens? Also, any quick subjective comparison at 85 to the Canon 85 1.8? I do like how Sigma renders colors and contrast and this one does seem like the ****.
> Thanks for any insight as I ponder putting my 85 on ebay.



I would say yes, but just be aware that you are moving into a very different size class of lens. It produces beautiful results, but you are going to feel it in your wrists compared to your other class.


----------



## FECHariot (May 27, 2016)

Great review as always Dustin. I'm wanting to want this lens, but I feel the urge to upgrade to full frame in the future will never stop haunting me. So it's hard to spend that kind of money for a lens that simply won't do once that happens.


----------



## arcer (May 27, 2016)

Thanks for another great review, Mr. Abbott. I have loved your reviews as they are much more relatable than other reviewers and there's a sort of familiarity of how you describe the handling and performance of a lens. Even though I'm not the target market of this lens, it was interesting to read your reviews which piqued my interest towards using this lens a fair bit.
I got the muscle to carry this beast around as I have endured handholding the 200F2 for a few hours in an event once, so I'm not worried of the weight. But is the ergonomics of the lens really comfortable? I'm not sure if I miss it (I read your review a few times), but you only mentioned about it being quite front-heavy and the unfortunate placement of the tripod foot with the zoom ring. It's not that the 200F2 was super comfortable btw, you got to grow (some muscles) to love it until it breaks your wrists.
Asking cause I'm not able to find a display unit atm.

On a side note, seeing that you have been using the EOS 80D, I wonder why CR didn't share your review of the camera on this site. Or will you be writing a more intensive one as you learn more about it?


----------



## Cory (May 27, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I would say yes, but just be aware that you are moving into a very different size class of lens. It produces beautiful results, but you are going to feel it in your wrists compared to your other class.


Thank you, Sir. Might just do it and through your site of course.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 27, 2016)

arcer said:


> Thanks for another great review, Mr. Abbott. I have loved your reviews as they are much more relatable than other reviewers and there's a sort of familiarity of how you describe the handling and performance of a lens. Even though I'm not the target market of this lens, it was interesting to read your reviews which piqued my interest towards using this lens a fair bit.
> I got the muscle to carry this beast around as I have endured handholding the 200F2 for a few hours in an event once, so I'm not worried of the weight. But is the ergonomics of the lens really comfortable? I'm not sure if I miss it (I read your review a few times), but you only mentioned about it being quite front-heavy and the unfortunate placement of the tripod foot with the zoom ring. It's not that the 200F2 was super comfortable btw, you got to grow (some muscles) to love it until it breaks your wrists.
> Asking cause I'm not able to find a display unit atm.
> 
> On a side note, seeing that you have been using the EOS 80D, I wonder why CR didn't share your review of the camera on this site. Or will you be writing a more intensive one as you learn more about it?



I don't think the handling is a deal breaker, at all, but it isn't a particularly well balanced lens for most APS-C bodies (might be better with a battery grip attached). You just need to use both hands most of the time, as it does strain your right wrist some if you are just holding the camera grip with one hand.

The 80D review isn't up here because I haven't had time to format it for the site yet. Probably next week.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 27, 2016)

Cory said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > I would say yes, but just be aware that you are moving into a very different size class of lens. It produces beautiful results, but you are going to feel it in your wrists compared to your other class.
> ...



That's kind. Thank you.


----------



## GHPhotography (May 27, 2016)

Can anyone comment on the AF focus speed of this lens compared to a Canon 70-200 or the 85 1.8? I am potentially going to pick this lens up for indoor sports. 

Thanks!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 27, 2016)

GHPhotography said:


> Can anyone comment on the AF focus speed of this lens compared to a Canon 70-200 or the 85 1.8? I am potentially going to pick this lens up for indoor sports.
> 
> Thanks!



A bit slower to rack through the whole focal range, but quick for typical minor adjustments. Don't expect the focus system to be as sophisticated as the 70-200, though.


----------



## GHPhotography (May 28, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> GHPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Can anyone comment on the AF focus speed of this lens compared to a Canon 70-200 or the 85 1.8? I am potentially going to pick this lens up for indoor sports.
> ...



Thanks for your reply. How would you compare the focus speed to the 85 1.8? My main use would be basketball and volleyball, to give you an idea of the movement it would need to track.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 28, 2016)

GHPhotography said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > GHPhotography said:
> ...



Understand that I'm working on two year old memory here (that's the last time I owned and/or used an EF 85mm f/1.8), and when you use the word "track" I think AF Servo, and, frankly, that's not what I used the EF 85mm f/1.8 for. I felt that my copy of the EF 85mm f/1.8 wasn't as accurate as the rest of my kit in one shot mode (which was the reason I sold it). 

I did shoot some tracking sequences on the 80D with the 50-100 and I got perfectly fine results. At the same time, if you want the absolute best in focus, it would be hard for me to recommend a Sigma lens on a Canon body (though I had great results with the 150-600 Sport). I felt I got better than average results _*for a Sigma*_ with the 50-100 ART, but still not top tier. That's about all I can say...


----------



## GHPhotography (May 28, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Understand that I'm working on two year old memory here (that's the last time I owned and/or used an EF 85mm f/1.8), and when you use the word "track" I think AF Servo, and, frankly, that's not what I used the EF 85mm f/1.8 for. I felt that my copy of the EF 85mm f/1.8 wasn't as accurate as the rest of my kit in one shot mode (which was the reason I sold it).
> 
> I did shoot some tracking sequences on the 80D with the 50-100 and I got perfectly fine results. At the same time, if you want the absolute best in focus, it would be hard for me to recommend a Sigma lens on a Canon body (though I had great results with the 150-600 Sport). I felt I got better than average results _*for a Sigma*_ with the 50-100 ART, but still not top tier. That's about all I can say...



Thanks for taking the time to reply. I will probably have to rent one for a couple weeks and see how well it works, I have the 70-200 is ii but I would like something that lets in more light. On paper the 50-100 looks perfect, aside from Sigma's less that stellar AF reputation.


----------



## rwvaughn (May 29, 2016)

GHPhotography said:


> Can anyone comment on the AF focus speed of this lens compared to a Canon 70-200 or the 85 1.8? I am potentially going to pick this lens up for indoor sports.
> 
> Thanks!



I shoot a combination of Canon crop and full frame bodies. I was very excited for the release of this lens; read Dustin's review with hope, and have rented the Sigma 50-100 to see how the AF would work for indoor high school sports - basketball, wrestling, volleyball. 

The 70-200 IS ii L is too long on the 7Dii when sitting matside at wrestling and likewise can be too long when standing at the goal line under the basket for basketball. It's perfect on my 5Diii. The 1.8 aperture of the Sigma was awesome, but shooting in AI servo mode on the 7Dii does not produce enough keepers that are sharp or properly focused - it just does not keep up with the Canon body - disappointing.

Anyone who has shot in a high school gym knows that they are not well lit and this Sigma lens lives up to Sigma's reputation of being poor to perform in low light. I had hope, but it was quickly shattered. I really did want this lens to be promising, but using it for nearly a week during the local high school open gym sessions has convinced me that the Tamron SP 85 with VC is the better option for matside wrestling images. 

The Sigma is stellar in environments that are well lit, or situations where there is not fast movement of the subject. It truly is a nice portrait lens and can take the place of three primes in a crop shooters bag. Just be aware it's not going to do well in an action setting.

I guess I keep holding my breath that Tamron follows suit and produces something similar to the 50-100 in their new SP line or produces a 135mm with VC. As Dustin has said Tamron seems to have a better grasp of Canon AF algorithms than Sigma does my experience backs his summation up in that regards.


----------



## stpr (May 30, 2016)

rwvaughn said:


> The Sigma is stellar in environments that are well lit, or situations where there is not fast movement of the subject. It truly is a nice portrait lens and can take the place of three primes in a crop shooters bag. Just be aware it's not going to do well in an action setting.



To be fair it excels where an "Art" lens should. A real "Sports" lens which fits your needs has yet to be revealed of course (or never will).


----------



## vscd (Jun 5, 2016)

What I don't like is that they have the Zoomdirection from Nikon, so that the longest focallength is left and the shortest right... that's sometimes really annoying while using it together with some Canonzooms ;(


----------



## noncho (Oct 13, 2016)

I also had a chance to use Sigma 50-100 Art on APS-H Canon 1D Mark IV body and the results were impressive - no problem with covering lager senson (as I expected).

An important question is what can be used for such an interesting lens. My personal opinion is that the most appropriate use is a dynamic story, where you need a high-end lens for APS-C sensors. In challenging lighting the combination of aperture and focal length would be irreplaceable. I regret that I was unable to try the performance for a concert photos. It’s nice for portraits and photo shoots, where eliminates the need for few 50 and 85/100 mm for example. But usually for shooting under controlled conditions the photographer can cope with a much lighter prime lens.

Sigma 50-100 Art is a great lens even more impressive than 18-35 1.8. As seen on the tests it should be considered as a combination of several prime lenses between 50 and 100 mm with aperture of F1.8.

The only disadvantage that is not mentioned in the Dustin review is the minimum focus distance(3.12' / 95 cm), which is quite long, especially on the short end.

Here is my full review with a lot of pictures in different situations(sports, street, photoshoot), including test versus Canon 85 1.8 and Sigma 50 1.4 art:
http://www.nonchoiliev.com/blog/4120


----------



## AJ (Oct 17, 2016)

noncho said:


> I also had a chance to use Sigma 50-100 Art on APS-H Canon 1D Mark IV body and the results were impressive - no problem with covering lager senson (as I expected).
> 
> An important question is what can be used for such an interesting lens. My personal opinion is that the most appropriate use is a dynamic story, where you need a high-end lens for APS-C sensors. In challenging lighting the combination of aperture and focal length would be irreplaceable. I regret that I was unable to try the performance for a concert photos. It’s nice for portraits and photo shoots, where eliminates the need for few 50 and 85/100 mm for example. But usually for shooting under controlled conditions the photographer can cope with a much lighter prime lens.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the link! Very useful information.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Dec 7, 2016)

Thanks for the detailed review.

I was previously considering the Canon 85mm f/1.8 or the Tamron until I come across this Sigma 50-100mm.
Very sharp!

Maybe I should add a battery grip for vertical grip.


----------

