Previous news story    Next news story

Sigma announces super-fast 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art for APS-C DSLRs

By dpreview staff on Apr 18, 2013 at 05:00 GMT
Buy on GearShopFrom $799.00

Sigma has announced the 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art lens for APS-C DSLRs - the world's first constant F1.8 zoom. The lens covers a 27-52.5mm equivalent range, and will be available in Canon, Nikon and Sigma mounts. As yet there is no announcement of a recommended price. The lens will offer the depth-of-field equivalent of a constant F2.7 on full-frame, and allow the use of lower ISO settings in low light, which may under-cut the need for some photographers to change formats.

We're impressed to see a manufacturer creating a high-end lens for APS-C at a time when the big DSLR manufacturers are trying to tempt users across to full-frame bodies and the additional lenses that such a move can require. At a time when APS-C cameras (and their sensors) are so good, and continue to make up such a large proportion of DSLR sales, it makes sense to offer high-quality lenses to support them.

Jump to:


Press Release: 

Sigma Corporation announces world's first F1.8 constant aperture zoom lens

RONKONKOMA, NY, Apr. 18, 2013 — Sigma Corporation of America (www.sigmaphoto.com), a leading researcher, developer, manufacturer and service provider for some of the world's most impressive lines of lenses, cameras and flashes, today announced the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art lens, the market’s first zoom lens to achieve a maximum aperture F1.8 throughout the entire zoom range.

This revolutionary, wide aperture, standard zoom lens is created for DSLR cameras with APS-C size sensors, which translates to a focal range of 27-52.5mm on a 35mm camera. With a minimum focusing distance of 11 inches, and a maximum magnification ratio of 1:4.3, the 18-35mm is ideal for landscapes, portraits, still-life, studio, close-up and casual photography.

"Exceptionally fast apertures were previously unavailable in zoom lenses, so photographers turned to several prime lenses in a session to get bright images at various focal lengths. We're incredibly excited to be the first manufacturer to bring the F1.8 standard zoom to the market and to provide photographers with a new level of creativity and convenience, with the outstanding image quality at the core of the new Sigma Global Vision," said Mark Amir-Hamzeh, president of Sigma Corporation of America.

Amir-Hamzeh added that because developing a large aperture wide angle zoom lens can prove to be technologically and optically challenging, often resulting in various distortions, aberrations and field curvature, Sigma has tapped into its long history as a lens pioneer to overcome those issues in this new generation lens.

"Our experience with the wide angle designs of our 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 II DG HSM and our 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM, and our research and development in our Aizu factory have prepared us for this technological advancement,” he said. “Our wide, glass-molded aspherical lens and the incorporation of Special Low Dispersion (SLD) glass have optimized power distribution of the optical elements and compensated for various aberrations, as well as curvature of field at the widest angle. We’re extremely proud of this achievement."

The 18-35mm is the latest addition to the company’s company’s Art line of lenses, designed under the new Global Vision. The Global Vision lenses have a sleek new design with the manufacturing year stamped on the barrel, and are categorized by use into one of three groups: Art, Contemporary and Sports. The Art category delivers high-level artistic expression through sophisticated and abundant expressive power.

The new 18-35mm lens incorporates Sigma’s improved AF/MF switch and the use of Thermally Stable Composite (TSC) compound material, which has a high affinity to metal parts, consistently performs well at extreme temperatures, and reduces the size and weight of the lens. It is also compatible with Sigma’s new USB Dock, which will be available in coming months, enabling photographers to update lens firmware and adjust focus parameters from their computers.

Convenient handling is achieved with internal focusing and zooming, which prevents changes to the size of the lens. Additionally, the front part of the lens does not rotate, so special filters like circular polarizers can be used.

The 18-35mm lens’ Super Multi-Layer Coating reduces flare and ghosting and provides sharp and high contrast images, even in backlit conditions. The petal-type hood that is supplied with the lens will provide extra protection from flare and ghosting. Sigma’s Hyper Sonic Motor (HSM) ensures a silent, high-speed AF function and the optimized auto focus algorithm results in smooth focusing and full-time manual focusing capability. Lastly, the nine-blade, rounded diaphragm creates an attractive, round bokeh at large-aperture settings.

Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM specifications

Principal specifications
Lens typeZoom lens
Max Format sizeAPS-C / DX
Focal length18–35 mm
Image stabilisationNo
Lens mountCanon EF, Nikon F (DX), Pentax KAF, Sony Alpha, Sigma SA
Aperture
Maximum apertureF1.8
Minimum apertureF16.0
Number of diaphragm blades9
Aperture notesRounded diaphragm
Optics
Elements17
Groups12
Special elements / coatings5 SLD glass elements, 4 glassmold aspherical elements
Focus
Minimum focus0.28 m (11.02)
Maximum magnification0.23×
AutofocusYes
Motor typeRing-type ultrasonic
Full time manualYes
Focus methodInternal
Distance scaleYes
DoF scaleNo
Physical
Weight810 g (1.79 lb)
Diameter78 mm (3.07)
Length121 mm (4.76)
Zoom methodRotary (internal)
Filter thread72 mm
Hood suppliedYes
Hood product codeLH780-03
185
I own it
439
I want it
20
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 724
1234
rxbot
By rxbot (Apr 22, 2013)

Just 4 comparison, Adorama pricing
Nikon crop 17-55 f2.8 565 grams $594
Nikon ff 17-35 f2.8 745 grams $1769
Tokina FX 17-35 f4 600 grams $575
Sigma crop 17-50 f2.8 565 grams $594

Pentax crop 16-50 f2.8 limited 565 grams $1500
Pentax crop 17-70 f4 485 grams $489
Tamron crop 17-70 f2.8 343 grams $474
Pentax ff 31mm f1.8 limited 345 grams $990

Remains to be seen what the new Sigma will cost.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 22, 2013)

a simple calculation may be 1.3 stops higher than Sigma and Tamron APS-C f/2.8 zooms, adjust down for narrower range, adjust up for better mechanical quality and first in the class.

0 upvotes
Redteg94
By Redteg94 (Apr 23, 2013)

The Nikon is 755g and $1399, which Nikon are you talking about?

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 26, 2013)

those two Nikkors should not be used as references.
DX17-55/2.8 is an expensive, shining, and sh!tty lens.
two 17-35/2.8 are different lenses at much wider angles.
mounted on an APS-C camera they instantly lose most value.

using Sigma 17-50/2.8 as reference, we get
2^1.3 * 594 = 1500 for 17-50/1.8 but this is 18-35,
then the price should be adjusted back to less than 1000.

for Pentax, the calculation will depend more on how much exactlly the wide ends differ (like 16.5mm vs 18.7mm).

we have 28/2.8 primes at about 70% something dollars of 24/2.8 ones (excl. new Canons), which is useful when calculating the defferences among APS-C lenses in the 15-18mm range.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Revimaru
By Revimaru (Apr 22, 2013)

This IS a game changer. Extremely good news for people like me who have hard time justifying the cost of replacing their crop body with a FF just to get better low light performance

I have a crop sensor camera Canon 40D and my main problem is the lack of choices for a fast wide-normal zoom lens for my needs in astrophotography and shooting band gigs in small bars. Right now I am almost done saving up for Canon 6D body and a 24-70 2.8. Well my plan changed with this announcement. I'll probably be getting a 7D which offers BETTER features than the 6D and wait for this lens.

I mean really look at this:
6D + 24-70mm 2.8 = ~$3700
7D + 18-35mm 2.8 = ~$2800

THAT'S $900 WORTH OF BEER FELLAS!!!!

And oh, you could get camera accessories instead too :)

4 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 22, 2013)

there is a precondition for the calculation,
that if you never change the lens.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Revimaru
By Revimaru (Apr 23, 2013)

I can't find the logic on your reply. Buying the 7D and the Sigma shoudn't stop you from buying other lenses right? By all means, get other lenses that fit your needs: A macro, a telephoto or whatever lens that you think you'll use in your art. Last time I checked, you can still fit your FF lens to APS-C bodies.
The calculations just simply shows that the Sigma lens provides an alternative option for crop sensor users. They are giving those who can't afford an upgrade to FF a more affordable solution.

0 upvotes
Slaginfected
By Slaginfected (Apr 23, 2013)

Yes and no. You are right in that this f/1.8 zoom lens is really a game changer for low light stuff on APS-C. However, there is more to low light photography than just lens and sensor, and that where things get tricky.

I used a 7D at concerts for quite some time, usually at darker venues. Aside of the noise, which you can get by usually (and doesn't hurt really, although some may think otherwise), the AF really was the key issue. If it worked, it was fine, but sometimes it was just too dark or the lighting was in a way that the AF just failed and the lens started pumping.

So, in the end you may have enough light, but will it be enough for the AF? That is one of the points where your 6D will outdo the 7D by a great margin, at least in the center AF point.

To sum it up: Yes, I can follow your reasoning -- it was the first thing which came to my mind as well reading about this new lens -- but be aware that there is more to the total equation.

0 upvotes
SMPhoto
By SMPhoto (Apr 23, 2013)

Since autofocus is accomplished with the lens wide open, then the 1.8 lens should compensate somewhat for the more sensitive AF in the 6D I would think.

0 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Apr 25, 2013)

24-70 is vastly superior in range to 29-57. I'd need at least one wider f/1.8 zoom on the 7D to make up for it.

1 upvote
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (Apr 25, 2013)

@SMPhoto not really, the most sensitive AF cross points work with F/2.8 or faster lenses, as in F/2.8 is as fast as a lens needs to be to take full advantage of whatever AF. So being any faster won't result in better sensitivity, rather the shallow DoF of a faster lens would lead to less chance of hitting critical focus if you see it that way

0 upvotes
TheChefs
By TheChefs (Apr 22, 2013)

Can the equivalence police tell me how it compares to my square format hasselblad 501c 80mm f2.8 lens. I want to see how all of you will calculate that one out!

Here's a bit of a LOL at all of you :)

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 22, 2013)

search "area-ratio" in this thread and get your answer.

0 upvotes
Redteg94
By Redteg94 (Apr 23, 2013)

Its about equiv to a 44mm f/1.6 in 35mm or 30/1.0 in APS-C (with somewhat rough calculation, but close enough)

How is this a LOL to anyone?

0 upvotes
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (Apr 25, 2013)

The "LOL" would be how ridiculously overpriced Hassy gear is, and don't even start calculating what a full digital kit would cost you! The results are good, but look APS-C just got a little better~

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 26, 2013)

Hassies may worth the price not for photographic value but for small volume.

0 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Apr 22, 2013)

Interesting, this Sigma on a 5D2
http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-18-35mm-f18-with-5D-Mark-II

I think the image circle will cover an APSH sensor throughout most of the zoom range.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 22, 2013)

this is typical, same as 17-55/2.8's that they cover full-frame at "bumeraned" equiv. focal length. D800 can do APS-H at 5 fps which is good.

0 upvotes
Scrozzy
By Scrozzy (Apr 21, 2013)

Once you cut through all the equivalency mumbo jumbo from the self-proclaimed optical experts and physicists, and while we love these people dearly (really we do), the fact is Sigma are starting to make lenses that are pretty fricken' good. For the first time, I feel like I can buy a non-Canon lens and not be compromising. I'm elated. This can only end well for most people.

Merry Christmas.

6 upvotes
jonrobertp
By jonrobertp (Apr 21, 2013)

Go to FF ? Nope. You lose too much lens reach w your longer lenses. And then wt. & cost. For a lighter more $/wt. efficiency...this lens is a very good addition to a shooter doing much low light shooting.

5 upvotes
igor_s
By igor_s (Apr 21, 2013)

You do not get any extra lens reach on APS-C. You may take exactly equal APS-C crop from the FF image at the same focal distance. The "equivalent focal distance" is meant in terms of the perspective/angle of view, not the reach/resolution.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 21, 2013)

full-frame lenses are of higher quality, smaller/lighter, and cheaper than their APS-C counterparts.

there are some large and expensive lenses but they can do more work have higher performance. for lenses that can do the same work, we will have the above results, for lenses wider than 70mm.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
igor_s
By igor_s (Apr 21, 2013)

F1.8/APS-C/ISO100 is about the same as F2.8/FF/ISO250 both DOF-wise and light-wise. Modern FF sensors have about 1.5 stops advantage in SNR over the APS-C sensors, so with F1.8 on APS-C you will have about the same SNR (at the same shutter speed) and DOF as with F2.8/FF. As simple as that.

However:
- only 2x zoom compared to 3x F2.8 for FF
- the resolution (in lpph) is going to be lower as always with APS-C.
- price compared? The optical design is very complex, not speaking about virtual F1.8 3x zooms.

If you save on an APS-C body, you can not have the same overall performance for the same lens price as you would have with FF (subject to the particular manufacturer's pricing policy, but Sigma is not going to be cheap in any case).

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 21, 2013)

the base conversion factor is area-ratio.
which applies to ISO that the factor is
(36 * 24 ) / (23.6 * 15.6) = 2.35 (ISO 100 is 235 equiv.)
this gives the same number of photons hit each sensor thus
the same *potential* to get the same SNR.
the sensors' efficiencies may be different but that's not lens' business.

factor for focal-length and f-number is
sqrt(area-ratio), = 1.53 for D7100/D7000.
this gives the same angle of view and aperture size.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Low Battery
By Low Battery (Apr 21, 2013)

The equivalence police are out in full force!

"Stop in the name of the law! (of optics)"

9 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 21, 2013)

no one can break the law of god/nature.

though some may refuse to see or acknowledge.

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
1 upvote
stelioskritikakis
By stelioskritikakis (Apr 21, 2013)

Thank god there is someone who leads the way in new tech..
i'm gonna buy it without a doubt if the price is "fair". This lens is a weapon and not a toy

1 upvote
Grumpy Chopper
By Grumpy Chopper (Apr 21, 2013)

Dearest DpReview folks,
your DOF equivalent aperture calculations are completely wrong, unfortunately. Any given aperture value shouldn't be simply multiplied by "crop factor", as we are dealing here with light intensity, not linear scale of some measurements. And light-wise, there is twice more light (or twice less light) between the stops on non-linear aperture scale. So, to get an idea what DOF equivalent might be, using the "crop factor" - we should divide the "crop factor" by 2 and get the number of stops for our "equivalency" comparison.

Hence, APS-C sensors are only 3/4 stop more DOF-wise, than Full Frame sensor, not 1.5 stops. (1.5 : 2 = 0.75 stop).

And Sigma's new lens, being f/1.8 on APS-C, is roughly f/1.89
on 35mm sensor. The value may be rounded to the next "standard" stop on aperture scale, giving us f/2.0 in worst case, not f/2.7 by all means.

DOF-equivalent calculations you've presented in Fuji's x20 Preview are also wrong and misleading.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 21, 2013)

it's not f/2.7 but f/2.8 equiv. on 35mm format, since in reality APS-C sensors are smaller than 24x16mm, the factor is about 1.53, or 1.61 for Canon (then f/2.9 equiv.).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Grumpy Chopper
By Grumpy Chopper (Apr 21, 2013)

Well, obviously, physics is not your cup of tea.
According to this ingenious calculation,
f/2.0 on sensor on camera with crop factor x5 will be equivalent to FF f/10, which is a complete nonsense.
There's a very simple way to check it - just use both cameras and compare actual DOF.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 21, 2013)

> which is a complete nonsense

that complete nonsense to you explains every bit of photographic output controlled by aperture.

since we have only one aperture, if any single effect is known, every other effect will have no way but follow exactly the same way quantitatively, be it light gathering capability, depth of field, diffraction limited resolution, ...

they are all the same, or if different, they differ exactly the same direction and proportion as on any single system. nothing can separate them apart because they are merely different aspects of a single thing, the aperture size.

at the same angle of view, and at 5x factor, f/2 and f/10 will mean the same aperture size, diameter or area, and give us exactly the same output,

regardless of format size, which is irrelevant.

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
beenthere
By beenthere (Apr 21, 2013)

$$$?

0 upvotes
Multifot
By Multifot (Apr 21, 2013)

Wrong question.
$$$$? - right answer!

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 21, 2013)

should be somewhere between 700-1000 USD. but those who don't know camera/photography may think it worth more and be willing to pay more.

Canon users may want it if they also need 8 fps that 5D3 cannot provide. both Canon and Nikon have 24-70/2.8 that are awesome, and people can choose Tamron which is awesome in price-performance. Pentax users have no choice they don't have a full-frame body and they won't have this lens for sometime.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Redteg94
By Redteg94 (Apr 23, 2013)

I'd guess they'll sell it at around the price of the C/N 17-55s; asking more for a Sigma still may be a tough sell to the people who think Sigma products are inherently inferior, but any less is impossible, given the construction. So I'm guessing a street price of $1200-1400

0 upvotes
spiderhunter
By spiderhunter (Apr 21, 2013)

It weighs a ton and it had better have exceptional IQ otherwise it's a white elephant.

0 upvotes
Dougbm_2
By Dougbm_2 (Apr 21, 2013)

An 18-35mm Nikkor was the only lens I used on my Fuji S2 Pro for about 5 years. And that was only f/3.5-4.5. Whilst this seems small range it is still a useful range. Of course 18-180mm f1.4 would be even better if you didn't mind a lens that weighed 10KG! Seriously though it would have been better if they could have made it 17-70mm (and maybe f1.8-2.8) or similar. I had their 17-70m F2.8-4.5 for my SD14 and it was a great all rounder with good macro too. The lens and the sensor were the highlights of that camera kit.

0 upvotes
ballwin12
By ballwin12 (Apr 20, 2013)

Someone may move back to DX because of this lens.. if it's good, of course.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 20, 2013)

if it's better or cheaper than 35mm f/2.8 zooms, very unlikely.

1 upvote
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Apr 21, 2013)

why. the performance of f 1.8 on aps c is no better that 2.8 on full frame. and there is an amazing range of 2.8 zooms. there is one measley f1.8 zoom for apsc and it doesnt even cover a particularly useful range. Full frame is better on strict image quality grounds why on earth would this tempt someone to switch

2 upvotes
Rooru S
By Rooru S (Apr 21, 2013)

@Kodachrome200

Well, look at this from a different point of view...2.8 limits how much light the sensor gathers, but 1.8 is pretty fast. You get both 24 and 35mm at 1.8. If I had a Full-frame, I would consider getting an APS-C camera as 2nd camera just for this lens. Imagine now a 24-70 f/1.8?

2 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Apr 21, 2013)

There is atleast a 1 stop advantage in ISo going to full frame so again your argument holds no water

1 upvote
RichGK
By RichGK (Apr 21, 2013)

You're talking about this being an attempt to get someone to switch? I think your confused about who this lens is aimed at.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 21, 2013)

this lens is made for those who have an APS-C camera which will become obsolete in a year or two.

0 upvotes
Almeida
By Almeida (Apr 21, 2013)

Oh it's prediction time, here's mine! In 2 years the new APS-C sensors will once again surpass full frame ones. Then you'll have to wait for the D5 and the 2DX to have it reversed back again.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 21, 2013)

APS-C or full-frame is not a choice by human. it's a choice by nature that it's more difficult to make quality lenses for SLR type of APS-C cameras.

full-frame is both better and cheaper (slightly worse than m4/3" or NX but in the same AAA league, not as good as the (future) major league NEX, XF, and EF-M).

from back-focus point of view to make wide-standard lenses.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
jonrobertp
By jonrobertp (Apr 21, 2013)

Not switch. But ALL FF lenses are heavy, and with 1.5/6 crop this need be only one. Other crop lenses to be used are lighter & cheaper. So overall it's a better smaller lighter setup than going all FF. Cost...est. about 1400. IMO

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 21, 2013)

> ALL FF lenses are heavy

could you name a single 35mm format lens, that can do the same work as an APS-C one and is heavier, and let's have a look?

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Apr 20, 2013)

> We're impressed to see a manufacturer creating a high-end lens for APS-C at a time when the big DSLR manufacturers are trying to tempt users across to full-frame bodies and the additional lenses that such a move can require

Makes sense for Sigma tho as all their DSLRs are APS.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 21, 2013)

it's in users' interests to move to 35mm format and abandon SLR APS-Cs because at the same flange-back, it's easier to make quality and budget lenses for larger sensors.

mirrorless APS-Cs with short back-focus are good but they cannot compete with full-frame SLRs, yet.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
stol2004
By stol2004 (Apr 20, 2013)

Too bad they made a Sigma mount that wouldn't bring to them so much profit as an Sony Alpha mount would...

0 upvotes
rxbot
By rxbot (Apr 20, 2013)

Full frame Tamron 28-75 f2.8 is $500, you can get some APS-C primes like the Nikon 35 1.8G for $200. A Fuiji X mount 18mm f2 prime is $600. Nothing wrong with using ff glass on crop camera you are only using the best part of the image circle even if you are not using all the light.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Apr 20, 2013)

> Nothing wrong with using ff glass on crop camera you are only using the best part of the image circle even if you are not using all the light

Only if you don't need wide-angle tho.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 21, 2013)

only you lose more than 1 stop of speed.
1.3 stops slower shutter speed to get the same image quality.

also you get
(+) lower distortion,
(+) lower vignetting,
(-) lower resolution,
(-) higher aberration,
...

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Almeida
By Almeida (Apr 20, 2013)

I can imagine the ruckus if instead of being APS-C, this was a m4/3 lens 14-26mm f1.4. Or better yet, imagine a Nikon 1" with a 10-20mm f1.0.

Now that would create an equivalence discussion of so epic proportions, that even medium format users would have to intervene!

12 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 20, 2013)

this is more like light comes into a world of poverty,
bringing hope to others in starvation.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Almeida
By Almeida (Apr 20, 2013)

7 minutes, you're getting old. :)

1 upvote
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Apr 20, 2013)

actually both those ideas make way more sense

0 upvotes
jonrobertp
By jonrobertp (Apr 20, 2013)

Price $2,000. ...?

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 20, 2013)

could be more than half of that.
this is a 28-54mm f/2.8 equiv. lens.
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM is sold at USD 820.

1 upvote
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Apr 20, 2013)

your dreaming yabokkie that 24-70 is a garbage lens this probably wont be and equivalnece does not apply to price

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 20, 2013)

> equivalnece does not apply to price

you have nothing to prove it, do you?

equivalence is the basis behind competition, the price. though there may be some differences in cost.

for SLR cameras, APS-C lenses cost more and perform poorer than their 35mm format counterparts. but still they are in the same category.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Photato
By Photato (Apr 20, 2013)

Preview with samples on Korean site.
http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-ART-18-35mm-f18-Preview

5 upvotes
CortoPA
By CortoPA (Apr 20, 2013)

As soon as those koreans can give me stock tips I'm in!

1 upvote
G Davidson
By G Davidson (Apr 20, 2013)

An interesting and useful lens, it goes to show that despite the push to full-frame, there is still a lot of life in crop sensors, perhaps even at pro levels. I don't see why the two can't co-exist, as each have their own advantages. Certainly, f/2.8 was never enough to control DOF much on a crop sensor, especially at wider angles. This lens should offer just the kind of subject isolation wedding or event photographers so often need, along with the wide angles that are needed.

The big surprise is that Nikon or Canon never went this route, though I suppose it was hard to engineer and the limited range makes it a bit of a niche product compared to a 24-70mm lens.

5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 20, 2013)

what if Canon and Nikon also provide f/1.8 zooms?

think people will see clearly after a while that these lenses are still not as good as 35mm format ones and will go for full-frame. actually all APS-C lenses are more expensive and of lower quality than 35mm format counterparts.

0 upvotes
JesseBrennanPhoto
By JesseBrennanPhoto (Apr 20, 2013)

um.. what? I understand the benefit of "full frame" sensors but there is nothing inherently better with the lenses just because they have a larger imaging circle. Why not adapt large format lenses to your 35mm if bigger=better? And since when are aps-c lenses more expensive than the 35mm counterpart..? plus, its not like all lenses for 35mm were awesome.. I bet the nikon 35mm f/1.8 would run circles around most older 35mm lenses as well as collecting more than twice the light, its an aps-c lens and costs $199. You said we already have F/2.8 lenses, are you aware that you will be able to shoot with a shutterspeed TWICE as fast at F/1.8 than F/2.8. Stop trying to sh1t all over something new.

5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 20, 2013)

mirrorless APS-Cs are okay, especially NEX, XF, and EF-M.
SLR APS-Cs are not. they are optically challenged.

however, there is one advantage of SLR APS-Cs over 35mm format, the small size of the mirror, which allows smaller bodies and faster flip-flop of the mirror for entry-level and mid-class cameras (like 7D).

0 upvotes
JesseBrennanPhoto
By JesseBrennanPhoto (Apr 20, 2013)

you are just full of sh1t. The nex5 uses the same sensor as a d7000 you say it takes better photos? dont just spout off like you know about something when you clearly don't.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 20, 2013)

> The nex5 uses the same sensor as a d7000 you say it takes better photos?

what I mean is potentially we can have better, cheaper lenses for NEX than for DX. I agree currently Sony fail to materialize it.

0 upvotes
panchoskywalker
By panchoskywalker (Apr 19, 2013)

I wish they'll come with equivalent lens for FF bodies.

0 upvotes
rockjon
By rockjon (Apr 19, 2013)

That would be nice, though a FF version might be a bit larger

0 upvotes
Victor Engel
By Victor Engel (Apr 20, 2013)

Given same design, 1.6x larger in each dimension.

4 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 20, 2013)

> equivalent lens for FF bodies.

we have better lenses for ages.
Canon/Nikon 28-70/2.8
Canon/Nikon 24-70/2.8
this Sigma is only 28-54/2.8, or 29-56/2.9 equiv. on Canon.

1.53x for APS-Cs other than Canon,
1.53^2 = 2.34 for weight and price (not cubic)
the price could go higher (up to cubic) for smaller volume.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
damoclesnz
By damoclesnz (Apr 21, 2013)

When you say equivalence - you mean for dof - right? Not for calculating shutter speed?

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 21, 2013)

> you mean for dof - right?

I mean every photographic effect that can be controlled by aperture. you name it, and get the output the same.

0 upvotes
Redteg94
By Redteg94 (Apr 23, 2013)

They already exist and have for a long time, only with more range:

24-70/2.8

Thats what's cool about this Sigma, APS users finally have somewhat of an equivalent lens to those ubiquitous 24-70s

0 upvotes
jonrobertp
By jonrobertp (Apr 19, 2013)

Even at 1500. it's one of a kind. And no need to go FF...where all your other lenses will be big, heavy, expensive. Only need this one to be uber-fast...and it sure is. Great for low light night events. ...like.

3 upvotes
Zerg2905
By Zerg2905 (Apr 19, 2013)

Uh, Canon, are you there? If yes, then please give me a superb EF 15-35 f/2 L IS USM. I mean optically perfect and with weather sealing, not less. oh, and not at 2500 EUR, please. Thank you. Cheers! :-)

1 upvote
stevens37y
By stevens37y (Apr 19, 2013)

Simply put it on your FF body and crop the middle rectangle or interpret it as a vignette effect :)

0 upvotes
JJack
By JJack (Apr 19, 2013)

Sigma mount is supposed to be more-or-less compatible with Pentax K-mount, right?

So will this lens work with K-5 and K30?

The same question about 120-300mm F2.8 as well.

Comment edited 13 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Apr 19, 2013)

It's the Canon.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 19, 2013)

Pentax K with a shorter flange-back as Canon.
but never buy Sigma mount lenses = brand new junks.

0 upvotes
JJack
By JJack (Apr 19, 2013)

So it wouldn't work then?

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 19, 2013)

think Sigma design lenses for Nikon first. the design can then be used for other mounts. normally Canon and Nikon mounts are release first for largest market share, Sigma SA for political? reason, and then Pentax K and Sony alpha.

it's good for Pentax and Sony users that when their versions are on the market, the prices for Canon and Nikon should have already fallen significantly so they are less likely to be ripped off.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
FritsThomsen
By FritsThomsen (Apr 19, 2013)

The Sigma SA mount is physically identical to the PentaxK mount ..but electronically similar to the Canon EOS -mount ..so it wont work on either ..but its relatively simple tp convert it to Canon -mount

Comment edited 60 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 19, 2013)

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/39270622

0 upvotes
miles green
By miles green (Apr 19, 2013)

The mount is the same, mechanically, though a little rotated. The flange distance is different, so Pentax lens won't focus at infinity on Sigma cameras. The electronics and levers are different, the Pentax aperture lever in partucular prevents its mounting on Sigma cameras....

In summary, only the rear lens cap is interchangeable!

Sorry, nice try, i wish it wasn't like that: I'd get a Sigma body in a flash! :)

0 upvotes
moonheadone
By moonheadone (Apr 19, 2013)

I had a SD14 with the 18-50mm f2.8 and I found that K mount lenses could be fitted to the Sigma body, but they are slightly loose (I secured my modified 50mm with bluetack!), and Sigma mount lenses will not mount on K mount bodies as the tabs on the Sigma Bayonet are slightly thicker that the K mount tabs.

Anyway's if you're gonna buy SA mount glass you might as well put it on an SD1 ;)

0 upvotes
ceaiu
By ceaiu (Apr 19, 2013)

What’s wrong with having diversity?
If a product doesn’t fit your needs or price expectations… you don’t buy it!
The producer will come up with other products.
Sigma is not expecting to influence customers’ decisions when choosing between an APS-C and FF. They only see a market and want do address it.
In the meantime Canon and Nikon don’t want to address that market because they want to influence its customers.
I’m not comparing this to results of a 24-70mm on FF as I don’t have an FF body. Shocking right?
I have an APS-C body so I’m comparing this against the 17-50(55)mm f/2.8, 16-35mm f/2.8, 28mm f/1.8, 35mm f/1.8 DX and that inexistent 24mm f/1.8 DX.
Until price is announced and the lens is tested, I’m holding my thoughts… but from specifications pov this looks quite good.

18 upvotes
CeleryBeats
By CeleryBeats (Apr 19, 2013)

If sales go as fast as comments for this new marvel. I know a company that will be very happy! :)

12 upvotes
dylanbarnhart
By dylanbarnhart (Apr 19, 2013)

Unfortunately I don't think sale would be very fast. It all depends on the price tag. There is a reason why no other companies make such lens, and it's not because of technical reasons. It's because this lens doesn't make business sense. Same with the Sigma 200-500 F2.8, which is totally cool but makes no real profit for the company. These are niche products. Most casual DSLR owners don't appreciate 1.3 fstops and won't pay an arm and a leg for it.

Sigma knows that more than anyone else, and that is why the price tag wasn't announced. The sticker shock would fill the forum with complaints about the price instead of praises about its innovation. Or people would simply ignore the lens since it's beyond their reach.

Now, if Sigma figured out how to make this lens cheap, say below $900, then sales would be fast and copycat products would spread like wild fire.

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 21, 2013)

USD 900 isn't cheap for this lens.
though it's not too expensive, either.

0 upvotes
Martin Datzinger
By Martin Datzinger (Apr 19, 2013)

So. This, on a D7100 set to ISO 100, would very much do the same as a 27-53/2.8 lens would do on a D600 set to ISO 240 (or thereabouts). Except that only very few people would buy such a lens for their D600 because of the very limited zoom range and there is no chance of getting the same DR on the D7100 as with the D600 set to ISO 100 (whilst noise just evens out at higher sensitivity settings). And the viewfinder is smaller with an even worse representation of DoF.

Then there is the question of pricing:
D600 + AF-S Nikkor 24-70/2.8 = €1500 + €1540 = about €3000
D7100 + Sigma = €1220 + (certainly) more than €1800 = (certainly) more than €3000

Let alone the worse resale value of the Sigma as compared to the Nikkor.

So I have to ask - why not make it a 16-50/2.0 lens in the first place? Close enough to equivalence, about the same weight and price, a lot more usable and still totally unique in APS-C land.

5 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Apr 19, 2013)

Certainly more than 1800 euro? I'd wait a bit before making such wild assumptions.

Besides - if you take entry level FF than take an entry level APS-C too - D3200 would be a good counterpart, not D7100. And D3200 is much cheaper making a whole set by far more reasonable. I wouldn't be surprised if actual difference would CERTAINLY be around 1000 euro if not more in advantage of APS-C.

Comment edited 58 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
agentul
By agentul (Apr 19, 2013)

not to mention that you get an integrated flash with entry-level DSLRs, so you have to factor in the cost of an external flash when making purchasing decisions.

but, ok, if you fant FF to win you can set the price of the Sigma lens to 3000 euro, 5000 dollars, 15000 credits or 300 bars of gold-pressed latinum, and win every argument using the same logic that "analysts" predict stock market trends. it's not like anything can go wrong.

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
ceaiu
By ceaiu (Apr 19, 2013)

Sigma and Tamron (f/2.8 zooms) are usually half the price of a similar Canon /Nikon (f/2.8 zoom) or about the same as a slower Canon /Nikon (f/4 zoom).
Given the price of Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 at $1400, I don’t see this (18-35mm f/1.8) lens going above that figure.
Sigma’s other lens in the range is the ‘slower’ 17-50mm f/2.8 at $700, so again $1400 seems the maximum they could go with this f/1.8.
For me $1,400 is still a lot, I’m hoping for something like $1,200 for release and later to drop at $1,050.

1 upvote
Martin Datzinger
By Martin Datzinger (Apr 19, 2013)

Sorry people if you're going to believe this lens is anything like 1500 or less, you're fooling yourself. Sigma got very self-confident with their pricing in the new lens lineup (and I absolutely do not doubt their right to be it - I actually lust for the 35/1.4 and 120-300/2.8, the latter got almost twice as expansive as the previous lens of the same specs). And it is a f/1.8 zoom after all - with all the bragging rights that come with it (if you don't do the maths). So I really would be surprised by an initial street price in the region of 2000€.

5 upvotes
Martin Datzinger
By Martin Datzinger (Apr 19, 2013)

Also, the right DX camera to compare the D600 with is the D7100. Same MP count, same build quality, same interface, same flash capabilities. What the D7100 gains in the AF and fps department, it looses with the viewfinder. Fantastic camera btw. The only thing unfair about my comparison is that the D600 is several months out and already had its price drops while the D7100 is still hard to get. I'll give you that. But the net result remains. With the same kind of money for the DX combo you'll get less possibilities with the FX combo. Unless of course the lense's IQ is heaps and bounds better than the Nikkor's. That might actually be the case.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ceaiu
By ceaiu (Apr 19, 2013)

$2,000 would make it the most expensive lens built for APS-C sensor only (way more than any Nikon DX).
I'm not saying nobody ever put a $2,000 glass on a DX body, but I doubt anyone will buy a $2,000 lens which is designed for crop only.
Do you think Sigma first designed and built the lens, and only afterwards established the price,… or was it the other way around? So either Sigma didn’t make any market research, or they did it and found that there are lots of DX users willing to pay that amount - to justify development of a new lens.
Time will tell!

1 upvote
Martin Datzinger
By Martin Datzinger (Apr 19, 2013)

Time will tell - you're perfectly right! BTW, the Zuiko 14-35 is still priced at €2200. And "only" a constant f/2.0. Illuminating _only_ 4/3 sensors (up to an equivalent FL of 70mm though).

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 19, 2013)

> Certainly more than 1800 euro?

certainly more than 800 euro at the beginning.

btw,
equiv. ISO can be calculated easily from area ratio = 2.35.
ISO 100 on D7100 is equivalent to ISO 235 on D600.
lens factor is sqrt(2.35) = 1.53 between D7100 and D600.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HubertChen
By HubertChen (Apr 19, 2013)

Thanks Martin, interesting thoughts. Here are some more:

a) 18 ... 35 mm might be a very useful range.
If you make statistics most people will shoot > 80% of their images in this range.
b) Great combo: 18 ... 35 mm + 50 ... 150 mm
The little gap from 35 ... 50 mm can be afforded. I rather would have this gap than mushy image quality in my most used focal range. Again 18 ... 35 mm seems very practical
c) Resell value of Sigma lenses
I am expecting that for Art lenses the resell value will be soon very similar to Nikkor or L-Glass. It simply deserves to be and there are already Sigma Art lenses who best Nikkor and L-Glass.
b) Your case only considers people who would buy into a new system from scratch. Actually very few people do. Instead most people own a APSC system already. For them to switch to a FF system with all lenses purchased new might cost 4000+ USD versus just buy this Sigma lens. So instantly this Sigma lens becomes a winner, no matter if priced 1000 USD or 2000 USD.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ceaiu
By ceaiu (Apr 19, 2013)

I wonder how many 14-35 & 35-100 f/2 is Olympus selling and if the manager who took the decision (knowing the costs for making those lenses) still has the chair. Can 4/3 be considered a commercially successful system?
To conclude… If this lens comes near $2,000 I’ll come to your initial conclusion: FF looks like THE better choice.

0 upvotes
miles green
By miles green (Apr 19, 2013)

At ceaiu:
At 2000$, it would be 3.5 times cheaper than both the most expensive aps-c lens (the Pentax 560mm f/5.6) and the most expensive m4/3 lens (the Olympus 300mm f/2.8). Both are priced at 7000 usd... Not that this means anything.

0 upvotes
Martin Datzinger
By Martin Datzinger (Apr 19, 2013)

@Hubert.

a)+b) Hm, looking at the images I've got in my LR library that I've taken with the 24-70, I've got 104 images at 24mm, 131 at 70mm and 171 at all in-between FLs combined, which show a very clear trend towards higher FLs. Now I don't know what you or everyone else but judging from that data, I'd probably be fed up by the Sigma's FL range within a day or two since I'd need to switch around between standard and tele constantly.

c) As I said I think Sigma probably deserves the prices they're asking now. But resale is a different story and I've got the impression that people's perception of value of second hand goods is pretty inert.

d) Yep, but being faced with a 1500 to 2000€ pricetag for a sexy bright lens of a not so sexy FL range for a sensor size that isn't considered sexy anymore could make you rethink your commitment towards the DX system.

0 upvotes
Martin Datzinger
By Martin Datzinger (Apr 19, 2013)

And what is a typical DX system anyway? Probably a not so new DX camera you'd need to mate with a new one to utilize the new lenses mojo, a cheap midrange zoom you'd like to replace (you wouldn't replace your massively expensive 17-55/2.8 brand lens with it, would you?) and one FX tele zoom. Maybe some old primes you'd always have wanted to shine on FX. Or an old DX UWA zoom that was cheap when it was new and/or not up to the task of today's 24 MP sensors anymore.

0 upvotes
ceaiu
By ceaiu (Apr 19, 2013)

@miles green
I had Nikon and Canon systems in mind, as they have both crop and full frame formats. It doesn't make sense to make a crop only lens that expensive since the ff glass works on both sensors.

0 upvotes
lensez
By lensez (Apr 19, 2013)

"Then there is the question of pricing:
D600 + AF-S Nikkor 24-70/2.8 = €1500 + €1540 = about €3000
D7100 + Sigma = €1220 + (certainly) more than €1800 = (certainly) more than €3000"

Estimating Sigma's price for this lens is highly speculative, considering what Sigma did in the SD1 pricing debacle.

0 upvotes
miles green
By miles green (Apr 19, 2013)

This obviously expensive lens would be especially attractive for systems that don't have FF cameras, namely Sigma and Pentax! In Canon and Nikon mount, I'd much rather get a FF body instead. But since i shoot Pentax, i'd be interested in this lens, if it were available in Pentax mount.

10 upvotes
Jun2
By Jun2 (Apr 19, 2013)

810 g of this vs 805g of Canon 24-70 f2.8 II . I think it's better just shoot FF with f/2.8, if priced similarly.

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
new boyz
By new boyz (Apr 19, 2013)

If you have an FF body or have a plan to buy one.

10 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 19, 2013)

better buy one for better cost-performance.

2 upvotes
yhends
By yhends (Apr 19, 2013)

Don't forget that aperture size doesn't only determine DOF but also the ability to shoot pictures in low light situations.

3 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Apr 19, 2013)

Canon and Nikon CEO to Lens Lab Rats:

"Did you hear about the news?"

"What news?"

"The news about the Sigma lens!"

"What lens?"

"You're all fired!"

"Where's the fire?"

.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
10 upvotes
rabbitzilla
By rabbitzilla (Apr 19, 2013)

They are Japanese, indeed.

0 upvotes
Juck
By Juck (Apr 19, 2013)

Let's wait 'til we see the likely aberrations,,, before we start getting all moist.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Nukunukoo
By Nukunukoo (Apr 19, 2013)

Have you seen the performance of the new Sigmas? I own two of them. Impressive. Very likely this one is no different.

2 upvotes
rabbitzilla
By rabbitzilla (Apr 19, 2013)

I had been using the Sigma 85mm F/1.4 EX DG HSM. Optically, it is stunning in term of sharpness but the EF 85 f/1.2 L delivers better color rendering.

In term of focusing accuracy, my Sigma copy was erratic. I captured so many out-of-focus photos until I sold it last month. The manner of approaching the target was also quite annoying.

0 upvotes
Nukunukoo
By Nukunukoo (Apr 19, 2013)

Tose were the last generation units. I have the Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art lens and they are outstanding, fast focus and the corners are spot on... Fine, I'm using a crop D7100 so the corner performance is expected. Brilliant performer nonetheless. Puts the Canikon camp to shame, really.

2 upvotes
HubertChen
By HubertChen (Apr 19, 2013)

In my experience, going from f/2.8 to f/2 dramatically increases lens aberrations. A lot of sigma lenses have excellent center performance but abysmal border sharpness. This lens is sure interesting and sigma is applauded to innovate a lens which on paper looks very practical and desirable. However, before getting excited about it I like to see a serious lens test and real world images. Last but not least combining wide angle with open aperture and nice bokeh has been always difficult, but doing this in a zoom has been close to impossible. Who will be willing to shell out 1000 USD for a lens will look for nice bokeh too. If Sigma can pull this one off they will sure impress many.

8 upvotes
Jun2
By Jun2 (Apr 19, 2013)

Nobody looks at the corners when shoots at f2. It's actually better soft and vignette there in real photos as long as the main subject is sharp.

14 upvotes
vodanh1982
By vodanh1982 (Apr 19, 2013)

How about group portrait indoor?

0 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Apr 19, 2013)

A group portrait at f1.8 !!! You need to stop down for more DOF for a group portrait.

5 upvotes
HubertChen
By HubertChen (Apr 19, 2013)

Thanks for everyone's comments!

Relevance of corner sharpness @ f/2
Corner sharpness @ f2 does not matter at about 50% of my f/2 shots, say portraits, flower macros, etc ... So thanks to Jun2 to point this out! However in my other 50 % corner sharpness is very important. Say street photography at night or landscape photography at dusk or dawn. When you have foliage which is perfectly sharp in the center and smeared in the corners it simply ruins the shot in my book. Your mileage may vary!

Group portraits @ f2
As it so happens I regular shoot these. I hate flash and love the light indoors or at dawn. As long as you line everybody up on a line ( focal plane ) and your camera axis is perpendicular to that line and you are 3 ... 5 m away ( 9 ... 15 feet ) there is no problem with depth of field. It is important though ( as always ) to nail the focus. In low light i focus manually to be certain.

2 upvotes
SRT3lkt
By SRT3lkt (Apr 18, 2013)

I thought today was Apr 1.

2 upvotes
tommy leong
By tommy leong (Apr 19, 2013)

EXACTLY
what i thought ...finally a new break thru in lens design

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 19, 2013)

wouldn't call it break-through.
it's an f/1.8 for APS-C only,
that can do the same work as an f/2.8 on 35mm format.

if there is a break-through, it's the equivalent flange-back,
which is longer for APS-C, why we see a bloody 5 SLD plus
4 glassmold aspherical.

4 upvotes
albertTD
By albertTD (Apr 19, 2013)

the fact is, nobody else have done it, specially for canikon aps-c (not following m4/3) -> breakthrough

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 19, 2013)

okay, a break-through of neglect mind.

Canon and Nikon are abandoning the APS-C SLR for a simple reason, it's not technically competitive as, of higher cost/lower efficiency than 35mm format.

an APS-C 16-46/1.8 can do the same work but will be more difficult to make, cost more than 24-70/2.8.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Apr 19, 2013)

This lens is a f1.8 lens NOT a f2.8 lens. DOF for sure will be similar but NOT speed. The f1.8 lens will be more than a stop faster which is a big deal for low light shooters.

9 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Apr 19, 2013)

"Canon and Nikon are abandoning the APS-C SLR" - Abandoning? I see something quite contrary (eg. only non-AA alternative to 800E in Nikon lineup is APS-C camera). The fact that there are more FF cameras recently doesn't mean anyone abandons APS-C. Don't be ridiculous.

4 upvotes
agentul
By agentul (Apr 19, 2013)

"Canon and Nikon are abandoning the APS-C SLR for a simple reason, it's not technically competitive as, of higher cost/lower efficiency than 35mm format."

yes, because $700 is more expensive than $2500. when you only have so much to spend on a "good" camera, what do you do, buy what you can afford or just give up?

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 19, 2013)

> but NOT speed

we won't get that "a stop faster" speed without sacrefying a stop (3 dB) image quality. but if we can sacrefy image quality, we can have whatever fast speed at will. what a point.

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Alejandro del Pielago
By Alejandro del Pielago (Apr 18, 2013)

It seems an or - gasm.

0 upvotes
davidonformosa
By davidonformosa (Apr 18, 2013)

Interesting concept, but I would prefer an 18mm f/2 prime to combine with the exisiting 30mm f/1.4. It would probably end up around a similar price and would have better image quality.

5 upvotes
camcom12
By camcom12 (Apr 18, 2013)

Sigma found a big hole in the canikontax APS-C/DX lenspace and filled it nicely. Should be a winner. Not going to be $499 though, probably closer to $2K.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 18, 2013)

the price, stable after several months,

(1) Canon/Nikon 24-70/2.8 as reference
(54-28)/(70-24) * 0.6 * 2000 = 680 USD

(2) Sigma 24-70/2.8 as reference
(54-28)/(70-24) * 1100 = 620 USD

plus premium for the first in the class,
it's more difficult to make an APS-C SLR lens, and
customers' lack of knowledge about f-numbers,
say 900 USD.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Tom Caldwell
By Tom Caldwell (Apr 18, 2013)

Built for aps-c/dx? Built in crop factor. Why not be a bit more "cool" and talk focal equivalence as the only "story"? For a moment I thought I might have had a real "cracker" on the Sony NEX with Metabones Speed Booster and a Canon EF mount.

However we end up with just another nice lens.

Just saved myself enough money to buy me a nice new Ricoh GR.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Apr 18, 2013)

certainly a nice lens... we'll be eager to see the MTF charts.

but a 24-50 f/1.4 would certainly be nicer for me

3 upvotes
io_bg
By io_bg (Apr 18, 2013)

MTF chart: http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Sigma-18-35mm-f1.8-DC-HSM-lens-mtf-chart.gif
Look pretty good except the corners. But they probably improve as you stop down the aperture.

0 upvotes
MrGubrz
By MrGubrz (Apr 18, 2013)

this would be the only lens id need for a dslr if they made that... the 24-50 that is

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 19, 2013)

I find it interesting.
why you stop at f/1.4 and not go for f/1.0 or f/0.4?

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Apr 19, 2013)

MrGubrz - I never seen a point in having zoom that starts with 24mm on APS-C. If I'm about to buy a walk-around zoom (and that's basically only use I have for zooms) I'd much more likely go with something starting at wide angle, not standard -> short tele. It's pointless.

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Apr 19, 2013)

@iobg: thanks. seems to drop off quite fast, and severely (like the replaced 30mm f1.4)

@yabokkie: sarcasm? f1.4 seems to be an opening at which they can manufacture very good lenses before it gets either cost-prohibitive or very bad quality off-center.

@plastek: you don't need such a wide open lens on a very wide angle now do you? and I was trying to be realistic... go too wide a zoom range and IQ goes out the window at this opening.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Apr 19, 2013)

Timmbits, this is already the fastest aperture zoom ever in terms of aperture * crop. Asking for it to be faster is... naive.

1 upvote
harold1968
By harold1968 (Apr 18, 2013)

Wow, sigma is on fire at the moment !

10 upvotes
new boyz
By new boyz (Apr 19, 2013)

They're smoking something, that's for sure. Good to see somebody pushing the tech. Go Sigma!

3 upvotes
michi098
By michi098 (Apr 18, 2013)

Oh wow. Go Sigma. I haven't bought a Sigma lens in many years as I always had problems with them. Although Sigma customer service is fantastic and always made things right, at least back then. Either way, the lenses they are announcing lately are really very tempting. This lens in particular seems very tempting for crop. On the other hand, I pretty much decided to only follow the full frame route now, so I'll skip this. I agree with the other commenter, give us something similar for full frame and I'll leave my dollars with you!

0 upvotes
rbach44
By rbach44 (Apr 18, 2013)

Sigma is SERIOUSLY stepping up their game as of late. The new lenses seem nothing but beautiful. If they finally got heir quality control issues of the past sorted out, the big boys will have to seriously watch their backs….

BTW if there were a full frame version I'd be preordering it now...

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Apr 18, 2013)

I heard they completely updated their quality control scheme recently. All lenses has to pass a newly developed test machine at the end of the manufacturing line.

1 upvote
papparazzi
By papparazzi (Apr 18, 2013)

Sigma LISTEN. Full frame are getting expanded now..how about a FF sigma 16-35 F2.8 / F4.0 EX ?

Vote for that!

1 upvote
Joesiv
By Joesiv (Apr 18, 2013)

I'd prefer a 24-50mm f/2.0 FF :) and then a 75-150mm f/2.0 :)

2 upvotes
new boyz
By new boyz (Apr 19, 2013)

Not until Faveon goes FF!

0 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Apr 19, 2013)

Maybe, but there is a giant installed base of APS-C and thus less risk. If this is successful FF will follow with a base of believers to sell to on the strength of this lens.

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 19, 2013)

it's a step forward to have an f/1.8 zoom for APS-C but it's in the same league as f/2.8 zooms for 35mm format.

it's a huge leap to go f/2 for 35mm format, which is likely to have a 112mm filter and weigh 1,700g by simple calculation.

0 upvotes
Photato
By Photato (Apr 18, 2013)

Here is the real equivalence.

Canon 6D + CanonEF24-70 f2.8= $3700
Canon 60D+ Sigma18-35 f1.8= $1760 ($660+(1100)?

About $2000 left for other lenses and accessories...
And yet the 6D body can't control external flash nor has an articulated screen.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
15 upvotes
vodanh1982
By vodanh1982 (Apr 18, 2013)

There is no equivalent. FF lens may not be sharper but the Body+lens combo has more resolution than a APSC.

2 upvotes
tko
By tko (Apr 18, 2013)

but with the crop you're stuck with one magic lens. With the 6d you can put on a F1.2 lens (to make a light sucking machine) to a pancake lens (low weight and cost.) It works it's FF magic on all lenses. But I'm not knocking anything, this is a cool lens, but its just another trade off--not a B&W decision.

5 upvotes
Photato
By Photato (Apr 18, 2013)

@vodanh1982. Lets get real, why you need that much resolution and do you shoot with tripod and perfect focus all the time?
These days, resolution is not a limiting factor like it used to be in the days of 6MP cameras. Besides I see this new sigma lens extremely useful for video (2 Megapixels)

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Photato
By Photato (Apr 18, 2013)

@TKO. C'mon, what are the chances of most people able to afford a F1.2 lens, and there is nothing to stop you using it in crop bodies.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Joseph S Wisniewski
By Joseph S Wisniewski (Apr 18, 2013)

It's not "real equivalence" until you fix the fact that 18-35mm on a 60D is only equivalent to 29-56mm on the 6D.

So, toss in a 24mm f1.8, the Sigma weighs in at $550 (It also weighs 485g, and takes different size filters than the 18-35).

Then toss in a 43mm f1.8. What? You say Sigma and Canon don't have one? Why not? Pentax does. How about a Canon 50mm f1.8. It's a touch long, but just $125. Of course, it has not very pretty bokeh, yet another filter size, and 130g.

Now, how much "equivalence" is there between a Canon L zoom and a Sigma? Let's fix that, too, and set the 6D up with a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8. Sauce for the goose and all.

6D + Sigma 24-70 = $2725
60D + Sigma 18-35 + Sigma 24 + Canon 50 = $2475

8 upvotes
Joseph S Wisniewski
By Joseph S Wisniewski (Apr 18, 2013)

That's only part of "real equivalence". How do you put a price on these things?

6D - bigger, brighter viewfinder

60D - hassles of carrying three lenses, with three different filter sizes, an extra 615g, the hassle of changing lenses, the need for a bag where you might have gotten away without one?

4 upvotes
Joseph S Wisniewski
By Joseph S Wisniewski (Apr 18, 2013)

"@vodanh1982. Lets get real,"

You keep using the word "real". I don't think it means what you think it means.

2 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Apr 18, 2013)

What are the chances this lens will cost $1100? I'd expect closer to $1700-2000. Remember that an Olympus Zuiko 14-35 f/2 cost $2300. Or the price will be $1100 with optical quality much lower than Canon's 24-70 Mark II and even mark I :).

And Joseph above summed it up pretty well : add an extra wide lens to cover 24mm equivalent and a 50mm lens to cover the ~70-75mm equivalent. There is a very good reason why 24-70mm FF lenses are so popular -- both 24mm and 70mm are very useful.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
1 upvote
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Apr 18, 2013)

@Photato:
> , what are the chances of most people able to afford
> a F1.2 lens, and there is nothing to stop you using it in crop
> bodies.

Probably similar chances to owning any $2000 lens, like the Sigma may well turn out to be. :)

You can use f/1.2 lens on an APS-C body, but it will become effectively a f/1.9 lens in terms of DoF and midtone image noise.

0 upvotes
Photato
By Photato (Apr 18, 2013)

@Joseph. Is true that the Sigma doesn't go as wide or long but that is the beauty of it for people that dont want to compromise image quality for focal range or need just that focal range. Of course IQ on the Sigma is yet to be assessed.
Perhaps a better comparison is against the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 which is cheaper than the Canon. But still you are left with $1000 if you go the crop body route.
I mentioned equivalence in terms of rough value, not accurate metrics.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Photato
By Photato (Apr 18, 2013)

@ppastoris. Considering the amount of comments (mostly positive ones) this lens has received, it could easily be considered product of the year.
In other words, people find this lens very interesting, myself included.

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Photato
By Photato (Apr 18, 2013)

@Jospeh. I bet you would get better results from a 60D+Sigma 24 f1.8 than a 6D Sigma 24-20.
Besides if we are going by your reasoning, it would seem that there is not worth buying fixed focal lens or 2X zoom lenses like this Sigma.
It all comes down to what application is all this equipment neede for.
Evidently this lens has attracted a lot of user of this site telling by the amount of comments.
Maybe they have a need for it and their particular application.

0 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Apr 18, 2013)

Photato, the lens is certainly interesting. But how interesting and how valuable it is will depend on its price and optical performance. If it costs $2000 and has an optical quality of a $1300 full-frame Canon or Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 lens, then it's not a very good value as it has narrower AoV range and isn't much lighter or smaller. If it costs $1300 then maybe it's not a bad choice for those with a big investment in APS-C cameras and lenses.

As to the "excited comments" : I bet many of those excited people tend to think of the lens as 27-52 f/1.8 35mm equivalent, which it isn't. When you realize that this lens on an APS-C is merely an equivalent of 27-52 f/2.8 on a 35mm camera your initial excitement goes away ;).

1 upvote
Photato
By Photato (Apr 18, 2013)

@pastoris. Lets put it this way. I need the focal range and aperture this sigma has. There is nothing like this in the APS-C market. The other option is to go Full Frame but that means more money and abandoning my crop lenses.
I know the sigma start at 29mm FF equivalent and that is fine.
Now, if this lens has bad optical geometric distortion and CA, then I'd just pass.

2 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Apr 18, 2013)

Can't disagree with you -- if you understand the limitations of the lens and own a lot of APS-C only equipment already then this lens could be perfect for you.

On the other hand, I personally would consider switching to a full-frame system with all the extra niceties that it gives you : zoom lenses with really well chosen focal length ranges (e.g. 17-40, 24-70, 70-200), effectively one stop brighter primes (e.g. FF f/1.4 is effectively f/2.2 on APS-C), and finally generally better DR at the base ISO. I did exactly that when 5D Mark II came out and never regretted ever since :-P.

1 upvote
new boyz
By new boyz (Apr 19, 2013)

"With the 6d you can put on a F1.2 lens (to make a light sucking machine)"

You can put that thing on crop camera too, via SpeedBooster. But right now limited to mirrorless camera only.

0 upvotes
NetMage
By NetMage (Apr 19, 2013)

With the Sigma 24-70 being about $825, hopefully this will price about the same.

0 upvotes
agentul
By agentul (Apr 19, 2013)

"With the 6d you can put on a F1.2 lens (to make a light sucking machine)"

if you put it on a D7000 you can suck light AND dust. it's a complete package! well, almost, a vacuum pump would make it truly complete.

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Apr 19, 2013)

These whole calculations about "light sucking machine" assume that FF is equally 1EV better in low light than APS-C. Meanwhile that's not always the case and through the history we've learnt that APS-C not only can be closer than that but even outrun some FFs. So I wouldn't go as far as saying that suddenly f/1.2 glass becomes f/1.7 - it's still 1.2 only on APS-C, major consequence of it being field of view and depth of field.

And to end the story - if you follow this "light sucking machine" paradigm - show me your 135 f/1.7 on full frame - cause on APS-C according to this logic I can get it easily if I shoot Canon and got enough $$$. An ultimate perfect portrait lens.

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Joseph S Wisniewski
By Joseph S Wisniewski (Apr 19, 2013)

Given equal sensor technology, it is "always the case". That is what "through the history we've learnt". So, while it is true that the latest APS-C cameras can get results equivalent to older FF cameras, if you compare the current offerings, FF still is on top.

3 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Apr 18, 2013)

I like the idea of a lens like this but the focal range doesn't seem ideal to me. It's not really that wide and it's not really that long. If it was like 18mm-50mm or 16mm-24mm then it would be a much better option in my opinion.

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Apr 18, 2013)

I think same, a 16-24mm f/2 would be very interesting. They already have a 17-50 f/2.8, I doubt one can make an f/1.8 with that range w/o going very large.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
new boyz
By new boyz (Apr 19, 2013)

Maybe they're are planning to release wider and longer siblings?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Prairie Pal
By Prairie Pal (Apr 19, 2013)

The perfect PJ's lens though, no?

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Apr 19, 2013)

Not an ideal focal range, but certainly a very interesting one :) Especially for some casual indoors shooting (which I would say is a main target for this lens seeing the f/1.8 aperture).

And besides that - show me any 18mm f/1.8 prime for APS-C ? Can't? Than I'd say it's a reason good enough to consider this lens.

0 upvotes
C1in
By C1in (Apr 18, 2013)

I really hope the price is as good as the spec of this lens!!
Well, after Sigma 35 1.4, it should be another surprise!

0 upvotes
new boyz
By new boyz (Apr 19, 2013)

Indeed. Sweet surprises!

0 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Apr 18, 2013)

With such lens(es) there is little sense in getting FF. APS-C has 1 stop worse ISO noise, but a lens at similar focus distance, size, weight and price will be 1 stop faster. But APS-C and camera is much cheaper, smaller and lighter.
Well done Sigma. We were waiting for that for many years.

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
15 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Apr 18, 2013)

Yes. Lenses should be pushing sensor sizes SMALLER! This is an excellent observation. If the lens can deliver proportionately faster apertures as it reduces image circle for the same weight/size/price, the appropriate sensor choice is going to shrink not grow.

1 upvote
new boyz
By new boyz (Apr 19, 2013)

A joy to 7D users, crop sensor users in general.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 19, 2013)

sensors are cheap and are getting cheaper. little we can save by having small sensors. what's the point to have a small sensor behind a big lens?

sensor size should be chosen that quality lenses can be made easily. if the quality requirement is low, the lens and sensor size can be small. or if the size is the priority, the image quality will be low (Google Glass).

also there are different APS-Cs. mirrorless ones with short back-focus are good, SLRs are bad.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Plastek
By Plastek (Apr 19, 2013)

"APS-C has 1 stop worse ISO noise" - that's not an universal truth. It often is, but let's face it - year ago it wasn't that easy and APS-C was much closer than that. I'd say that depending on comparison even right now APS-C is closer than that.

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 19, 2013)

at what conditions we get that 1.3 stop worse SNR is the question.

also there is lens part and there is sensor part of the story. one should have sound reasons to mix them up or better not.

0 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Apr 19, 2013)

FF sensors are not cheap, and per definition FF will be ALWAYS significantly (4 times at least) more expensive than APS-C, also there are other mechanical parts such as mirror and shutter.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 19, 2013)

sensor cost is shrinking among the total cost of the camera, that same 4 times cost difference will mean less and less in terms of total cost.

at the same time, though lens technology is improving, too, it's improving more slowly while requirements are getting more and more demanding.

I'm only saying that optics should be give higher priority, especially if you see it in the long run.

0 upvotes
HopeSpringsEternal
By HopeSpringsEternal (Apr 18, 2013)

Amazing! Shame about being only for APS-C though.
Anyone notice that it won't be available for Sony/Minolta mount?
I think that mount is almost dead despite all the protesting to the contrary
Perhaps Sigma and Tokina know more about Sony DSLR sales than Sony itself is willing to let on.

This sucks as all my gear is Sony/Minolta.

1 upvote
VirtualMirage
By VirtualMirage (Apr 18, 2013)

If the Sony mount was dying, then it is silly for Sony to be releasing a new 50mm Zeiss amongst other lenses that are being released or announced soon.

Sigma has been known to have never acquired a license for the focusing protocols the A-mounts use, reverse engineering instead. This was known to cause compatibility issues that require firmware updates to fix. My guess is that they want to see how strong the market is with the "guaranteed" brands before putting effort into the A-mount.

As for Tokina, they are small time compared to the other brands that also reverse engineer their AF. In the modern market, I have ever only seen (and own) the 11-16mm for the A-mount. Their other lenses are from the film days. They gave up on the A-mount a long time ago, using only the 11-16mm (a niche lens for most) to test the waters. Being a small time company, they are focusing on the "big fish".

Despite these, it doesn't make me think Sony is ditching the A-mount anytime soon.

2 upvotes
the reason
By the reason (Apr 18, 2013)

calm down, sigma always takes a little extra time to make it in alpha mount (for whatever reason). It was the same for the 50-150 f2.8 and various other lenses

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 18, 2013)

a new Zeiss to rip off last money from users before retire.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Apr 19, 2013)

Zeiss ain't going anywhere. They got too good profits from deal with Sony to do away :) Besides: their glass on A-mount is quite popular, so I'm sure it's too profitable deal for both sides to quit it.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 19, 2013)

best customers are those who have the money and don't know what they are buying, other than a brand name like Zeiss. better, they usually need little service other than lip service.

but this is a dangerous game. that there could be Samyang Zeiss or Seagull Zeiss someday and Sony loses customers who never mean to buy Sony and think Samyang or Seagull are just as "great."

0 upvotes
QuarryCat
By QuarryCat (Apr 18, 2013)

makes no sense for me.
I use a 35 or 50 mm or even a 28 mm - one alone is enough - my feet are the zoom - no ned for another big, expensive compromise lens.
sounds crazy.

a 2,0/35-105 mm would be fantastic and a 4,0/50-300 mm is urgent needed...

0 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Apr 18, 2013)

You "zoom" doesn't work if you are indoors or if you want to "zoom" a mountain.

11 upvotes
Thoughts
By Thoughts (Apr 18, 2013)

One is enough for casual shooting, but not enough for a paid job for a wedding photographer. You will find it hard to take a group shot with a 50mm indoor, or 28mm for a head shot with nice bokeh and without distortion. Then you may have to swap lenses or carry two camera bodies with different lenses if you don't want to miss a shot.

5 upvotes
rbach44
By rbach44 (Apr 18, 2013)

Zooming with your feet only applies to angle of view, good luck getting some of that sweet, sweeping wide angle look or telephoto compression with a normal and your feet.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Dvlee
By Dvlee (Apr 18, 2013)

There's a time and place for everything...times when a prime is fine and times when you need the flexibility of a zoom.

If you are in a fixed position and don't have the option to move in or back away, then a zoom will allow you to get some extra coverage or to get a little closer without having to crop in post and sacrifice pixels.

Changing position also changes perspective and with a wide angle getting in closer could result in some unpleasant distortion effects.

And packing a couple wide aperture primes covering that range;an 18, a 35 and something in the middle like a 24 or 28, would cost some serious cash and take up some serious camera bag space. In the Sigma line that would cost about 2K for comparable primes.

As far as I know Sigma makes the shortest 1.8 prime, a 20MM which goes for $630. So a 1.8 zoom of that focal range makes alot of sense.

The only arguement in favor of a prime would be superior image quality, which at 1.8 may be no better than a zoom.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
rbach44
By rbach44 (Apr 18, 2013)

Oh I love primes, don't get me wrong. I use them all the time. I just think the logic is a bit faulty when saying "A good wide lens is a normal and few steps back" (or vice versa) because the compression qualities are quite different.

I mean you would't want to do portraits with a 28mm stuck close enough to someone's face that it gives a similar angle of view as a 50mm…

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
new boyz
By new boyz (Apr 19, 2013)

Good luck zooming with your feet during video recording.

2 upvotes
agentul
By agentul (Apr 19, 2013)

have fun cleaning your sensor after swapping all those primes while rushing to take as many pictures as you can!

0 upvotes
Silvarum
By Silvarum (Apr 19, 2013)

What's wrong with "zooming with your feet" for video recording? There are a lot of camera stabilizers like glidecam. I think most creative videos I've seen were in move. Videos shot from one point just feel too lifeless.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 724
1234