Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art lens for Nikon F mount announced

Sigma 50-100mm f:1.8 DC HSM Art lens Sigma 50-100mm f:1.8 DC HSM Art lens 4
Sigma 50-100mm f:1.8 DC HSM Art lens 3 Sigma 50-100mm f:1.8 DC HSM Art lens 2
Sigma announced a new 50-100mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art lens for Nikon F mount (for APS-C/DX DSLR cameras). The US price is $1,099 (available for pre-order at B&H and Adorama).

Lens features:

  • 75-150mm (35mm Equivalent)
  • Aperture Range: f/1.8 to f/16
  • One SLD and Three FLD Elements
  • One High-Refractive Index Element
  • Super Multi-Layer Coating
  • Hyper Sonic AF Motor
  • Internal Zoom and Focus; MF Override
  • Fluorine-Coated Polycarbonate Diaphragm
  • Tripod Collar

The official press release can be found here.

Technical specifications:

Sigma 50-100mm f:1.8 DC HSM Art lens for Nikon F mount

Lens Construction 21 Elements in 15 Groups
Angle of View 31.7-16.2º
Number of Diaphragm Blades 9 (Rounded)
Mininum Aperture f16
Minimum Focusing Distance 37.4 in
Filter Size (mm) 82mm
Maximum Magnifications 1: 6.7
Dimensions
(Diameter x Length)
3.7x6.7 in
Weight 52.6 oz
This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • Nikon User

    A new day for DX revitalization. Well done Sigma.

  • D700s

    This and a D500 maybe?

    • Maves

      Im hoping the AF is fast, this range is really useful to me shooting sports

      • fanboy fagz

        dont u need a longer FL? im guessing it depends what sports

    • Scott Osborne

      This and the D7200 for portraits should be just fine!
      A little BIG and Heavy though

      • This is lighter than the ever popular 70-200mm lenses that are used by so many photogs for portrait.
        Recently my own 70-200mm became ruined unfortunately (fungus). This new sigma is tempting but is it not with VR? not sure how to compare that to a 70-200 f/2.8 with good VR.

        • fanboy fagz

          if you need VR then you need VR, I dont use VR. it makes me nauseous. IQ is higher than any 70-200. I promise you this without even waiting for the reviews

          • Patrick O’Connor

            I can’t say it won’t be but that’s a pretty bold statement given a few of the 70-200s out there.

            • fanboy fagz

              every sigma art outdelivers anything from nikon till now. this wont be different. a friends bet?

            • Patrick O’Connor

              The problem with your assertion is, it’s dependent on which attributes are important to you and which lenses you’re comparing. The Sigma 50 1.4 is better than the Nikon version but not (in all regards) the Nikon 58 1.4. I think they’re close enough to make a valid comparison.

              A bet without stakes doesn’t mean anything. My brother kept going on about how Trump was going to wipe the field until I insisted on a monetary bet. He took me up but it made him think about it. How about this? Loser has to post a comment, on whichever NR topic picks the winning lens, that the winner (of the bet) was right? And just so we’re on the same page, you’re saying this lens will have better IQ than every 70-200.

            • fanboy fagz

              you’re saying this lens will have better IQ than every 70-200.

              yes I do believe so. well wait & see

            • Patrick O’Connor

              Deal. Umm… Who’s word do we take if it’s too close to be obvious?

            • fanboy fagz

              well let the fine folks here decide. I think it will better the nikon 70-200VR2. and thats what matters to me since im using nikon cameras. but I also think it will outperform the canon. this isnt a ff lens and the comparison to the 70-200 will be weird and I think it will outperform them. no matter which of the CURRENT dx cameras are used. preferably d500 vs d5. if a d810 then it will appear the 70-200 will be better. a D5/D500 setup would be perfect.

            • Patrick O’Connor

              Agreed except for “the fine folks here” part. It seems to me there are two basic types of photographers: geeks, which the majority of NR readers are and understandably so since it’s a gear blog; and, well… I won’t give a name to the other group since it actually consists of photographers with varying intent. The first group is obsessed with minutia and in particular, sharpness. Don’t get me wrong – sharpness is important but measuring it at 100% is silly. The other group, which I’m a member of, is more concerned with the overall photo, and to whom the most important attributes are difficult to measure since they vary by intent.
              I think a more balanced opinion would have to come from the bulk of reviews. You are free, of course, to make your case for NR readers or a particular reviewer.
              This is starting to sound like a serious bet! 🙂

            • fanboy fagz

              no, not serious AT ALL 🙂 just a friendly gentleman’s bet. I cant shake your hand though to start it. u were referring to dpreview? I dont go to the forums but read the comments of the products they review. shame no damn IM in the discus system.

              and I know what you mean, the kind who go look at their bag and to hold their cameras int heir hands but they dont shoot. they photograph dumb things around their house. haha

            • Patrick O’Connor

              I almost never go there. I’m referring to quite a few folks here but then we probably have different thresholds to define “geek”. 🙂

              My dogs can’t talk but I assure you…they’re not dumb! 😉

            • fanboy fagz

              HAHAHA BRAVO! there are a lot of hardware geeks but not photographers. my mom was a protog and I went with her to weddings and assist (film change batteries etc). I never shot though. I didnt think it was what I wanted although I enjoyed loking at her photos. when I bought my gear I remember the first year. I used to go to the room with the bag and just be at awe at the cameras. just take them out then neatly put it back in. I bought tons of stupid accessories like the stupid lens cap strap that hangs off the end of the lens so it wont get lost. I was like the majority who didnt go out and I shot stupid stuff at home. I was nervous to take my gear outside. I remember doing stupid photo sessions with flashes and shooting figurines and skittles. I would put all of them with their letters down and do selective focus on the one with the S up. I shot stupid flowers and I shot anything “interesting” at home. but I quickly jumped into learning flash. it was priority for me. something the majority wont go near. today, I dont even look at my bag till my next wedding. they are just tools to me. I dont have the same loyality to Nikon like I had when I was really in it from a photography standpoint (not business wise)
              I remember searching for over a year for the F5 lapel pin, which I still have. I used 3 F5’s in weddings. anyways im all over the place. I just took some caffeine before my workout. squat day!

              regarding the bet -we will get back here to peters palace and talk about it. but not a”HA! in your face! I told you so” thing. youre a civil guy. more than I can say about me haha I enjoy arguments. as you can tell 🙂

            • Patrick O’Connor

              I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt (but not often enough!) I think a lot of the gear geeks are probably good photographers as well. It’s just easy to become mired in subjects that don’t really matter. Personally, I try to not pay attention to politics because it just gets on my nerves and it really isn’t that important.

              You do have a certain…je ne sais quoi. 😉

            • fanboy fagz

              yes, you do like to see both parts and dont rush to conclusions.

          • Going on the 18-35mm f1.8 and their recent form overall, I tend to agree. They’re on a mission.

            • fanboy fagz

              yes, one after another art they just want to smash the competition.

          • Jeepmeister

            Maybe higher IQ than any 70-200 used on an APS-C body, but most certainly NOT if you’re talking about a 70-200 on a FF body vs. this on an APS-C body. Doubtful at best it will have 150% of linear resolution of the 70-200s.

            • fanboy fagz

              lets wait and see 🙂

        • WBR

          Thom Hogan reported it has OS (image stabilization)

        • Chris Lane

          Which 70-200 got ruined by fungus?

    • MonkeySpanner

      I think more like a d7200. When I think d500, I think 70-200/4 or something fast focussing and rugged like that.

      • Art are/should/supposed to be rugged. Although why they are not weather sealed is a question that begs itself.

  • silmasan

    SOON.

    70-100mm f/2 DG HSM A

    (or, let it be 85-135mm f/2 DG HSM A instead)

    • Captain Insane-O

      I join the opinion of this poster

    • Mike

      Good lord. 85-135 f/2 would give wet dreams to the masses.

      • preston

        It would be YYUUUUGGGGEEEEE!

      • silmasan

        The creamier the merrier!

  • Maves

    #DXisBack

  • silmasan

    Does anyone else notice the zoom rotation direction? This and the 24-35 and 18-35 rotates in same direction as Nikon zooms, but different to their previous telephotos (50-150, 70-200, 120-300, 120-600).

    • Davo

      Does anyone know if Canons turn the opposite way? If so, does the corresponding Canon mount Sigma zooms turn the same way as the original manufacturer’s lenses?
      It’d be a nice touch from Sigma if it does.

      • TheInfinityPoint

        No Sigmas turn the same direction regardless of mount. It irritates me that for zoom the new sigmas turn like Nikon (to the right to increase focal length), but reversed like Canon for focusing (to the left towards infinity). It’s like Sigma is intentionally confusing both Canon AND Nikon users.

        • Captain Insane-O

          I have no problems. It’s like muscle memory. And my tamron 70-200 zooms and focuses like butter, needing only my pinky finger.

          But I can’t tell if it’s back focused or front, so I just wiggle it till it’s sharp lol. If I knew I needed to push the focus one way or the other I’d probably be a bit upset. For moving subjects I let the camera focus. 200 f2.8 can be fairly narrow, but 100 isn’t to bad

        • Davo

          Ahh.. Ic. That’s a pity. Attention to detail would always be welcomed.

    • CERO

      all my Sigma lenses turn the Canon way. kinda confusing if you have nikon gear.

  • HappySoul In

    Nikon D500 + Sigma18-35f1.8 + Sigma50-150 f1.8 + Nikon 200-500 f5.6 VR ….Super combo….

    • Alexandros Logaras

      And the 11-20 f2.8 tokina. And you have almost prime lens IQ in any focal length.

  • fanboy fagz

    $1100 is a good price. another elite lens by sigma

    the tides have turned toward 3rd party mfr offering much more for less.
    shame nikon is asleep at the wheel. instead of offering a lens to compete IQ and build with the 18-35 ART, they release a 16-80 f/2.8-4 for the fantastic price of only $1100. shame no updated 17-55 AFS either.

    • MonkeySpanner

      For sure. You could hang your wedding photog hat on those two lenses and really need nothing else. Sigma has made it with it to stick with DX.

  • HD10

    The optics and build of this zoom lens will likely be very good if the track record of the recent Art zoom is maintained. That this lens has an electronic aperture will also make it attractive for those who take video with their DX.

    What I am less certain as a business decision is that at a time when many wide-angle zoom and semi-wide prime lens has been equipped with VR (Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC, Tamron 35mm f/1.8 VC), why is it that Sigma has not equipped this long zoom with its OS?

    Should Nikon’s future F-mount DX and FX (specially mirrorless body) have in body image stabilization, the decision to make this lens without OS would make eminent sense. Until then, the lack of OS will likely discourage some users from picking up this zoom.

    P.S. Sigma, please integrate an Arca rail to all the lens collar of your new lenses. This will lower the total overall cost of deploying the lens and thus lower the barrier to acquiring your lens. Olympus did this with its recently released Olympus 300mm f/4.

    • Mike

      Seeing as this is a 1.8 zoom, a first in this focal length range, the decision to omit OIS was probably made after some very careful consideration and/or technical or cost or practical (weight) limitation. If you are shooting people with this lens, portrait or sports, you likely want a fairly fast shutter anyway (1/200+). If you are shooting telephoto landscapes, then 1.8 doesn’t matter and Nikon’s 70-200 f/4 is stellar. Their first DX 50-150 2.8 didn’t have OIS either but their 2nd gen’n did and it was quite a bit bigger. Almost 70-200 size. I think 1.8 is a great trade off.

      • HF

        It is designed for the APSC image circle. Aperture diameter is similar to the 70-200/2.8 at 150mm. So nothing special in my opinion and the reason for the similar size. You will get similar IQ when using your FF zoom on a FF camera.
        The nice thing is now, that you can achieve the same look on a crop body.

      • HD10

        Mike, I concur that Sigma likely reached this decision after carefully going through many considerations. The price announced after this thread started indicates that Sigma targeted a low price at which this zoom will sell and that would not have been possible had this lens come with an OS. Given the considerable weight of this zoom, adding OS on this zoom will made it surpass the weight of even the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8.

        Like many here, I hope this lens will sell as well as the 18-35mm f/1.8.

  • TheInfinityPoint

    Too bad no VR, would’ve sold like hotcakes if it did have it.

    • milkod2001

      with VR it would be heavier, bigger and would cost more.

    • Mike

      f/1.8 zoom. $1100. It will sell like hot cakes. If this were made by Nikon it would be closer to $2000.

      • TheInfinityPoint

        All true points, but if money were no issue I’d rather use the 70-200 f/2.8 VR. I would gain 3 stops more with VR in shutter speed, compared to 4/3 stops for f/1.8 and no VR. It’ll definitely still be a popular lens though (the 50-100).

        • Davo

          Only if subject motion allows for it of course. But no doubt stabilisation would be welcomed unless it’s at the detriment of bokeh characteristics.

        • Agreed. Losing zoom range and OS from the 70-200s with similar weight and not that much lower price makes me keep thinking about FX. Not having lens stabilization on a tele zoom these days seems quite outdated. I suppose if the IQ was that much better than anything else on DX, I’d consider it with the D500, since between the two you could use higher shutter speeds than with current DX tele setups.

    • Davo

      Would be great on a DSLR with sensor based IS but at least for now only available in mounts where sensor based IS isn’t available. Ironic isn’t it.

  • waterengineer

    We can hope that Sigma has fixed their AF motor issues. I have a 70-200 that chatters constantly and it has a hard time getting focus. Once it finally does it is tack sharp but………

  • MonkeySpanner

    I have mixed feelings about this lens. It covers a very useful focal range at a very large aperture. On the other hand it is huge. I could get an 85mm/1.8 at less than half the price/size/weight. Tough choice.

    • TheInconvenientRuth

      Time for a foot-test. Put a 50mm prime on a DX body. Take a pic. See how far you have to step back to get the same FOV with an 85mm prime. Now put a 100 (okay, 105, it’s Nikon..) and see how many steps you need to take forward to get the same FOV. Now consider if what you shoot will easily allow you to make those steps. If yes, buy the 85/1.8 prime… I propose we make this a scientific unit and use it to measure the usefelness of a zoom. The more steps needed in total, the more useful the zoom.

      • silmasan

        Don’t forget the speed at which the person is able to leap forward (back and forth actually) between the two ends, as compared to rotating the zoom ring. Also the energy required (and saved, in case of the zoom).

      • hp

        That’s a good advice. Sometimes I can prepare a shoot on 50 to 100 mm focal lengths on DX, but other times I can’t. Looks like I could use this 50–100/1.8. (already using 18–35/1.8, 60/2 and 70–200/2.8 on two bodies, so would gain some light on every focal length on the 50–100/1.8 as well)

    • Kim

      Agreed. An 85mm/1.8 sits perfectly between 50 an 100mm, and offers better IQ as well (probably).

  • TheInconvenientRuth

    When you realise that this monster weighs more than my beloved and loyal Nikon AF-S 80-200/2.8D rocket launcher. (Yes, I still use it daily, Got it in 2000. It will be 15 years old this year. Who says Nikon products break easily…)

    • You didn’t complete your first sentence. (Full stop notwithstanding) .

      • TheInconvenientRuth

        Looks fine to me 😛

        • Hey, you edited that…. I have forgotten how it was before but surely , not this.

  • Wow, 3 1/4 POUNDS…too bad the laws of physics get in the way of a good time.

  • Kim

    I don’t understand why a DX 50-100mm should as heavy as 1 and a half kilo! The same as FX 70-200mm/2.8!
    DX should be all about light weight. If it is as big and heavy (and expensive) as FX:You’d be stupid not to use FX.

    • Patrick O’Connor

      If it were f/2.8, it would be lighter.

      • Kim

        C’mon: 1.8 on DX doesn’t even match 2.8 on FX!
        AND it is a measly 50-100mm.

        • silmasan

          Wait. Speaking of DoF-equivalence–1.8 x 1.52 = 2.736 (that’d be slightly thinner than f/2.8 on FX at least on paper — per each equivalent-focal-length).

          And speaking of light-gathering ability, f/2.8 doesn’t match f/1.8 of course.

          • Kim

            Yes. But this new lens’ longest focal-lenght (100mm) gives a required frontglass area of nearly half of that of a 200mm/2.8 lens. It should be lighter. (2400mm2 vs. 4000mm2)

            • Patrick O’Connor

              The glass size also depends on the largest target aperture, aperture being “the ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil” ~ Wikipedia

            • Kim

              Correct. Thus my calculation (100mm/1.8/2) squared * Pi
              compared to (200mm/2.8/2) squared * Pi

            • Patrick O’Connor

              Darn you and your facts! 😉

      • 24×36

        And equivalent to an f4 (round numbers) FF zoom, which would probably equalize the weight and size again.

        Sorry, but “Selective Equivalence” (a term I coined) doesn’t cut it. If you think it’s a “75-150” FF equivalent, it’s ALSO a “f2.8” FF equivalent. You don’t get one without the other!

        • Patrick O’Connor

          I was merely generalizing as to why a 50-100mm lens might be as heavy as a 70-200mm lens. Of course you’re right but I didn’t think it worth an in-depth analysis. Personally, I accept things as they are rather than lament what they’re not.

    • 24×36

      There’s a message in there somewhere… 😉

  • Davo

    I wonder how big the image circles produced actually are at the various focal lengths.
    The 18-35/1.8 can probably pass for use on FF at 35mm with a 4:3 ratio crop.

  • Back to top