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

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
184
I own it
440
I want it
20
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 724
1234
Robert Morris
By Robert Morris (Apr 18, 2013)

Woot My 3 favorite lenses in one 28/35/50mm. Life is good.

12 upvotes
dopravopat
By dopravopat (Apr 18, 2013)

WANT! :-)

Now will there be a 35 - 70 f1.8 to match this? And eventually a 70 - 200 f2 for APS-C. :-P

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 18, 2013)

actually a 45-130/1.8 will be easier to make than this one.

1 upvote
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Apr 18, 2013)

Why not just buy a full-frame camera and any of the equivalent lenses (e.g.24-70 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/2.8) and go take the photos right now? :))

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 18, 2013)

one thing I don't like 5D3 is its slow frame rate of 6 fps,
besides its higher price than 7D.

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

@ppastoris
FF camera cost much more than APS-C. Price of the lens is roughly same as f/2.8 FF analog.

1 upvote
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Apr 18, 2013)

on the other hand Canon 24-70 f/2.8 (mark I) until recently cost about $1.2k new. I would not be surprised if this Sigma will cost closer to $2k -- compensating for the difference between say 6D and 7D.

0 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Apr 18, 2013)

ZAnton, according to amazon.com : Canon 7D - $1250, Canon 6D - $1700. Not a huge difference. Shame that Canon stopped selling their 24-70 f/2.8 Mark I since that one cost very reasonable $1200 not long time ago.

Also don't forget that you get a lot less AoV range in the Sigma for (we are guessing) the price of a FF 24-70 f/2.8.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Future user
By Future user (Apr 18, 2013)

I can see a 35-70 f1.8 and 70-135 f1.8...

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 18, 2013)

since this lens can do the same job as a 28-54/2.8 on 35mm format, it should worth the same money as a 28-54/2.8, multiplied by a factor (< 1, say 0.6) for Sigma make.

then maybe (54-28)/(70-24) * 0.6 * 1900 = 650 USD.
this is the lens' "worth." street price should be higher,
may be double of that I don't have a theory to predict.

0 upvotes
NetMage
By NetMage (Apr 19, 2013)

I don't think comparing a 6D to a 7D is very fair - try comparing the 6D (cheapest FF) to a 60D or T5i and the realize the street price for 24-70 is running $1800 - $2000 and you see the APS-C savings. now, if all your lenses are going to be FF equivalents, that difference should be less important but it doesn't go away.

0 upvotes
VirtualMirage
By VirtualMirage (Apr 18, 2013)

No Sony Mount? Boo!

I've been eyeing my options for a nice, fast zoom with a range around the 16-35mm mark. Right now I have a 11-16 F/2.8, a 24-70 F/2.8, and a 70-210 F/4, so I wanted to fill the gap. So far the only one that appeals to me is the Zeiss, but I am not sure if I am willing to spend that much seeing as I have some other lenses I would like to acquire as well.

This lens looked to check all my boxes, with exception to no Sony mount. That's a shame. I guess I will now divert my focus back on a 70-200 F/2.8 plus a teleconverter or a nice prime or two to go with my 35, 50, and 90.

1 upvote
facedodge
By facedodge (Apr 18, 2013)

This is basically the Canon 16-35L with a speed boost added except 1/3 of a stop faster a little longer on the wide end.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 18, 2013)

it's a 28-54/2.8 equivalent so
it's a 28-54/2.8 "speed-boosted" to Nikon-Sony APS-Cs.

by speed-boost I mean format conversion.
nothing is boosted they are all the same, equivalent lenses.

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

They boost light gathering by collecting light that otherwise would be wasted.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 19, 2013)

so the best it can do is 100%.

and there is no waste here, we are comparing lenses working on the formats they are designed for.

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Apr 19, 2013)

new boyz - lol. By your logic every 4/3 lens is "speed-boosted" cause it collects light that would be lost otherwise. So is every dedicated APS-C lens. Perhaps also all FF lenses are speed-boosted if we take medium format as a base?

Don't be silly. There's nothing "speed-boosted" in this lens. It's regular dedicated APS-C lens.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
PK24X36NOW
By PK24X36NOW (Apr 18, 2013)

Sigma again shows the "Big Boys" (i.e., Nikon & Canon) what can be achieved in lens design. You essentially have Sigma to thank for the fact that wide angle zoom lenses even exist, because it was Sigma that showed the stuffed shirts at the camera makers that such lenses could be made, and could be made to produce high image quality, in the first place.

Having said that, this lens also shows how "size and weight" advantages are non-existent when you compare lenses with equivalent DOF range. In fact, this lens is basically as big or bigger, and heavier than, Sigma 24-70 f2.8 FF lenses, which get considerably wider at the short end and considerably longer at the long end, with the same DOF. The new lens hardly has a terrific range in terms of start and end points, and too limited a range at less than 2:1. If they managed a 15-45 f1.8, that would have been a much more attractive lens.

The other thing is, wait till you hear the bleating when they announce the price - LOL.

7 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Apr 18, 2013)

Precisely. Also take into the account that FF sensor is about 1 stop better in terms of noise than APS-C you get basically the same imaging noise at the same DoF and shutter speed. So nothing is gained here :).

Nothing's gained on the size, weight, or AoV range. Price is likely going to be in the ballpark of 24-70 f/2.8 FF lenses. This is basically a lens for someone who either has a HUGE investment into APS-C lenses and APS-C cameras or someone who has simply been misled by 27-52 mm f/1.8 equivalent marketing trick :).

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Apr 18, 2013)

In what sense is it a marketing trick if it potentially lets you get FF performance out of your current APS-C camera?

Even if you gain nothing in terms of size or weight, you gain something in not having to buy a new camera.

1 upvote
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Apr 18, 2013)

Richard, it looks like a marketing trick because many people seem to believe that 18-35 f/1.8 lens on an APS-C will provide the same photographic capabilities as 27-52 f/1.8 lens on a 35mm camera. While in reality it will provide the photographic capabilities of 27-52 f/2.8 lens on a 35 mm camera in terms of AoV, DoF, light gathering capacity (~= midtone noise), and diffraction.

0 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Apr 18, 2013)

The "trick" may be unintentional but seems to work. It's especially obvious when people compare" m4/3" or "4/3" lenses with their full-frame equivalents. E.g. many people seem to believe that Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 lens somehow magically is similar to full-frame 24-70 f/2.8 while being smaller, lighter and cheaper. And even those who realize that in terms of DoF 12-35 f/2.8 on a m4/3 is equivalent of a full-frame + 24-70 f/5.6 still seem to believe that in terms of light gathering capacity it's an equivalent of 24-70 f/2.8. I've noticed that even some well known reviewers (not from this site) make this mistake.

1 upvote
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Apr 18, 2013)

And lastly, I am sincerely glad to see that since some time ago DPReview began to mention "equivalent f-numbers", at least with respect to the DoF of crop lenses or compact cameras.

2 upvotes
rbach44
By rbach44 (Apr 18, 2013)

Y'know I've always wondered about this.

Take the Fuji X10 vs. the Sony RX100 for example. On the long end, the Fuji has an aperture of 2.8, while the Sony has an aperture of 4.9. Assuming both of their lens had perfect light gathering abilities and the sensors had similar qualities, wouldn't that mean the Sony would have to have at least a ~1.5 stop advantage over the Fuji to have similar image quality at the long end? Wouldn't the Sony's ISO have to be 1.5 stops higher to compensate for the loss of light?

Same argument as we're having here, I'd love to see some sort of test on this…

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 19, 2013)

f-number means nothing by itself.
RX100 has a lens of 28-100mm f/4.8-12.9 equiv., while
for X10 it's 28-112mm f/7.9-10.8.

the difference is 1.4 stops at wide-end, RX100 > X10 and
0.5 stops at tele-end, X10 > RX100.

ISO also means nothing by itself, not something we need.

2 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Apr 19, 2013)

rbach44, very good question.

Since the equivalent F-number = F-number * crop-factor (in terms of light gathered and DoF) for Sony RX100 (crop-factor ~= 2.9) the equivalent settings are 100mm, f/14.2. For the Fuji the crop factor = 3.9 and the equivalent settings are 100 mm, f/10.9.

Therefore at 100mm equiv. focal length Fuji's lens still gives over 2/3 stops (i.e. f/10.9 vs f/14.2 equiv) advantage in terms of total light gathered and depth of field. If Fuji's and SONY's sensors were equally efficient Fuji would have the same 2/3+ stops image noise advantage given the same shutter speed is used on both cameras, despite Fuji's smaller sensor size. In reality it's a bit more complicated (I can explain that later if necessary and if I have time).

0 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Apr 19, 2013)

> ISO also means nothing by itself, not something we need.

yeah, ISO was defined for film, where it was defined as sensitivity per area of film. For digital cameras it would make more sense to redefine ISO as a sensitivity per entire sensor area. I.e. ISO-total = ISO * sensor area ~ ISO-equivalent = ISO * crop-factor * crop-factor. This way for any sensor size the correct exposure would be defined by F-equivalent, ISO-equivalent, and shutter speed. This way regardless of sensor size sensors set to ISO-equivalent would produce roughly the same midtone noise, while lenses with the same F-equivalent would produce the same DoF and collect the same total amount of light thus requiring the same ISO-equivalent setting from the sensor and hence resulting in roughly the same image noise :).

Ahh.. if only we lived in an ideal world :)

0 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Apr 19, 2013)

Lastly, as an example, we would advertise cameras like this:

1) Sony RX100, 28-100 mm f/5.2-14.2 eq. lens, ISO-eq. range 840-215000.

2) Fuji X10, 28-112 mm f/7.8-10.9, ISO-eq. range 1520-48700 (up to 195000 with boost)

Since it can be shown that the image noise for the same generation sensors at ISO-eq is similar (+-half-stop) regardless of the sensor size ISO-eq comparison would tell you right away that RX100 is likely to give better noise performance if you can get enough light (minimal ISO-eq is 840 vs Fuji's 1520). But if you have to use ISO-eq above 1520 Fuji will have an advantage because fo the "brighter" on the long end, and a disadvantage at the short end.

Very simple. To bad manufacturers don't do this :(..

1 upvote
schack
By schack (Apr 18, 2013)

I really wish they would make lenses like this for x-mount! It would be a killler lens for my X-E1.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 18, 2013)

XF, as well as Sigma's own SA mount, should be of the lowest priority because they are too tiny segments.

0 upvotes
schack
By schack (Apr 18, 2013)

I don't know how many x-mount cameraes is sold,, but since there isn't any big competitors, like in the nikon/canon bracket, it should be a viable market. Also given sigmas price range. But maybe they just don't like to cater to cameraes that competes against the DP line?

1 upvote
mosc
By mosc (Apr 18, 2013)

People keep bickering over equivalent f-stops. Both sides are clearly right and clearly not accepting the other side is talking about a different aspect of photography.

From an exposure perspective alone, if you have fixed ISO and shutter and light, the aperture determines exposure F1.8 is F1.8 is F1.8. True.

From a comparison across platforms, you need to account for the image circle in determining results. How much aperture should I expect for a zoom, with this focal range, with this weight, with this price? You are interested in the total picture you'll get using the lens on a camera it's designed for. Because of this, exposure is just one more parameter that can be adjusted, NOT a good measure of comparison. You want to know how good a picture this lens takes on a system it's designed for in comparison to another lens on a different system. You use equivalence.

You multiply the aperture by the crop because it tells you about the lens independent of the system.

5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 18, 2013)

very simple straight-forward starting point: the photograph.
what's really in a photograph that you care.

0 upvotes
Photato
By Photato (Apr 18, 2013)

Ditch equivalence.
What matters is that this new sigma lens is one of the brightest zoom lens for a crop body with a very useful focal range.
If it delivers excellent image quality and sells at a reasonable price it is a winner.

5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 18, 2013)

bet one cent in the same price as DX17-55/2.8G (which worths only half of this Sigma).

1 upvote
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Apr 18, 2013)

It seems like most people are confused when they mix equivalent and actual numbers :). For example when someone says this Sigma is equivalent to 27-52.5mm f/1.8 on a 35 mm camera, which may or may not be true depending on what you consider to be "equivalent". In this example only the angle of view is going to be equivalent, as the DoF and midtone noise (given a similar sensor tech) will be very different.

And you are right, for comparison between systems with different sensor sizes we are more interested in whether we can obtain equivalent pictures. That is in terms of AoV, DoF, image noise, and shutter speed. Given that compared to full-frame APS-C lenses have one stop larger DoF at the same f-number and APS-C sensors of the same generation are about 1 stop more noisy than the full frame this Sigma lens on APS-C will produce an image most similar to an image produced by 27-52.5mm f/2.8 lens on a 35 mm camera set to a one-stop higher ISO.

2 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Apr 18, 2013)

Photato, if you need such a bright lens for DoF or low image noise, why not use any of the 24-70 f/2.8 on a full-frame cameras, which are becoming not that much more expensive than comparable APS-C? You'll get a wider AoV range and about the same or lower image noise for the equivalent photos using e.g. 24-70 f/2.8 on Canon 6D as compared to this Sigma on a Canon 7D. Also 24-70 f/2.8 is just a tad heavier than the Sigma, and I bet the price will be in the same ballpark.

All in all this lens makes some sense only if you have an APS-C camera with a huge investment in APS-C lenses. Otherwise just get a full-frame :).

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 18, 2013)

one thing APS-C cameras can do better is the frame rate.
8 fps for 7D > 6 fps of 5D3, and
6 fps for D7100 > 5.5 fps of D600.

so those best benefit from this lens may be Canon users.

0 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Apr 18, 2013)

yabokkie, agreed about that. On the other hand I took thousands of sport photos (dancesport) with 5D2 and its slow 3.9fps with probably 80% success rate (meaning I got the shots I intended). I would imagine most amateurs would be more than happy with 6fps :).

0 upvotes
d3xmeister
By d3xmeister (Apr 18, 2013)

If you have this lens, instead of buying a D600 you can buy a D7000 and with the money left you can buy a car :)) That ,,Why not go FF,, is nonsense. it cost a LOT of money, especialy since many of us already have APSC cameras.

1 upvote
ppastoris
By ppastoris (Apr 18, 2013)

d3xmeister, D600 is $2000, D7000 is $900 (amazon.com). A very good Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC is $1300. So this Sigma has to cost much less than $2400 to make financial sense. Let's get back to this conversation after the price announcement for the Sigma :-).

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Photato
By Photato (Apr 18, 2013)

Bravo Sigma!
Can't wait to see the reviews.

2 upvotes
LarryK
By LarryK (Apr 18, 2013)

Finally, something different.

7 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 19, 2013)

you can also say finally something same. an APS-C lens that can do the same work as it's 35mm format counterpart (not really but near).

0 upvotes
LarryK
By LarryK (Apr 19, 2013)

I consider an f1.8 zoom pretty significant. I'm not a fan of the OOF movement, but I like an extra f-top for low light work.

0 upvotes
roldxx
By roldxx (Apr 18, 2013)

really nice! though a little less practical due to short zoom

2 upvotes
atamola
By atamola (Apr 18, 2013)

Well, I guess it depends on how you approch the idea.

If you think that it gives three very useful focal lenght, giving the equv fov of a 28, 35, 50 at f/1.8, then it actually looks pretty good.

And if the IQ comes somewhat nearly close to what they delivered with the 35 f/1.4, then it is a reak kick in Canikon's ass.

My guess is that they tried to find a balance between range, usefulness, distortion, and vigneting.

2 upvotes
matt_nnn
By matt_nnn (Apr 18, 2013)

Thank you Sigma - keep developing new APS-C lenses!
A wide prime like a 2.0/16 DX would be nice or a small 2.8/50-135 :-)

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 18, 2013)

think it's a better way to express in focal-length / f-number,
because this gives us another important measure of the lens,
the aperture size.

all what this Sigma zoom is about is the same aperture size (at the same angle of view) as standard f/2.8 zooms of 35mm format.

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
xmeda
By xmeda (Apr 18, 2013)

PENTAX MOUNT!

7 upvotes
zos xavius
By zos xavius (Apr 18, 2013)

+1!!!!

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting
1 upvote
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Apr 18, 2013)

Seems there are only 2 companies that is genuinely passionate about photography.....Sigma and Cosina (Voigtlander)
Others...
Leica is just a name
Hasselblad is a lunacy
Sony and Nikon are OK
Pentax will go out of business (though i really think they should be the one to bring out a 1.8 zoom, given that they "all-in-ed" the APSC format)
Don't even mention Canon......

7 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 18, 2013)

> Don't even mention Canon......

we know it. we know what you mean and the last sentence is not needed ... or all above that are not needed.

0 upvotes
Al Valentino
By Al Valentino (Apr 18, 2013)

Can't disagree with the above. I have owned the Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8, and the Sigma 150-500 and they were all exceptional lenses. I recently purchases a used Voigtlander 15mm for my Fuji XE1 and it is fantastic.

0 upvotes
roldxx
By roldxx (Apr 18, 2013)

better mention samsung in place of canon. lol!

0 upvotes
walliswizard
By walliswizard (Apr 18, 2013)

If anybody mentions you, I shall defend you, Fuji, you're doing a pretty good job IMO.

1 upvote
ptox
By ptox (Apr 18, 2013)

It's pure snobbery not to mention Olympus .. even if you don't appreciate the 4/3 and m4/3 formats, you can't deny they've put in every ounce of their engineering talent -- particularly into the lenses. If that doesn't define "passion", I don't know what does.

6 upvotes
agentul
By agentul (Apr 19, 2013)

Olympus - "we're so passionate about photography that we're not including a hood with our lenses, so that you have the chance to invest more in your hobby".

yup, same kind of passion that Alfa Romeo has for building cars - let's make them break all the time so that you have a chance to spend more time around them!

1 upvote
Plastek
By Plastek (Apr 19, 2013)

Totally agreed agentul. Oly perhaps has some passion, but this passion is it's own poison.

0 upvotes
ptox
By ptox (Apr 19, 2013)

agentul: the hood thing is annoying, yes; but if that's all you can come up with...

1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Apr 19, 2013)

They are businesses, not fan clubs. Ferrari is more serious about making the ultimate enthusiast's car than Toyota is.

0 upvotes
Joesiv
By Joesiv (Apr 18, 2013)

Ooo imagine this speedboosted on m43!

5 upvotes
deep7
By deep7 (Apr 18, 2013)

Might be cheaper than the existing 14-35/f2...

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

Good idea. Release SB for m43rd ASAP!

1 upvote
Pythagoras
By Pythagoras (Apr 18, 2013)

what?? only aps-c and we're supposed to get excited? i will be impressed when they invent a FF, 24-300 constant f/1.4 zoom lens that is compact, light, and beautiful. it should also fold my laundry and call my mom when i'm not in the mood to talk. hopefully it will be cheap because i don't make a lot of money posting comments online.

10 upvotes
LarryK
By LarryK (Apr 18, 2013)

With comments like that I can see why.

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

You're funny man hehehe...

0 upvotes
agentul
By agentul (Apr 19, 2013)

what, no medium format? FF is so mainstream...

0 upvotes
harold1968
By harold1968 (Apr 18, 2013)

Wow, sigma is on fire at the moment !
I though Fuji, Sony, Olympus and Panny would take away the DSLR business, now Sigma is eating into the DSLR lens cash cow as well!

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 18, 2013)

as user we don't care which beast is biting which cow,
as long as we can have better, cheaper cameras to use.
will be same as happy if they are from F5, SAP, Oracle, and Pixar.

0 upvotes
atamola
By atamola (Apr 18, 2013)

Excelent news.

It it only comes close in performance to the 35mm f/1.4 it will be an absolute winner.

0 upvotes
panteraaa
By panteraaa (Apr 18, 2013)

is there a Nikon DX prime lens that gives 55mm (about 85mm equiv) field of view?

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

A 55mm lens doesn't have to be DX (APS-C).

2 upvotes
panteraaa
By panteraaa (Apr 18, 2013)

i think i asked the question incorrectly. what i meant was if there's a lens that gives the field of view that a 85mm lens would give on a full frame camera. same as 55mm on a DX kit lens.

0 upvotes
bseng
By bseng (Apr 18, 2013)

Yes, there's a 60mm f/2.8 Macro. But it's not a DX lens. It's a FF lens but will work on DX just fine. It's $550.

0 upvotes
theblock
By theblock (Apr 18, 2013)

Old Nikkor 55/1.2 AI-S comes close in field of view department.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 18, 2013)

should go straight for D800 + 85/1.8G.
this gives you the best cost-performance on the market.

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Apr 19, 2013)

"But it's not a DX lens. It's a FF lens " - there's no such thing. Every FX lens IS also a DX lens.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 18, 2013)

I have a problem with the word "super-fast". it isn't. this lens is an equivalent of 24.6-53.7mm f/2.8 on Nikon and Sony APS-Cs. it's just as fast as an f/2.8 zoom on 35mm format.

p.s., it's a 25.8-56.4mm f/2.9 on Canon APS-Cs.
the real range and f-number may be different that we will likely have a slightly narrower range and less fast zoom.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Apr 18, 2013)

Fast for exposure.

5 upvotes
ceaiu
By ceaiu (Apr 18, 2013)

It's not super-fast but it's still faster than a f2.8 on ff. DOF may be similar, and of course you could increase the ISO on your ff just a little more to get similar results.
So it's not better compared to ff equivalents, but it's just as good.
Why crop can't have that?

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 18, 2013)

> Fast for exposure.

not at all. it's physically impossible.
if it's the photograph that you are interested.

you may mean the "chemical" exposure to unit area. but since it's unit area, it can only describe unit area not the photograph, which requires exposure to (a portion of) the frame.

sorry I gave the numbers wrong, wrong input of 16mm.
27.6-53.7mm f/2.8 on Nikon and Sony, and
29.0-56.4mm f/2.9 on Canon APS-Cs.

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

yabokkie ... when pretty much everyone argues or disagrees with each one of your interpretations and opinions, it's time to consider whether you may in fact be -- wrong.

23 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Apr 18, 2013)

>it's physically impossible.

An APS-C camera at 18mm f/1.8 will be about a stop faster than a FF at 28mm f/2.8 at same ISO. The DOF and FOV will match, however.

Also consider a FF with 200mm f/2.8. Assume ISO 100, spot metering and a shutter speed of 1/1000s. Next, if the camera allows an APS-C crop mode, do you think the shutter speed will drop? After all, in crop mode, the FOV and DOF will match that of 300mm f/4 on FF.

12 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 18, 2013)

> in fact be -- wrong
sorry to say emotion is not a factor in physics, though it may be a factor to health.

> at same ISO
ISO is also one of the "unit area gang". it doesn't decribe the photograph. no same image quality at the same ISO if the frame size is different.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
NomadMark
By NomadMark (Apr 18, 2013)

Sorry, but you are wrong. It will have the DOF of a 2.8 on 35mm format, but it is in fact as fast as a 1.8 used on 35mm format. You take this lens at 18mm 1.8, and a full frame at 27mm 1.8, stand two people side by side, and their shutter speed will be equal, with the same image framing. The only thing different will be DOF This is in fact a "super fast" zoom lens.

Aperture/Exposure/Sutter speed do no change with crop factor. Only FOV changes, and therefore you change the focal length (shorter) if you want to acheieve the same FOV on ASP-C as FF; Change in DOF is a symptom of the change in focal length.

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

EinsteinsGhost is correct. 100% and completely correct.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 18, 2013)

> 100% and completely correct

on unit area, yes. no argument about that.
but if you look into that unit area, you may see a person in one image and the same person's belly in another. is that all you want to say is a person equals his belly?

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Apr 18, 2013)

yabokkie, what exactly is exposure based on? Let us start there.

2 upvotes
NomadMark
By NomadMark (Apr 18, 2013)

What do you mean by Unit area? As in sensor area? The image peing projected on the sensor?

Take a full frame with 24mm lens. Then crop the sensor (1.5 factor), and you get a more narrow FOV. Now, change the lens, to a 16mm, and you once again have the FOV you started with. So, the image projected on that sensor is the same.

Your exposeure will change once you crop the sensor, yes. But when you change your focal length, you end up back to your original shutter speet, all else equal (ISO and aperture). Only change in the end is a widening in the DOF...once again, a symptom of the change in focal length, that helped you achieve the same projection/FOV on your sensor.

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ptox
By ptox (Apr 18, 2013)

yabokkie has this same argument with different people in every single gear announcement.

Eventually he's reduced to nonsense claims about "basic physics", and then you know you've hit the wall.

It's more productive to count the loose change in your couch.

2 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (Apr 18, 2013)

I guess they can say "super-fast" for an APS-C zoom. Is there any other APS-C zoom faster than f/2.8?

1 upvote
NomadMark
By NomadMark (Apr 18, 2013)

CFynn, again, a 1.8 aperture, is a 1.8 aperture, is a 1.8 aperture. Crop factor is moot. Frame the same image on a crop or full frame, and as said above, 1.8 on crop will yeild the same exposure settings as a 1.8 on full frame.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 18, 2013)

> what exactly is exposure based on

first I would like to comfirm that since the same ISO doesn't get the same image quality on different formats, it cannot be used as a base for comparison because it's not a level ground.

instead of unit area, like sqcm, we should use "frame area as a unit". this is the only way that we can have the image quality the same (the lens part).

we needed the "unit area gang" because that's the way chemical goes. we never take it as a reference for photograph though many people mess things up. actually there is no problem to mess things up as long as it's on the same format, which is not the case here.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Apr 18, 2013)

>I would like to comfirm that since same ISO doesn't get same image quality on different format

You're making the same excuse that another person did below. By assuming you can bump up the ISO on FF, what you're really acknowledging a flaw in your assumptions. You're bumping exposure and then claiming that as long as we ignore the ISO used, we've established "equivalence".

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 18, 2013)

so you get that fast speed at lower image quality?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
NomadMark
By NomadMark (Apr 18, 2013)

Different construction of FF and Crop sensors have in the past yeildind different ISO performance and that may have made your argument applicable in the past, yes. But there are now 16MP crop sensors that have ISO performance equal to the better 24MP FF sensors. Tech being used is similar, and pixel sites are the same. ISO 100 is surely comparible. And upwards to 3200 to 6400 these days, is also comparible. Per pixel size and quality are comparible. Unit area is comparible, pixel per pixel light gathering performance, in many cases today, between crop and FF. Some crops of today are better than yesterdays FF. You could get lost in these details if you wants. IQ may not be equal in some cases, and it may swing in the other direction in other cases. But, assuming equal IQ at ISO 100, or just in general, this is all moot. 1.8 is 1.8 is 1.8.

2 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Apr 18, 2013)

> so you get that fast speed at lower image quality?

At least now you're getting over "exposure" issues to IQ issues. But, APS-C and FF aren't that far apart in those terms, especially when you're willing to compromise IQ on FF just so that you can match the exposure with APS-C.

2 upvotes
Tomskyair
By Tomskyair (Apr 18, 2013)

Don't feed the "equivalence troll(s)" - it just leads to nothing but bad karma.

Grab your "bad" MFT, 4/3 or APS-C gear and go out shooting, much more enjoyable.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 18, 2013)

> now you're getting over "exposure" issues to IQ issues.

bingo you are right. we are talking about shutter speed when taking photographs, not exposure to unit area, which is irrelevant here.

0 upvotes
NomadMark
By NomadMark (Apr 18, 2013)

To sumarize, when comparing equivalents, IQ is moot really. Not part of the exposure equation. ISO is a standard, a rating for equivalency, and it is generally accepted that IQ may not be equal across all camera bases at a given standard (ISO is not a measurement of IQ!) and it's a throwback to film (which was also of different quality as well, at a given ISO!!). However, no matter the quality, ISO 1600 is ISO 1600, in terms of exposure. Aperture of 1.8 is 1.8. Shutter speed stays the same as well...seconds to not get longer or shorter with crop factor. And the light transmission of a lens does not change because the sensor was cropped. Yes, sensor quality, and per pixel image quality may change (likely not these days!!) but a standard, is a standard, is a standard. Aperture, shutter speed, and ISO are standards. even focal length is a standard, and doesn't ACTUALLY change. Just FOV, because when you crop a sensor, you are literally cropping the image being framed!

1 upvote
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Apr 18, 2013)

> we are talking about shutter speed when taking photographs

You "were", until your ideas turned out to be mere assumptions.

0 upvotes
NomadMark
By NomadMark (Apr 18, 2013)

GUYS. IQ is not a standard. It vaires, camera to camera, sensor to sensor, film to film. ISO, APERTURE, and SS are physical standards. Equal, as a measurement, from camera to camera. Physics dictates light transmission and time are fixed. Human beings fixed ISO as a standard to complete the exposure triangle a long time ago (a measure of film sensitivity to light, NOT IQ). ISO afterall, stands for International Standards Organization! Is was put in place, to get this...MAKE FILMS EQUIVALENT/COMPARIBLE!!! Yep, IQ vary film to film, but given ISO 640, you know what your other two variables should be, to expose your film correctly. 35mm, medium format, no matter. Frame the same image, on the same ISO rating film, with the same aperture and you will get the same shutter speed. Medium doesn't matter, size doesn't count, IQ is not a consideration for measuring exposure.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 18, 2013)

IQ (shot noise part of IQ) is all we are talking about speed.
which is really the speed of energy stream through the lens' aperture.

nothing to do with ISO, nothing to do with the format.

Comment edited 10 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Apr 18, 2013)

I do not know if it is funny or sad that people, with photography as a hobby (or maybe they just write on these boards) do not understand what relative aperture means. Like f/1.8 or f/2.8. There is nothing equivalent there what comes to exposure or "speed". It is just the focal length divided by the maximum aperture, measured in mm (or inches or fathoms). If the same lens is attached to a APS-C, FF, 6x7 or 8x10 camera, the ratio between the focal length and aperture diameter certainly do not change.

Maybe there were ignorant idiots like this also before, but they did not send letters to other hobbyists and professional like they do now with this internet thingy. Not everything is progress...

2 upvotes
NomadMark
By NomadMark (Apr 18, 2013)

Yabokkie. I WANT to understand where you are coming from, I really do. But I'm not certain what you mean.

All I'm trying to say, is that an aperture of 1.8 will grant the same speed shutter speed, when framing the same image at the same ISO. This will require different focal lengths on different medium/sensor sizes of course, and result in varying DOF's. But, to state yet again, A 16mm 1.8 on Crop, and a 24mm 1.8 on FF, next to one another, framing the same shot, at any given ISO, shooting at 1.8, will be just as "fast". I.e. will yield the same shutter speed.

0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Apr 18, 2013)

yabokkie's last straw is that he/she wants to ignore ISO as affecting exposure.

0 upvotes
NomadMark
By NomadMark (Apr 18, 2013)

Focal length devided by the pupil diameter you mean, Petka? Light transmission efficienty per lens/glass aside, 16mm 1.8 (on crop), and 24mm 1.8 (on FF) have different size pupils, but the same relative aperture, and should yeild the same level of light transmission, and therefore the same exposure settings.

I can't tell who you are calling an idiot. Either way, thanks for taking the banter to a new low! Great usage of this internet thingy.

1 upvote
TB Rich
By TB Rich (Apr 18, 2013)

Yabokkie, "when" I win the lottery let me buy you a 1.8 lens, a FF body and a crop body - I think this is the only way you will learn that 1.8 is 1.8 with respect to exposure! And easily worth a couple of grand for the peace and quite compared to a few mil that the lotto will yield!! ;)

0 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (Apr 18, 2013)

...apparently I need a new light meter, all of the ones I have don't have a switch that says "µ4/3, APS-C, FF, MF"

0 upvotes
NomadMark
By NomadMark (Apr 19, 2013)

Baaaaaahahahahahahahahaha.

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

Probably not super fast.. but it's the fastest right now.

0 upvotes
mandm
By mandm (Apr 19, 2013)

mister_roboto; I agree, my Sekonic L-358 does not have any way to show what size film I'm shooting and I do 4x5, 645, 35mm or if I'm digital in FX or DX? I have never noticed any exposure issues when using digital to check exposure when shooting 4x5.
Maybe this is just an issue in theory, but not in reality!

0 upvotes
NetMage
By NetMage (Apr 19, 2013)

Does no one remember that FF has a large noise advantage versus APS-C at high ISO? if you are shooting your APS-C at ISO 100, you can shoot your FF at ISO 225 for the same noise level - but now the APS-C shooter needs an f/1.8 to match your f/2.8 at the same shutter speed. Everything is equivalent - DOF, perspective, framing, exposure and picture SNR.

But if the scene has shutter speed to burn, the FF user can drop to ISO 100, have a better SNR where the APS-C user is out of options.

0 upvotes
NomadMark
By NomadMark (Apr 19, 2013)

So, the 5D classic has better ISO performance than the Nikon 7100? No, it doesn't.

To further that point, comparing the BEST crop sensors, like Fuji's, to the best FF sensors like Sony's or Canons, the ISO ability gap is closing quickly. Today, it is marginal.

I think everyone understands how to make something "equivalent", by tinkering with focal length and camera settings,and where the limits are. that's not the issue.

0 upvotes
NomadMark
By NomadMark (Apr 19, 2013)

The point of this thread is that the OP stated that this 1.8 is only as fast as a 2.8 on FF. And, not fast. Simply, not true. Fast, is a term to describe the resulting SS (or exposure time, if you will) yeilded by using a wide aperture lens. Better ISO performance does not change the ability of the lens to give a faster or slower exposure. That is a direct function of the ISO/Sensitivity of the sensor. The lens aperture, and ISO are independant. I'm not sure why that is so hard to understand. If you are getting lower SNR, then yuor camera has better ISO performance. Just because one crop has lower SNR that a FF, doesn't make a lens more or less equivalent, let in more or less light, or make it faster or SLOWER. IT JUST DOESN'T. Sensor size and resulting SNR/ISO capability, and the "Fastness" or light transmitting ability of a lens (which results in the ability to crank up shutter speed) are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

0 upvotes
NomadMark
By NomadMark (Apr 19, 2013)

If you want to argue that, then I could say that 1.8 on a D7100 is faster than 2.8, or even 1.8 on a 5D classic. But thats wrong. they are the same...the D7100 just has better SNR. Same argument, but in reverse...and is still wrong, but is just more ovbious now.

0 upvotes
Ernest M Aquilio
By Ernest M Aquilio (Apr 18, 2013)

Sounds like some folks need to hit the gym. Good concept for a lens!

1 upvote
agentul
By agentul (Apr 19, 2013)

why would they want to take pictures of sweaty people?

0 upvotes
panos_m
By panos_m (Apr 18, 2013)

Here it is on a D7100 next to 24-70 f/2.8 on a D600. Thanks to camerasize.com :).

http://j.mp/17IVcmm

5 upvotes
BJN
By BJN (Apr 18, 2013)

Interesting, but 24mm is considerably wider on FX and 70mm gets into short tele territory. You've compare a 3X zoom to a 2X zoom and it's not hard to see that a depth-of-field equivalent lens with the same reach would be at least as large as the FX lens.

1 upvote
panos_m
By panos_m (Apr 18, 2013)

@BJN: That is exactly my point also. I do not see a worthy size-weight advantage for the Sigma lens.

EDIT: Maybe that is why N & C don't make such a lens.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
panos_m
By panos_m (Apr 18, 2013)

Canon 6D with 24-70 f/2.8 II is actually lighter at 1575 gr than 7D with the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 at 1670 gr (weight data reported by camerasize.com):

http://j.mp/ZupnKF

1 upvote
Joseph S Wisniewski
By Joseph S Wisniewski (Apr 18, 2013)

Exactly what one would expect. A true equivalent, same light gathering power, DOF, and coverage, is pretty much always smaller, lighter, cheaper, and optically better on FF.

I set this up 5 years ago, with a 50mm f1.8 on a D700 and a 25mm f1.4 on an E-3. Four thirds lost.;)

8 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (Apr 18, 2013)

But if you have an APS-C camera, the Sigma is pretty tempting (depending on price/performance).

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 18, 2013)

> depending on price/performance

lucky enough we have 24MP full-frame and APS-C cameras from Nikon that we should be able to let Sigma 18-35/1.8 and Nikkor 24-70/2.8 compete at almost level ground.

0 upvotes
BJL
By BJL (Apr 18, 2013)

I see the optical advantages of using the "equivalent" f/2.8 zoom in 35mm format (which BTW would have to be used at a bit over twice the ISO speed to get equal shutter speeds: "equivalency" buffs often ignore that). In fact, I would rather all my zooms be f/2.8-4 or slower, allowing wider zoom ranges with less optical design challenges, increasing speed if needed by increasing the focal length and format size.

But I can still see a bit of a niche for using this lens: some people prefer the APS-C format over 35mm format for other advantages like the smaller, shorter lenses needed to get a given degree of telephoto reach and the lower cost of the bodies.

Though that last point depends on how expensive this lens is. It has something in common the constant f/2 zooms for Four Thirds, and high price might be one similarity.

0 upvotes
Photato
By Photato (Apr 18, 2013)

@panos. That is not a fair comparison because you picked the lightest Full Frame body with the heaviest APS-C. When compared to the Canon SL1 body, then the APS-C wins at 1217 grams.

0 upvotes
panos_m
By panos_m (Apr 18, 2013)

@Photato:
I am not trying to say something negative about the Sigma lens. I welcome it. It makes a lot of sense for the Sigma DSLRs and for owners of DX/APSC cameras. It's another option which is a good thing.
I am thinking about why Canon and Nikon don't make such a lens or more other high quality lenses for their crop cameras.
I choose these two pairs of cameras from C & N because I expect such an expensive lens to be bought from the advanced DSLR user and not from the entry level one. I was not trying to make an academic absolute comparison.

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Photato
By Photato (Apr 18, 2013)

@Panos. Well the 6D is entry level compared to the 7D.
I think Canon and Nikon dont make these lenses for market segmentation reasons. They want pros to buy the full frame body. Canon has made only one prime lens for APS-C after all these years. Its clear to me that they want to push the pro market to be full frame.

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Apr 19, 2013)

Entry-level FF with High-end APS-C. Brilliant comparison, but pointless.

2 upvotes
panos_m
By panos_m (Apr 19, 2013)

@Photato and Plastek:
Entry level FF doesn't mean entry level DSLR. I compared a camera at $2000 with a camera at $1500. Where is the difficult part?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
88SAL
By 88SAL (Apr 18, 2013)

Price?!?! Ballpark? $800-$1000? $1200 - $1500? $1800? Its so important.

5 upvotes
alendrake
By alendrake (Apr 18, 2013)

Price?
It will be close to $2000.
Otherwise Sigma will leave us absolutely nothing to whine about!
And if we don't whine, we have to spend our time by what?... Shooting? No way!!!

3 upvotes
mike kobal
By mike kobal (Apr 18, 2013)

shooting the new art series 35mm 1.4 on my D800e was a very positive experience, now if this lens turns in a similarly impressive optical performance and af accuracy, imagine the quality paired with the D7100

3 upvotes
trac63
By trac63 (Apr 18, 2013)

I think the price, size and weight are going to be deal-breakers for me.

Quite frankly, if I were in the market for something like this I would spend the extra money for the Nikon 24mm f/1.4, and I'm not even a Nikon snob or anything. Two of my favourite lenses are Tamrons.

1 upvote
ceaiu
By ceaiu (Apr 18, 2013)

... or wait for that Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG at half the price of Nikon.

0 upvotes
trac63
By trac63 (Apr 18, 2013)

I'm just saying: an 18-35 zoom range is nothing to write home about. May as well get the fixed focal length 24mm that's 2/3 stops faster, as well as being smaller, lighter and (probably) optically superior.

0 upvotes
ceaiu
By ceaiu (Apr 18, 2013)

That Nikon is $2000. If this zoom will approach that, than it's a no for me also. But at half of that you get at least two great focal lenghts.

0 upvotes
georgehudetz
By georgehudetz (Apr 18, 2013)

I dunno, if you get the eqiv of a 18, 24, 28, and 35 mm prime in one lens, I suspect that will make for a lighter kit overall.

But of course, there's no substitute for how the camera feels with a light prime on it.

1 upvote
rfsIII
By rfsIII (Apr 18, 2013)

Hallelujah! My prayers have been answered. This plus the 11-16 will handle about 85 percent of what I shoot.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 18, 2013)

a natural thing which will happen sooner or later.
think it's a bit late that the APS-C SLRs are fading out of the market.
hope m4/3" gang can have 12-35/1.4s before it's too late.

2 upvotes
88SAL
By 88SAL (Apr 18, 2013)

M43 has not managed anything better than f2.8 zoom. We will need to see a f2 constant before f1.4 is even mentioned.

3 upvotes
agentul
By agentul (Apr 18, 2013)

"the APS-C SLRs are fading out of the market."

which market is that?

8 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 18, 2013)

they do have f/4 equivalent zooms for the old bad 4/3" SLR
the ZD14-35/2.0 and ZD35-100/2.0

> which market is that?
just remember the words. we could argue later.

> approach the size and weight of a full frame 24-70 f/2.8
> at an astronomical price
as long as it's a 24-70/2.8 equivalent, it should be similar in both size-weight and cost. the cost may be a bit lower for mirrorless (at the same market size).

> a larger format is your best choice.
we have the best lenses for 35mm format at the moment. having good lenses is the decisive factor than the format.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
BJN
By BJN (Apr 18, 2013)

Won't happen. A 12-35 f/1.4 would approach the size and weight of a full frame 24-70 f/2.8 at an astronomical price. At least if the lens has the performance I assume you'd expect. I can rationalize the Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 and the 35-100 f/2.8 as a reasonable compromise for light weight and compact performance compared to my Nikon FX equivalent reach and speed lenses. If you want more creative depth of field control, a larger format is your best choice.

0 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (Apr 18, 2013)

" A 12-35 f/1.4 would approach the size and weight of a full frame 24-70 f/2.8 at an astronomical price."

Not to worry, the 14-35/2 is already there at $2300, 8.61 x 12.29 cm, and 900g compared to the Nikon 24-70 at $1900, 8.38 x 13.21 cm, and 900g for a lens with more range a whole stop faster. A mirrorless version that's a whole stop faster would not be reducing cost, size, or weight.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 18, 2013)

@joejack951

Oly made the lenses excessively large and expensive for two reasons, first their 4/3" SLR was a very bad design, and second they wanted to cheat the market.

0 upvotes
ptox
By ptox (Apr 18, 2013)

yabonkkers

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (Apr 18, 2013)

"Not to worry, the 14-35/2 is already there at $2300, 8.61 x 12.29 cm, and 900g compared to the Nikon 24-70 at $1900, "

Of course, because it is hard to make 14-35/2 for 39 mm flange. For 20mm flange, it is a different story.

0 upvotes
agentul
By agentul (Apr 19, 2013)

"If you want more creative depth of field control, a larger format is your best choice."

i take issue with that statement. depth of field is a physical effect. it is not "creative" in itself any more than an Apple computer is. it's what you do with it that matters.

each person has their own needs when it comes to equipment, and there is no absolutely perfect camera. however, calling equipment parameters "creative" diminishes the role of the user - if the 35mm format is so "creative" with its DOF, why should people pay professional photographers, instead of renting the camera and have an average teenager take pictures of [insert event here] for far less money? after all, it's the camera that's "creative", right?

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Apr 19, 2013)

""the APS-C SLRs are fading out of the market."
which market is that?"
Most likely FF market. ;) :P

"If you want more creative depth of field control, a larger format is your best choice."
- I do, that's why I shoot APS-C. I don't need paper-thin DoF in my shots to make them look "creative", I need DoF that's precisely where I need it, when I need it, and that's what APS-C gives to me.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
disasterpiece
By disasterpiece (Apr 18, 2013)

It has the weight of 3 or 4 prime lenses, but I suspect it may have the price of more than that number of primes.

1 upvote
Lift Off
By Lift Off (Apr 18, 2013)

While it is true that, if you stop to think, this is comparable to making a constant f/2.7 lens for FF, one has to applaud Sigma's effort and will to push the envelope.

5 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Apr 18, 2013)

widest aperture*crop on a zoom in history, right?

0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Apr 18, 2013)

I think Sigma deserves credit for delivering something the big guns have either not thought about or have been counting beans.

That being said, I'm not sure if its cost and 2x zoom will be at play. Now, if it does offer excellent performance at f/2, if not f/1.8, some of it may be overcome.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 18, 2013)

we will have to see if it's really f/1.8 but f/2.8 equivalent standard zooms are more difficult for APS-C than 35mm format so we may expect a faster zoom for full-frame.

0 upvotes
BJN
By BJN (Apr 18, 2013)

I suppose. I'd applaud a lens that got a little wider or longer. This one covers a small and bland focal length range. I hope that the conservative range means that the lens is a stellar performer.

The amount of interest in this lens is surprising. If lenses like this are successful in the market, perhaps we'll see more fast, serious glass for APS-C.

0 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (Apr 18, 2013)

APS-C / DX :(

1 upvote
88SAL
By 88SAL (Apr 18, 2013)

It has not been done before on FF, give it some credit for atelast reaching DX. It may even be worth mounting FF if u have a FF body.

0 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (Apr 18, 2013)

Has my credit for sure. Would like to have in my arsenal of lenses. I have DX and FF bodies. But never buy DX lenses, that's why my discontent.

0 upvotes
motobloat
By motobloat (Apr 18, 2013)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this here:

This is a *street photographer's* dream lens.

You get 28mm, 35mm, and 50mm equivalents, and everything in between, all at f/1.8. No more do you have to just pick one of the three classic 'street' lenses - you can have them all.

New street kit? Small SLR like D3200 or 100D + this lens - small, fast, light, high-resolution, and really, really flexible.

5 upvotes
Thorbard
By Thorbard (Apr 18, 2013)

Not really that small and light. It has a 72mm front filter size and weighs more than a 24-70 f2.8.

For street photography, lens size gets you noticed far more than camera size, better to use a 5DIII with a 50mm lens than a 100D with this one.

3 upvotes
Nukunukoo
By Nukunukoo (Apr 18, 2013)

Yes. but much as I would love (and make no mistake, this Sigma will be mine!) to do casual city captures on this and my D7100- the combo is too bulky and I had one DSLR snatched from me in San Francisco already... no, I now have the fab X20 for that! :-) It's discreet with the size and OVF, looks like some old retro film cam and matches my dress really!

2 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Apr 18, 2013)

This lens weighs almost 2lbs...

0 upvotes
Lift Off
By Lift Off (Apr 18, 2013)

Light?? I think you missed these specifications...:

Weight 810 g (1.79 lb)
Diameter 78 mm (3.07″)
Length 121 mm (4.76″)

I mean, I can carry all three 1.8 primes together (28 + 35 + 50) and still would be 100g lighter than the Sigma.

EDIT: Damn, you guys are fast...!

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
motobloat
By motobloat (Apr 18, 2013)

Wow when did everyone become such weight-weenies, haha. ;-)

I guess it's not a lens for everybody.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 18, 2013)

think 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 are most used lenses by pros. the two zooms may be complemented by two or three primes, say two in the standard 35-135mm range and one in the 300-600mm range.

0 upvotes
amdme127
By amdme127 (Apr 18, 2013)

Maybe because I regularly workout, but carrying a 1.79 lb/ 810 g lens should really not be an issue at all. I would weep if that is considered to be heavy. I carry around an older 70-200mm f2.8 lens that weighs a little over 3 pounds with no issue and this is without a tripod or image stabilization and get great photos.

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
napilopez
By napilopez (Apr 18, 2013)

@Thorbard I actually disagree on this somewhat. While some long tele lenses will obviously get you noticed, I've generally not found a substantial difference between lenses of different sizes if I'm using a DSLR in the first place. I mainly shoot in M4/3 though.

The focal length range is indeed ideal for street photography. Whether or not the weight matters to you is a matter of preference and your own physical ability. I personally don't care about it, but plenty rightfully do.

0 upvotes
BJN
By BJN (Apr 18, 2013)

If this lens has top performance, I agree that it will be a good street shooter. Carrying three primes and swapping them is hardly conducive to capturing the moment.

1 upvote
lucianopeixoto
By lucianopeixoto (Apr 18, 2013)

I fell in love with this lens!

0 upvotes
ptox
By ptox (Apr 18, 2013)

Do tell. A poem?

0 upvotes
AngryCorgi
By AngryCorgi (Apr 18, 2013)

Sigma is starting to really put Canon, Nikon and Pentax in their place. Their lens designs are improving and advancing to levels the others have yet to achieve.

10 upvotes
Simon97
By Simon97 (Apr 18, 2013)

This is a great travel lens - especially if you do a lot of evening & available light shooting. One could complain that it doesn't go wider to, say 24mm equiv., but I'm sure it took plenty of engineering effort to make such a zoom with this wide of aperture.

1 upvote
veroman
By veroman (Apr 18, 2013)

I don't know of a single Sigma lens at f/2.8 or larger that's sharp wide open. Is there one? If history is any indication, I suspect this new zoom won't really come into its own until f/2.8 ... which really doesn't make it all that competitive to Tamron's 17-50 f/2.8. I'd like to be wrong, 'cause the idea is terrific. I'd purchase it in a second if f/1.8 is sharp. Would let me shoot all day long at ISO 400 or lower with my small Canon.

1 upvote
jobodaho
By jobodaho (Apr 18, 2013)

The new 35mm f/1.4

1 upvote
viking79
By viking79 (Apr 18, 2013)

Historically Sigma has made cheaper lenses, with the 50mm f/1.4 and newer lenses they seem to have improved a lot and concentrating on performance. The Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 OS (newest version, large) is the best performing 2.8 lens I have used. It comes close to out resolving the D7000 through the entire zoom range even at f/2.8. It is a bit soft at 150mm in the corners, but nothing to worry about.

2 upvotes
amdme127
By amdme127 (Apr 18, 2013)

Sigma's newer primes have been some of the best lenses in the industry. Starting with the 85mm 1.4 which received many accolades for it's performance at 1.4. The new Sigma Global lens series primes have been setting the bar in the industry for wide open performance, like the 35mm 1.4. Now granted these lenses are primes, so we will see how good they do with the wide angle zoom with a constant 1.8 aperature, but if their recent lens releases are any indication, it will be basically the best available at launch in its category.

0 upvotes
motobloat
By motobloat (Apr 18, 2013)

>> I don't know of a single Sigma lens at f/2.8 or larger that's sharp wide open. Is there one?

Define "sharp"? All lenses are softer wide open than stopped down, so... these are Sigma lenses I own that I consider *sharp enough to use* wide open. There are others I don't own as well.

17-50 f/2.8 OS
50-150mm f/2.8 OS (this one is crazy sharp)
120-300 f/2.8 OS
85mm f/1.4

1 upvote
Antony John
By Antony John (Apr 18, 2013)

Hmm, so how exactly does a lens 'gather light'?
There's a little basket underneath or something?

0 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (Apr 18, 2013)

Well, more like up to 24 million little baskets to catch the photons.

1 upvote
mosc
By mosc (Apr 18, 2013)

on a quantum level, it's very much like little baskets. They count the number of photons that hit them over the exposure, each sensitive to a specific wavelength.

Einstein taught us the duality of light. Digital light sensors rely on this concept treating light as a discrete thing. Buckets is not that far off.

1 upvote
lesnapanda
By lesnapanda (Apr 18, 2013)

Einstein was only one of many great minds of the 19th and 20th century whose work laid the foundation for understaning the dual nature of light (and other objects as well).

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 18, 2013)

we only need Newton here, very primitive opticks.

0 upvotes
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (Apr 18, 2013)

Lenses gather light by using lens elements to guide the light where it is needed. When an apple picker put apples into baskets, is it the picker or the basket that gathers the apples?

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

PENTAX K-mount too, please? ^^

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Bogdan_M
By Bogdan_M (Apr 18, 2013)

Good job Sigma!

We've been wondering about 4 years ago who would have the guts to build such a lens. F2 would've been good, f 1.8 sounds simply great.

If the center is decently sharp at full aperture, this will rock :)

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (Apr 18, 2013)

If this lens delivers decent IQ than it will be a dream for many pro photographers. Makes me wonder how long it will take for Canon and Nikon to follow.

True is - it is much harder to make a zoom lens with f/1.8 than f/2.8 with the same optical quality. Let's see what this lens can do and for how much.

0 upvotes
Conrad567
By Conrad567 (Apr 18, 2013)

Since it is an APS-C I hope that adding the extra stop of light will be slightly easier. In theory it should produce out of focus blur similar to a "normal" zoom from Canon or Nikon but on a smaller sensor. This lens could be the magic that many users of these smaller sensors are hoping for.

0 upvotes
sportyaccordy
By sportyaccordy (Apr 18, 2013)

I dont think the big boys will follow. Sigma has always flown a little too close to the sun- and sometimes got burnt. The 20 1.8 FX lens they came out with a few years ago was this thing's grand dad and it was pretty much horrible.

I am not sure this will make a great travel lens either. Its a big heavy mug. If they get the IQ right though it will be a triumph.

Personally I am still hoping for them to try the 20mm super fast prime again. In the Sony E-mount, preferably heh.

0 upvotes
FritsThomsen
By FritsThomsen (Apr 18, 2013)

a few years ago ??? Back in 2004 when I started with digital photography ...the 20, 24 and 28 /1,8i were allready considered OLD !!

2 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (Apr 18, 2013)

Nice, finally equivalent lenses for APS-C. I have been waiting ages for the sub f/2 fixed aperture zooms for APS-C. For ages they kept trying to sell people on full frame f/2.8 lenses, what a waste of weight on APS-C. This I can do, unfortunately the zoom range is a bit limited, but if the price is right I am all over it.

3 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Apr 18, 2013)

I just want an f2.8 APS-C telezoom. I don't need an f1.8 APS-C telezoom to match some multi-pound multi-thousand dollar FF monster in light, but right now APS-C tele's are still limited to ~f4. I'd like to shave a stop off of that. Still a stop slower than FF, but my back and my wallet will accept that stop.

Kudos to Sigma, but if I wanted a lens like this for walking around I'd probably want a FF body to go with a 24-70 f2.8. That market is already served. Show me a 70-135 f2.8 APS-C lens I can mount on some tiny APS-C DSLR and shoot sports wide open without killing my back and wallet.

0 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (Apr 18, 2013)

You are probably not the person this lens is marketed towards. Most likely wedding and event shooters. If I am walking around I will carry small primes for depth of field. I will buy it for exactly that purpose and never carry it walking around. That is what my mirrorless camera is for.

They already make a lens that might work for you. It is a beast for sure, but the 50-150mm f/2.8 OS is an amazing lens. They have no reason to make a 70-135mm f/2.8 with that lens available, what would be the market (as you say, people wanting a light f/2.8 zoom, but I wonder how many of those there are).

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
1 upvote
mosc
By mosc (Apr 18, 2013)

You're right, that lens is the right length and aperture for me. It's just expensive and I want A-mount.

I wish the original non-IS version was available used for a-mount. With the IBIS already there... that would be perfect for me.

0 upvotes
amdme127
By amdme127 (Apr 18, 2013)

It will be available for A-mount, just like the 35mm 1.4 from Sigma, it just won't be in the initial offering/at launch which is what is shown above. So I wouldn't worry about it not being available for A-mount, because it should be at some point in the near future (a few months) after the launch.

0 upvotes
topstuff
By topstuff (Apr 18, 2013)

Awesome idea.

I fear it will be as soft as a kitten wide open though. I hope I'm wrong.

1 upvote
amdme127
By amdme127 (Apr 18, 2013)

Sigma new lens lineup has been sharp wide open and setting industry standard for quality with what is released in their Global Vision Lens Lineup. It is exciting to see the Global Vision lens lineup expand, a few months ago I was stating that they needing to expand this more quickly, and it seems they are doing just that.

When the new Sigma lenses (more expensive than their previous lenses) are a few hundred dollars cheaper than the Canon and Nikon equivalents and decimate them in performance, more people are going to start to realize that they are the way to go for now. I am interested to see how Canon, Nikon, and Sony will respond to the new Global Vision from Sigma.

0 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (Apr 18, 2013)

holy cow....this is perfect for wedding photographers!

1 upvote
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Apr 18, 2013)

Without 24mm-equivalent, a normal zoom is a non-starter for me. 15mm or bust!

5 upvotes
paulski66
By paulski66 (Apr 18, 2013)

Makes me almost want to buy a DX camera again...

1 upvote
88SAL
By 88SAL (Apr 18, 2013)

use crop more. even better

0 upvotes
BJN
By BJN (Apr 18, 2013)

Nuh-uh. Look at the size comparison up higher in this discussion. I'll take the big sensor and finder view.

0 upvotes
NetMage
By NetMage (Apr 19, 2013)

Just use a 24-70 f/2.8 at ISO 200 and be happy, though I hope at a more expensive price.

0 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Apr 18, 2013)

"There's termites eating out our sales chart!" (Canon and Nikon)

"No! It's Sigma's new lens!"

.

10 upvotes
FoolyCooly
By FoolyCooly (Apr 18, 2013)

Interested. It's like getting 4 fast primes in one lens- 20mm f1.8, 24mm f1.8, 28mm f1.8 and 35mm f1.8. I doubt it will hold up against fixed fl lenses but maybe it will be good enough and priced just right.

1 upvote
Joseph S Wisniewski
By Joseph S Wisniewski (Apr 18, 2013)

I used to say that, until I got the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 about 10 years ago. It outperformed my 20, 24, and 28mm Nikkors, although it couldn't touch the 35mm. The 24-70mm f2.8 and 14-24mm f2.8 are even better.

1 upvote
viking79
By viking79 (Apr 18, 2013)

Yeah, pretty standard for some of these zooms to perform as well as a good prime (they cost a lot more and are heavier is the tradeoff). I am hoping for at least good center sharpness wide open and good corner performance by f/4 and I will replace my Nikkor 17-55mm. If it takes until f/2.8 or f/4 to get decent in the center I will just keep the Nikkor.

0 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Apr 18, 2013)

I do think it's weird to see this lens. Many have argued that it's possible and should weigh, cost, and perform the same as a 27-53 f2.7 FF lens but it's still surprising to see. Clearly Canon or Nikon would never come out with this lens. They are very careful not to release good APS-C glass instead encouraging you to buy FF glass for your APS-C camera until eventually you've spent enough on glass you're only half using that a FF body becomes inevitable. But that said, there are companies that don't sell FF bodies. You would expect this lens to come out from one of them to help them compete with the best of FF DSLR's. If you told me the lens specs and asked me to guess the manufacturer and system, I would have said Fuji or Pentax since they both top out at APS-C.

Sigma, congratulations on proving the concept and giving real choice to the market. Now stop being silly on systems and put this out where it can do the most good: Pentax, Fuji, NEX, NX

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

Clearly, Canon or Nikon do make good APS-C lenses like the 17-55mm f2.8 Nikkor or the 85mm micro-Nikkor.
Clearly, they both have broad and comprehensive lineups, but for the most part, they aren't "risk takers" like Sigma.

Here's some FF examples: 20mm, 24mm, and 28mm f1.8 lenses, targeted at the same price range as the f2.8 versions from Nikon and Canon. The 120-300mm f2.8 and 200-500mm f2.8 zooms The slower 50-500mm, and the hulking 300-800mm f5.6 zooms.

See, it's "clearly" nothing to do with Canon or Nikon "very careful not to release good APS-C glass" and simply the sort of company Sigma is.

3 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (Apr 18, 2013)

They release what they had to (standard f/2.8 zoom), but still didn't release an adequate tele-zoom, like a 50-135mm f/2.8 (f/1.8 to 2 would be better).

2 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Apr 18, 2013)

I disagree because you can count the number of f2.8 or faster APS-C only Nikon and Canon lenses, at ANY focal length, on one hand. These are the biggest APS-C sellers in the world with a long pedigree and no signs of abandoning APS-C anytime soon yet the total count of these lenses is next to none.

Canon 17-55 f2.8, Canon 60 f2.8 macro, Nikon 17-55 f2.8,Nikon 35mm f1.8, Nikon 10.5 f2.8 fisheye

Did I miss one? I mean these are lenses that are matched by Canon and Nikon's FF zooms in aperture except for one prime from Nikon.

2 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (Apr 18, 2013)

mosc, you missed the Nikon 40mm f/2.8 Micro.

0 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Apr 18, 2013)

I am impressed by Sigma's efforts.

BUT I will never get such a lens.

This lens is equivalent to 27-52.5mm f/2.7 on FF. Weight is 810g.

Canon, Nikon and Tamron VC FF equivalents weigh 805g, 900g and 825 g respectively.

I really don't see any weight advantage in shooting with a small-size sensor here. It's the same 'mistake' Olympus made with their honking f/2 zoom lenses on four-third mount.

1 upvote
mosc
By mosc (Apr 18, 2013)

Which is why I don't get the focus on releasing this for Canon and Nikon mounts. If the lens were released on Pentax mount, lets say, that would let that system compete against the best of FF DSLR's in terms of low light and fast shutter work at these focal lengths in a zoom.

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

The "focus" is releasing the lens for large markets, because Sigma wants to sell a lot of them. The only reason they even release lenses for their own mount is that the tooling cost is negligible: no new mechanism, CPU, circuit boards, just a mounting flange.

Pentax is a rather small market, and the tooling cost is high.

1 upvote
mosc
By mosc (Apr 18, 2013)

I agree Joseph, which is why I was surprised that Sigma beat Pentax and Fuji to the punch releasing this lens. You'd think Pentax would have busted their butts to deliver this lens for their APS-C DSLR's to have them stack up against FF DSLR's.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Apr 18, 2013)

mosc, this lens will eventually be available to close to 100% of DSLR market. And at that price and weight a few of them will buy it, say, 2%. Now, if Pentax released it for their own cameras only, it would be compatible with what, 3% of the market? And maybe 2-3% of that would buy it at the same price. The glass would simply not be a mass market product then, fixed cost would be divided by 30 times fewer buyers, i.e. fixed cost part in the price would be 30 times higher, i.e. the lens would cost more, i.e. it would be bought even less, i.e. fixed cost per lens sold would be even more etc etc until the couple million $$$ that is needed to develop and start producing the lens like this would have to be paid by a single guy. You?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Apr 18, 2013)

Ha, no peevee1. If I wanted a lens like this I'd buy a FF body and a 24-70 f2.8 ;)

1 upvote
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Apr 18, 2013)

^^ You still won't have the speed of f1.8. You can raise the ISO but that would result in more noise as well considering todays APS-C sensors are just about a stop behind FF bodies and a lot cheaper to boot.

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

The APS-C sensors are "behind" the FF in direct proportion to their area. It all cancels out. Problem is that f1.8 lenses are complex. Same weight at f2.8 FF gets you a wider zoom range (and I'm betting on better optical quality).

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Apr 18, 2013)

"Ha, no peevee1. If I wanted a lens like this I'd buy a FF body and a 24-70 f2.8 ;)"

See, even you would not buy this lens. So Pentax will be holding the lens and a couple M $ in losses. ;)

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Apr 18, 2013)

To be fair, Canon 24-70/2.8L is 950g. Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S is 900g. Canon L II is 805g, but $2200.

0 upvotes
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!

0 upvotes
cosmerodrigues
By cosmerodrigues (Apr 18, 2013)

WOOOW!!!!!!!!
We are in the middle of a crysis...ups...For some time, no money for that kind of (new and expensive) toys...

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (Apr 18, 2013)

The dpreview comments make it sound like this lens will act like an F2.8 lens for light gathering. It will act just like an F1.8 lens for light gathering.

27 upvotes
straylightrun
By straylightrun (Apr 18, 2013)

Well there's not much else FF shooters can complain about ;)

7 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Apr 18, 2013)

You use the word "Light Gathering" to mean the intensity of the light over a unit area. Which is wrong. That's the "light intensity". The "Light Gathering" is the total amount of light the entire lens brings in. In other words, it's a measure of the light intensity over the image circle. More intense over a smaller circle is equivalent to less intense over a larger circle.

2 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Apr 18, 2013)

Which means nothing when it comes to exposure. It is an f/1.8 lens for exposure, an f/2.8 lens for DOF.

8 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Apr 18, 2013)

Exposure depends on sensitivity, ISO. DSLR's have very flexible ISO's. In other words, you raise the ISO on the FF f2.8 lens and it matches the exposure on the crop f1.8 lens.

And because you raised the ISO, the image is slightly degraded by FF standards... to about APS-C standards. So you've taken a shot with a smaller aperture at a higher ISO with precisely the same exposure and depth of field and likely very similar quality. Hence the f1.8 crop = f2.8 FF equivalence.

3 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Apr 18, 2013)

We're not talking IQ, but exposure. If you've to increase the ISO on FF, you're trying to match the exposure rather than not having to do so (the idea behind equivalence... as in DOF).

1 upvote
SantaFeBill
By SantaFeBill (Apr 18, 2013)

You're quite right. An f/1.8 lens is an f/1.8 lens, whether it covers APS-C, FF, or MF. F-stop is a ratio between the focal length and the size of the maximum aperture opening. I'm most surprised DPR doesn't seem to understand that - and it makes me wonder about their reviews. ;-)

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Apr 18, 2013)

"We're not talking IQ, but exposure."

But DPR didn't talk about exposure. That's not what they meant by "light-gathering". We all know that F/1.8 on APS-C is equivalent to F/1.8 on FF in terms of exposure. But it's equivalent to F/2.7 on FF, if we talk about DoF, and also light-gathering ability (the total amount of light hitting the sensor as a whole, not light intensity/amount of light per unit area). The total amount of light gathered affects the signal-to-noise ratio and hence IQ.
So DPR perfectly well understands how it works, it's you who must learn to distinguish between exposure and light gathering.

1 upvote
D1N0
By D1N0 (Apr 20, 2013)

" The total amount of light gathered affects the signal-to-noise ratio and hence IQ."

That's just relative to pixel size. Pixels in a d800 gather less light than in a D4. Because there are more of them. There is no reason why you cannot make an aps-c dslr with the same pixel size as a Nikon D4. You would have less pixels and also less noise. Pixel size is a characteristic of a sensor, not of a lens. It will differ with different camera's with similar sensor sizes.

0 upvotes
Isit13
By Isit13 (Apr 18, 2013)

4 Aspherical and 5 SLD glass elements shows that it probably is'nt easy to design such a fast zoom.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 724
1234