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

[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.

[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.

[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

[trav.cunningham]

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