So Sigma have been busy....

Cool. That's rather nice, like alot of sigma's stuff of late.


I do wonder what the market for this is like though. It's a lot of money for a dx lens and Nikon and canon seem to be pushing fx rather hard
 
boyfalldown said:
I do wonder what the market for this is like though. It's a lot of money for a dx lens and Nikon and canon seem to be pushing fx rather hard
Click to expand...

Maybe that's the point? Nikon and Canon have both neglected APS-C a bit, Nikon more so. Plus it's one of the very few >f2.8 zooms.
 
Very interesting lens, but wouldn't that mean the photos would look almost like with 24-70mm f/2.8 on FX body? Given the price FX seems the cheaper way in...
Perhaps they should have done 24-70mm update first
 
It will look great on the D400...
heartbeat.gif
 
Sigma offers some great lenses, my personal favorite being the 12-24mm DG II which beats anything Canon/Nikon make in terms of range, sharpness and price.
 
daugirdas said:
Very interesting lens, but wouldn't that mean the photos would look almost like with 24-70mm f/2.8 on FX body? Given the price FX seems the cheaper way in...
Perhaps they should have done 24-70mm update first
Click to expand...

Not in the market for one of these, but I thought the price was very good - you could have this and a D3200 brand new for less than the cost of a new 24-70 alone, let alone the body. Base ISO DR on the DX bodies is superb.

A lens like this is a shot in the arm for DX, and in the unlikely event they follow through with a similarly priced 70- 150/1.8.... Mmmmm.....
 
interesting lens. f1.8 throughout the range is nice. If the lens is useable wide open then the price is not bad ........
 
badboy1984 said:
interesting lens. f1.8 throughout the range is nice. If the lens is useable wide open then the price is not bad ........
Click to expand...

Noob alert here! So has it got a fixed aperture of f1.8 ?
 
Shine On said:
No, it has a maximum aperture of 1.8 throughout the focal range, not fixed. You could use it at 2.8, 4, 11, etc.
Click to expand...

Ah yes of course :bonk: makes sense, thanks for confirming.
 
It's good to see Sigma pushing Canon and Nikon, creating new APS-C options. They could use a bit more competition, and so could we. But in terms of full-frame equivalence, it's a 28-55mm f/2.8, which is rather less exciting.

If you want small and light cameras and lenses, smaller formats have an inherent advantage. But if it's low light performance and shallow DoF you're after, and higher image quality too, then larger formats just have a big head start there.
 
HoppyUK said:
I But in terms of full-frame equivalence, it's a 28-55mm f/2.8, which is rather less exciting.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not for the price but I'd really like this on the 1.3
 
Last edited:
Shine On said:
No, it has a maximum aperture of 1.8 throughout the focal range, not fixed. You could use it at 2.8, 4, 11, etc.
Click to expand...

Isn't this means fixed f1.8 throughout all zoom range? Just like the 24-70 f2.8 but is 18-35 f1.8 instead.
 
dinners said:
Perhaps not for the price but I'd really like this on the 1.3
Click to expand...

It won't cover anything larger than 1.5x APS-C sensors.
 
HoppyUK said:
It won't cover anything larger than 1.5x APS-C sensors.
Click to expand...

I know.

It was a moan because I quite like the idea of that = range on a 1.3 esp if the 1.8 holds up throughout.
 
Last edited:
A very sweet lens for DX users for the price. Think of a lens like the nikon 17-55 2.8 - that's about £1000 - this Sigma is over a stop faster, throughout. They're the first to achieve it. And they're not exactly charging an arm & a leg like the bigger companies would.

If it was 18-35 1.8 for FX it would be thousands. And it's not exactly the equivalent of 24-70, more like 27-52 for FX
 
Last edited:
If results are good, this could really be a big seller for Sigma.
I find Nikons top end glass just too pricey for my usage on my D7000, could this be why the 17-50mm f2.8 sigma has come down in price some?
 
More than likely.

It can happen that when lenses are reduced, people panic and start selling them off used while they're still worth something. This in turn leads them to go buy the latest and greatest upgrade/replacement. The 18-35 may not reach to 50mm, but I think most people see the wide end as being the more important in the short zooms. It's easier to go forward than back up to make up any difference. Usually. Unless you're taking a shot from the edge of a cliff :D
 
It seems this lens will be on most DX user's want list, it's all ready on mine.
It would replace 2 lenses for me(my only 2 lol), the 18-55mm kit lens that I like for it's wide end, then it would replace my 35mm Nikon prime.
 
I imagine it's the likes of you they are specifically targeting. I would be buying if I still shot DX, no question.
 
Maybe we might see an 18mm f/1.8 prime in the future, based on a simplified optical design of this one. That would be a killer prime in combination with the Nikkor, and wouldn't tread on the toes of the nikonians who already own the 35. Anyway, another pipedream....
 
Would be a whole lot more desirable if it was for full frame compatible though. I think it'd easily outsell a 17-40L and if the optics are excellent and gives great IQ it would be a good cheaper alternative to the 16-35L too.
 
modchild said:
Would be a whole lot more desirable if it was for full frame compatible though. I think it'd easily outsell a 17-40L and if the optics are excellent and gives great IQ it would be a good cheaper alternative to the 16-35L too.
Click to expand...

That's the problem though, it can't be. It's the reduced image circle of smaller sensors that make lenses like this possible. Eg, Olympus has been making f/2 zooms for M4/3rds for a long time.

An 18-35 1.8 for full-frame would be absolutely huge, cost a fortune, and have rubbish edge sharpness. Edit: and horrendous vignetting too...
 
Last edited:
The more ya think on it, it's not all that great a deal. Only if it were for FX ...

A 24-70 on FX offers better range, you only need up your ISO a stop to compete with the light, FX sensors give more shallow DOF than DX, so that negates any difference on that score ... it's a little on the short side to be a real interesting zoom - it's the wide end at 1.8 makes it special. I can't think of many cases where I would want f/1.8 at 18mm!

It's just DX being given something FX has had for a long time really. Still great, but until something close appears on FX, it's nothing for the FX user to get excited about. Unless you buy a D7100 as a back up or so. Not a bad idea that.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
The more ya think on it, it's not all that great a deal. Only if it were for FX ...

A 24-70 on FX offers better range, you only need up your ISO a stop to compete with the light, FX sensors give more shallow DOF than DX, so that negates any difference on that score ... it's a little on the short side to be a real interesting zoom - it's the wide end at 1.8 makes it special. I can't think of many cases where I would want f/1.8 at 18mm!

It's just DX being given something FX has had for a long time really. Still great, but until something close appears on FX, it's nothing for the FX user to get excited about. Unless you buy a D7100 as a back up or so. Not a bad idea that.
Click to expand...

Well, it's the only one so it does have that going for it :D and as pointed out it couldn't really have been a full frame lens could it? So it's 18mm on APS-C and that's an effective FoV of 28mm or so, which used to be quite popular.

As for DoF, it's a dual edged sword. You can get shallow DoF by using a wide aperture (f1.8) and reducing your camera to subject distance, or if you're not going for ultra shallow DoF you can shoot at f1.8 and get FF equiv of about f2.8 but with the speed of f1.8 to either increase your shutter speed or reduce your ISO a bit.

I think it's a very interesting lens and I'm sure it'll find buyers.
 
Cagey75 said:
The more ya think on it, it's not all that great a deal. Only if it were for FX ...

A 24-70 on FX offers better range, you only need up your ISO a stop to compete with the light, FX sensors give more shallow DOF than DX, so that negates any difference on that score ... it's a little on the short side to be a real interesting zoom - it's the wide end at 1.8 makes it special. I can't think of many cases where I would want f/1.8 at 18mm!

It's just DX being given something FX has had for a long time really. Still great, but until something close appears on FX, it's nothing for the FX user to get excited about. Unless you buy a D7100 as a back up or so. Not a bad idea that.
Click to expand...

To take the equivalence with full-frame a bit further, all things being equal you can raise your ISO one stop higher on FF vs APS-C for the same noise level (because the sensor is twice the area, so gathers double the light). Therefore the bottom line is a 24-70 2.8 on full-frame effectively offers the same exposure and DoF control, plus greater focal length range, and better sharpness.

But as Alan WW says, one thing you can't argue with is this lens offers APS-C users something they can't get any other way.
 
My walk round lens on my 7D is the Canon 15-85, which is superb apart from the f3.5 - 5.6, so an f1.8 sounds as though it will be a great addition to my kit, when I can afford it.
 
Review here... http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1609

"Conclusion
The Sigma 18-35mm ƒ/1.8 DC HSM "A" lens packs a big punch in features and image quality without a big punch to the wallet. Shockingly sharp images at all apertures, even at ƒ/1.8, with excellent flatness of field and good control over chromatic aberration, distortion and vignetting make this lens a no-brainer for users of APS-C cameras looking to upgrade from their kit lens. Furthermore, the lens has excellent built quality with smooth zoom and focus actuation and a nice, hefty heft to it that brings to mind the feel of high-end professional-level zoom lenses. With a super-fast constant ƒ/1.8 aperture that produces surprisingly great images, packaged with excellent build quality, and at the same time having a price that dramatically undercuts the competition, the new 18-35mm ƒ/1.8 DC HSM "A" is sure to become a top seller for Sigma. (As we said at the top, if you want one of these any time this year, you'd better get in line quick.)"
 
+1 to that ^^

Much as I love their 35mm1.4, I did have to send back the first copy I received. It was way off. But the replacement is bang on and I love it. Love the look and feel and weight of it. If this DX lens is as good, it's worth every cent. If I ever do buy a back up DX cam, and it is possible, I will buy this lens. I think that and an 85mm [which I have already] would be enough on a Dx back up for me. Could use the 35mm, 150mm and maybe a wider lens on the FX.

Very tempting to just get a DX cam as an excuse to buy this lens tbh ... but will wait and see what Sigma have to offer next
 
Last edited:
Is matter of time when f1.8 zoom lens will be on FF camera. If f1.8 on zoom lens then i reckon more primes will start going above f1.4 i.e 0.9 etc i guess.
 
JonathanRyan said:
Parfocal test looks impressive.

For the people saying "it would be impossible to make this for full frame"....I reckon not too long ago a decent 1.8 zoom at an affordable price would have looked imposible for APS so maybe there's hope.
Click to expand...

badboy1984 said:
Is matter of time when f1.8 zoom lens will be on FF camera. If f1.8 on zoom lens then i reckon more primes will start going above f1.4 i.e 0.9 etc i guess.
Click to expand...

Cost and image quality aside, the physics dictates huge size and weight for very low f/number lenses on full-frame.
 
badboy1984 said:
Isn't this means fixed f1.8 throughout all zoom range? Just like the 24-70 f2.8 but is 18-35 f1.8 instead.
Click to expand...

I own a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 and its NOT fixed at f2.8 - just has that option throughout the zoom range- I often shoot at f2.8 if I want a oof back ground

Les :thumbs:
 
HoppyUK said:
Cost and image quality aside, the physics dictates huge size and weight for very low f/number lenses on full-frame.
Click to expand...

Have I got the sums right?

Isn't minimum diameter of the front optic focal length / maximum aperture?

There are other things to solve but that should mean a 24-70 1.8 could fit into the same size barrel as the current 2.8.
 
Mmmmm 24-70mm f1.8 - I would want a bit of that :lol:


Les :D:D
 
An odd lens this one. The price is attractive (this and a D5200 is about the same as body only on a D600), but I can't help but think that it's not what most people actually need.

Also 1.8 @ 18mm? What's that for? Night landscape shots is about all I can think of but even then at 1.8 DOF, even at 18mm is probably still an issue. 35 1.8 is more useful but the DX prime is pretty cheap and I would hazard a guess better optically.

Essentially they will sell a load to people who see the specs, but don't stop to think what will I use it for.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top