sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 aps-c lens

[ogrec]

i know this is canon lens only subforum, but since sigmas are reviewed on the site i just have to put it somewhere

since i didnt notice this lens being mentioned anywhere else on the forum, i suggest you check slrgear or lenstip reviews of this lens. its has excelent build quality, its vey sharp, has low ca and low distortion and good af
and it has 1.8 troughout whole range, at only 800 bucks

i've only just found out about it so i'm posting this now
a lot of people think this lens is a game changer and that its going to have pretty strong impact on market, possibly reducing prices of currently available lenses (especialy used ones and primes in that focal range)

also, if iturns out that this lens is really that good, it will be interesting to see response from canon and nikon, cause (even with shorter focal range) this seems to me like the best possible upgrade for some who wanta to drop theor kit lens

[ogrec]

sorry but i have to mention this again
this lense is setting records in sharpness!
i really looks like a perfect aps-c lens, and its not even priced like 17-50 2.8f canon or nikon, its so freaking affordable

btw if you wanna do movies on crop sensor dslr, this lens paired with 50mm is all you really need

before this lense i never even considered buying sigma (even thou 35mm 1.4 looks pretty good), bit if they keep making lenses like this, i guess i wont be looking only at canon glass anymore :D

[DSLR_Newbie]

This Lens sounds great and the DXOMark score is very good.
My question is how useful would this lens be ?
Here is my take on this and I might be completely off here so please feel free to correct me if i am wrong.
Consider the scenarios

A. Landscapes Usually F8 or higher is preferred for large DOF. so F1.8 wont be that useful.
B. For group shots the DOF would be really thin. So a Smaller Aperture would be useful.
C. For portraits it sounds great but there are other primes in that price range. the 18-35 range is not great so even with a prime you can walk forward or backward (most cases) to get the shot.
D. Walk around lens : The range is too small to be carrying this lens only.

I love the idea of owning the lens and I think this might be a great lens for people to start with (ditch the kit lens and get this) but for people who already have a few lenses like 17-55, 70-200mm f/4 L,15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens and 10-22 this might not be the ideal lens.

[Dave Throgmartin]

The lens would be great for anything you'd use a prime 28mm, 35mm, or 50mm full frame equivalent focal length for so... with the possible exception of 50mm portraits on FF where the crop could cause distorted faces.

I'm firmly in the game changer camp. I'm also suffering from some FF buyers remorse not necessarily from this but generally speaking.

Dave

[Kayaker72]

Sounds optically great. I am also encouraged by lenstip's review of the AF. Albeit reportedly slow, but they found it to be accurate without front or back-focus issues. I'll still want to see Bryan's review, but Sigma seems to be on a role. I hope they keep it up.

[conropl]

This Lens sounds great and the DXOMark score is very good.
My question is how useful would this lens be ?
Here is my take on this and I might be completely off here so please feel free to correct me if i am wrong.
Consider the scenarios

A. Landscapes Usually F8 or higher is preferred for large DOF. so F1.8 wont be that useful.
B. For group shots the DOF would be really thin. So a Smaller Aperture would be useful.
C. For portraits it sounds great but there are other primes in that price range. the 18-35 range is not great so even with a prime you can walk forward or backward (most cases) to get the shot.
D. Walk around lens : The range is too small to be carrying this lens only.

I love the idea of owning the lens and I think this might be a great lens for people to start with (ditch the kit lens and get this) but for people who already have a few lenses like 17-55, 70-200mm f/4 L,15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens and 10-22 this might not be the ideal lens.

I will be keeping an eye on this one. I would like to see Bryan's review first. I have a 10-20mm sigma and it is fairly soft, and the AF absolutley sucks... I always end up manually focusing. However, Sigma seems to be really turning things around with one good release after another. I use my 24-105mm a lot, and it is at 24mm most of the time. The 18mm would be helpful for me (although 14mm would be better).

I disagree with DSLR_Newbie regarding the f/1.8 max apeture... that is what I really want for night time land scapes. The stars and land elements will tend to be at infinity anyway. As long as I focus at the hyperfocal distance (31.5 feet), I will have a DOF from 15.7 feet to infinity... which is good enough for me. I have been wanting a fast, sharp lens for a while now, and the price for this one is right.

My biggest problem is the weather sealing. I tend to be out in bad weather, and evenings produce heavy dew (espsecially along the Lake Michigan). I am not sure how the lens will hold up for my use, but I do seem to get by with my 10-20mm... my biggest problem has been the canon 50mm f/1.8.

Pat

[conropl]

...I'm also suffering from some FF buyers remorse not necessarily from this but generally speaking.

Dave

What don't you like about FF?

[EricPvpi]

What don't you like about FF?

I would be interested in hearing as well. I am currently using a 60D and will decide down the road between the 70D or going FF.

[Dave Throgmartin]

What don't you like about FF?

Pat,

I'm probably just complaining without having that good of a reason...

The 6D is a good camera and it isn't that I don't like it. Just speaking for myself here, but frankly it is a lot of cost and it doesn't stop at the body if you want to get the most out of it. I'm not willing to put the amount of money into lenses that would be needed to realize all of the performance gains.

Something as simple as going to a baseball game and you realize a 70-200 lens is way too short. The images can still turn out nice, but a decent amount of cropping is required.

I think your lens kit will transition well if you choose to go full frame. The 24-105L can now do wider things now, the 100mm macro is maybe even a bit better of a portrait lens and your 100-400 should still be long enough for wild life and sports use. Plus, you are a very high grade photographer. I'm quite confident you'd excel with a FF kit.

Dave

[Sean Setters]

Sounds optically great. I am also encouraged by lenstip's review of the AF. Albeit reportedly slow, but they found it to be accurate without front or back-focus issues. I'll still want to see Bryan's review, but Sigma seems to be on a roll. I hope they keep it up.

Keep an eye out for the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 "Sports" lens review being posted later on today. I think Sigma's continuing their streak of good lenses. ;)

[Kayaker72]

Seems like Sigma has 3 good lenses out recently (35 f/1.4, 18-35 f/1.8, and now the 120-300 f/2.8). That is very encouraging. If they get one of their xxx-500 mm lenses to be as good, I'll definitely be taking a long hard look. The 120-300 f/2.8 seems like a great lens. But for the money and weight, I'll go with the 70-200 f/2.8II plus the 1.4x extender and lose a stop. These seems like it is really for those that want a less expensive way to get to f/2.8 at 300 mm.

[conropl]

Pat,

I'm probably just complaining without having that good of a reason...

The 6D is a good camera and it isn't that I don't like it. Just speaking for myself here, but frankly it is a lot of cost and it doesn't stop at the body if you want to get the most out of it. I'm not willing to put the amount of money into lenses that would be needed to realize all of the performance gains.

Something as simple as going to a baseball game and you realize a 70-200 lens is way too short. The images can still turn out nice, but a decent amount of cropping is required.

I think your lens kit will transition well if you choose to go full frame. The 24-105L can now do wider things now, the 100mm macro is maybe even a bit better of a portrait lens and your 100-400 should still be long enough for wild life and sports use. Plus, you are a very high grade photographer. I'm quite confident you'd excel with a FF kit.

Dave

Dave:

Thanks for your thoughts. I have been trying to make sure my lenses are compatible with FF except for the 10-20mm.

I like long exposures, and low light shooting. That is the reason I want to get to FF... i.e., to get better low light performance (higher ISO/less noise). I also like the idea of my lenses getting wider, but the converse worries me. When I use my 100-400mm (which is a far amount), it is usually at 400mm (640mm equivalant). The FF is not going to afford me that kind of reach, and I do not see a solution to that beyond spending a lot of money.

I will be upgrading next spring... so at that point the 7DII should be out:confused:. If the 7DII has high ISO capability equivalent to FF, then I have a decision to make. But I doubt the crop sensor will live up to the FF low light abilities... we'll see.

Pat

[DavidEccleston]

When I use my 100-400mm (which is a far amount), it is usually at 400mm (640mm equivalant). The FF is not going to afford me that kind of reach, and I do not see a solution to that beyond spending a lot of money.

Keep your 7D handy, or if the 7D sale is funding the full-frame, buy a 1.4X extender. Distant wildlife, and the occasional agility movie are the only uses my 7D sees these days, and I've got an ancient FF camera.

[conropl]

Keep your 7D handy, or if the 7D sale is funding the full-frame, buy a 1.4X extender. Distant wildlife, and the occasional agility movie are the only uses my 7D sees these days, and I've got an ancient FF camera.

I do have a 1.4X, and I did forget that the 5D III does allow AF at f/8 since the firmware update in April:)... so that is an option. That was always reserved for 1D series bodies in the past.

Brant - Have you tried your 100-400mm with a Canon 1.4X on your 5D III?

Pat

[Kayaker72]

Brant - Have you tried your 100-400mm with a Canon 1.4X on your 5D III?

Pat
The short answer is not yet with AF. In February, I sent the 1.4x TC I bought back to shave a little off the investment I was making at the time and because I was getting similar IQ results with cropping on the 5DIII without the 1.4 TC as with it in the tests I did. Those tests were with the 100-400L, tripod mount, and manual focused in live view. As the 100-400L has a pretty short focus throw, I am probably due to give it another chance now that I can try it with AF. I'll definitely do so before you are ready to buy, but that sounds like it is next spring. Let me know.

But I have shot a number of birds with just the 100-400L and 5DIII and haven't really missed the reach. I do notice it on far away subjects, but, for example, this shot was at 44 meters and for some reason @ 365 mm:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3813/9332095021_5816a5429c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kayaker72/9332095021/)
small-5032-2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kayaker72/9332095021/) by kayaker72 (http://www.flickr.com/people/kayaker72/), on Flickr

It isn't yet a 100% crop, but it is getting close.

[Dave Throgmartin]

Bryan's outstanding ISO crops now make it 4 different web sites that have shown the Sigma to have remarkable image quality.

DXOMark, Lenstip,and SLRGear all previously gave it very high marks, and now Bryan's post confirms it.

Bryan's ISO crops:
Canon 17-55 on 60D vs Sigma 18-35: Sigma even at f/1.8 beats the Canon at f/2.8 at every focal length except 35, and at 35 beats it by f/2.
17 TS on 60D vs 18-35 Sigma at 18: Sigma wins at f/1.8 vs TS at f/4
24 f/1.4 L II on 60D vs 18-35 Sigma at 24: Sigma wins at f/2 vs f/2 at each location in the frame
28 f/2.8 IS was not tested on 60D and there are no other worthy competitors at that focal length
35 f/1.4 L on 60D vs 18-35 Sigma at 35: Sigma wins at f/2 vs f/2 at each location in the frame

Despite all of that I'm not seeing much of a buzz anywhere about the 18-35. I'm curious why? Has anyone who would have bought this lens already gone full frame?

Performance seems off the charts and I haven't seen any objectionable bokeh,etc... posted.

I've seen posts that the 18-35 at 35mm even works on full frame without too bad vignetting. I'm curious if the same is true at 28mm or if the vignetting is a big problem here.

Dave

[trav.cunningham]

I too have not considered buying other than Canon, but the reviews on the new Sigma's are making me question that. I am a photo enthusiast on a budget so I like to get a lot out of one lens. The one that has caught my eye is the updated 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM. If the IQ is good, at $500 this could be my upgrade from my kit lens.

[ogrec]

dont buy sigma 17-70mm, i've shot with it and you're much better off getting canon 15-85mm or 17-50/17-55mm f/2.8 lens. 17-70 is not very sharp, not as fast as constant f/2.8 and doesnt have a range to compete with 15-85. only good thing about it is the low price tag.
edit: i didnt realize new version was released, disregard my comment

on topic: i remember the time when people were buying primes because they were faster and sharper then zooms... for anyone on aps-c this is like having 35 and 50mm prime constantly on their camera :o

[trav.cunningham]

After reading Bryan's review. This lens is definitely on my wish list.