- Messages
- 61
- Name
- Jus
- Edit My Images
- No
Hi,
I am looking at buying the 18-35mm sigma 1.8 for Nikon d7200 but still searching for answers. The reason for wanting this lens is quality. On crop we really don't have many mid zooms that can live with decent FX counterparts, maybe it's purely by design of both camera and lens but we can see its different.
Reading up the 18-35mm is no question a fab lens, however, i mainly shoot landscapes, I know some of you will say wider is needed but i can live is 18mm providing the quality is there which brings me to my next concern.
For landscapes, common to shoot at around f8-f11, sometimes higher f stop but on a crop framed camera the results (charts analysis) are poor for pretty much every lens when comparing to FX results. For instance, lets take two lens from DX, sigma 17-50 OS 2.8 and 18-35mm 1.8, one does an very good job and the other excellent to say f5.6, now at f8 being the ceiling really for both these lens, after f8 lens performance drops considerably, like a stone.
The data at f8 is very similar for both these lens, only @ f 1.8-f4 is where the 18-35 win easily over the 17-50mm. price difference say, £280 vs £570
So i am at the stage after reviewing the technical data for example, @ f11 both these lens perform around 7 points dxomark whereas FX score nearly double that at the same f stop. So there is my dilemma, do i go for the 18-35 knowing it is a better lens however at f8 is probably as good as the cheaper 17-50mm but can have more scope with the better faster end or knowing the dx setup is nearly half that of fx scoring at f8 - f11 should i change my setup and go fx.
Like to hear from people that have already been here, perhaps the chart tests are all numbers and in reality the effect is not that dramatic, is the above a classic case of out growing the dx limitations?
Thank you
I am looking at buying the 18-35mm sigma 1.8 for Nikon d7200 but still searching for answers. The reason for wanting this lens is quality. On crop we really don't have many mid zooms that can live with decent FX counterparts, maybe it's purely by design of both camera and lens but we can see its different.
Reading up the 18-35mm is no question a fab lens, however, i mainly shoot landscapes, I know some of you will say wider is needed but i can live is 18mm providing the quality is there which brings me to my next concern.
For landscapes, common to shoot at around f8-f11, sometimes higher f stop but on a crop framed camera the results (charts analysis) are poor for pretty much every lens when comparing to FX results. For instance, lets take two lens from DX, sigma 17-50 OS 2.8 and 18-35mm 1.8, one does an very good job and the other excellent to say f5.6, now at f8 being the ceiling really for both these lens, after f8 lens performance drops considerably, like a stone.
The data at f8 is very similar for both these lens, only @ f 1.8-f4 is where the 18-35 win easily over the 17-50mm. price difference say, £280 vs £570
So i am at the stage after reviewing the technical data for example, @ f11 both these lens perform around 7 points dxomark whereas FX score nearly double that at the same f stop. So there is my dilemma, do i go for the 18-35 knowing it is a better lens however at f8 is probably as good as the cheaper 17-50mm but can have more scope with the better faster end or knowing the dx setup is nearly half that of fx scoring at f8 - f11 should i change my setup and go fx.
Like to hear from people that have already been here, perhaps the chart tests are all numbers and in reality the effect is not that dramatic, is the above a classic case of out growing the dx limitations?
Thank you
Last edited:
