Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Hands-on with the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM

By dpreview staff on Apr 22, 2013 at 10:45 GMT
Buy on GearShopFrom $799.00

Just posted: Our hands-on preview of the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art lens. The announcement of the world's first constant F1.8 zoom caused a lot of discussion, much of it centered around the idea that the brighter aperture would help APS-C DSLRs to compete toe-to-toe with full frame cameras in many respects. We've had a chance to handle the lens and prepare a preview putting its capabilities in more context. Click here to find out more.

185
I own it
439
I want it
20
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 92
RusVolley
By RusVolley (10 months ago)

Good designed.

0 upvotes
munro harrap
By munro harrap (Apr 25, 2013)

In practice it is very limited because there is no VR. A long lens for wide-angle use is always bad. You forget that length too easily. The 24-70 Canon and Nikon lenses for full-frame rack out to their longest length at their widest setting- as do the 28-85 Nikkor and other older designs, and this means you are HERE using in effect a non-stabilized 70-200 SIZE glass to achieve 27-55mm effect-your in-stability is increased .Regardless of its speed that you cannot use most of the time, that is an extraordinarily long barrel for a 27-55mm lens- a zoom length of precious little use anyway!!

Wait till they IS it!!

1 upvote
OttoVonChriek
By OttoVonChriek (Apr 27, 2013)

How strange.

When people talk about needing VR for long lenses I always thought they were talking about the focal length, not the physical length of the barrel.

In my ignorance, I thought things became critical with telephoto because a small movement of the camera means a large movement at the subject end!

I must of been confused, allthougth barrel length does not seem to bother me, I place my left hand under the lens.

2 upvotes
JorgeLima
By JorgeLima (Apr 29, 2013)

And I think you're right! Narrow field means more sensitivity to camera shake. There is even a rule used in that one should use at least 1/X shutter speed with a X mm focal distance lens (with 35mm film) when shooting hand held. Meaning that with 27mm one could easily shoot hand held at 1/30s. However, there is a point in the comment of munro harrap. The longer and heavier the lens is, the higher the chances and amplitude of the instability. Also in the digital era people are less forgiving to blurs caused by shake or defocus, even when we don't make big prints we can always zoom in and find tiniest of the flaws.

0 upvotes
HubertChen
By HubertChen (10 months ago)

@ munro harrap
Or wait for K-mount version and use the in-camera Image Stabilization :-)

@ Otto @ Jorge
I uses two very modern cameras ( K-30 and NEX-5 ). Side by side for some time. They have virtually the identical sensor and I used virtually identical lenses. ( Pentax lenses on the Sony with lens mount adapter).

Image stabilization is darn important to me!
I shoot mostly indoors ( family ) or at dusk or dawn outdoors, as the light is better than during the day. Having Image stabilization makes a huge difference. My preferred focal length is 35 mm.

I also agree that a longer heavy lens causes more camera shake than a shorter and lighter lens, both having the same focal length. Of course you are also correct that a longer focal length is increasing this sensitivity as well. Both is relevant ( lens weight and lens focal length ).

I am not sure I agree it is necessary to use cynicism in your reply.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (10 months ago)

Image stabilization really helps and the flip side of this argument is to say "at a wide angle setting, I don't need to hold the lens steady" which, at best is pretty sloppy. In low light, my 16-35VR is "sharper" with the VR on than with it off.

0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Apr 23, 2013)

One thing is for sure Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina are finally starting to step up and offer real competition and alternatives to Nikon/Canon in the lens department. With lenses like the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC Which is is so close to the Nikon/Canon versions optically that the differnce doesn't really matter unless your hobby/business is pixel peeping instead of photography and is the only stabilized lens of it's type including the new ridiculously priced canon 24-70. Not to mention it also seems to be built just as well as the Nikon/Canon versions and is fully weather sealed. Then there is the amazing sigma 35mm f/1.4 which many reviews are saying is the best 35mm available from any brand.

With more and more lenses this good being released by 3rd party manufactures at more reasonable prices it will be interesting to see how it plays out and if Nikon and Canon can keep their lens prices so high.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 24, 2013)

Good Sigma lenses aren't exactly inexpensive.

0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Apr 24, 2013)

No but they are still significantly cheaper than equal quality Nikon or Canon glass. Going by current Amazon prices the sigma 35mm 1.4 is $720 less than the Nikon equivalent making the Nikon almost twice the price and is $430 less than the Canon equivalent. The Sigma would be a bargain by comparison even if it wasn't considered the best in it's class by many which it is.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Ken Aisin
By Ken Aisin (Apr 30, 2013)

I'm all for more innovative designs and cheaper lenses from the 3rd party manufacturers. But they really need to step up on QA and QC. Especially Sigma. All the Sigma lenses that I have purchased require AF fine tune. I also had to return one copy of 35mm F1.4 because it de-centred severely. It's much cheaper than the Nikon version, but it is still not a cheap lens. Tokina seems to be the least problematic one with quality. But Tokina lenses need to be updated asap with ultrasonic motor and image stabilisation.

0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (11 months ago)

Many first party lenses need AF fine tune as well and remember that Sigma and other third party lenses typically are made for several different mounts and are basically hacking the AF algorithms to make the lens AF at all. It is also likely the third party manufactures have looser tolerances to aid in making their lens designs compatible with many different cameras/mounts.

So it is completely understandable and expected that a third party lens needs AF fine tune more often then a first party lens. It has nothing to do with QC/QA. The de-centering issue is a concern but the number of lenses that have them are very small.

Plus in the case of Tamron their lenses come with a six year warranty and by all accounts Tamron has excellent customer service if you ever have to use the warranty so QC issues are much less of a concern then they are even with Canon/Nikon lenses.

0 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Apr 23, 2013)

It looks longer and heavier than 28-70/2.8 FF lens. Did Sigma simply glue those 4 elements from SpeedBooster to the 28-70 lens and cut the long end due to vignetting?

2 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Apr 25, 2013)

exactly

0 upvotes
Larnus
By Larnus (Apr 25, 2013)

Designing a new lens takes more than a couple of weeks... This lens will have been planned for a year at least and the SB is what - 2 or 3mths in the wild?

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Chiemaiy
By Chiemaiy (Apr 23, 2013)

Nope, that's not the world's first constant f/1.8 zoom. Now excuse me while I go back to shooting with my Fujinon 18-85mm f/1.8 (T2.0).

4 upvotes
matt_nnn
By matt_nnn (Apr 23, 2013)

Let's hope the Sigma is cheaper than $87,300.00 ;-)

5 upvotes
flipmac
By flipmac (Apr 30, 2013)

I have a Canon 12.5-75/1.8 C-mount that cost me only $20. Yea it's all manual and vignettes even on m43. Still, this lens is far from being "the world's first constant F1.8 zoom". Anyway, good effort from Sigma and hopefully they make this for other brands (Pentax, Sony).

0 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (Apr 23, 2013)

If it is Nikon makes the 18-35 f1.8 today Nikon fans will be like "omg this is amazing! Nikon rules the world again!"

unfortunately it is Sigma makes the brilliance and some people just cannot take it..

18-35 range you need stablization? oh please~~~

5 upvotes
tom sugnet
By tom sugnet (Apr 23, 2013)

That's a 28-55 f/2.8 lens in FFeq terms (except for shutter speed/exposure)
For a cropper, this pricey lens would be acceptable if it had stabilization, which it doesn't.

0 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Apr 25, 2013)

no you even get the same shutter speed if not better on FF because full frames gives easily a stop more iso

0 upvotes
Anepo
By Anepo (Apr 27, 2013)

Im shooting 400mm with a manual focus lens ,handheld and no IS and i dont have ANY movement problems. So why should this lens require IS?

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
1 upvote
TheAlexMoore
By TheAlexMoore (Apr 23, 2013)

Yes... But....That's all very well. Except for the money. Better to invest in a proper 35mm style sensor 'full frame' camera now the prices have come down. A Nikon D600 body. at around $1500 is better value equipped with a standard Nikkor. even any one of the old analogue Nikkors.
- Alexxxx

0 upvotes
sportyaccordy
By sportyaccordy (Apr 23, 2013)

$1500 is good for a D600 if you can get it at that price.

0 upvotes
Anepo
By Anepo (Apr 27, 2013)

The problem is that in my country most cameras go for 50-100% more in stores (all cameras and lenses)

0 upvotes
wootpile
By wootpile (Apr 22, 2013)

Totally off-topic:
If that is how they shoot, I can tell which one gets sharper shots while the other has motion blur.. can you?

0 upvotes
agentul
By agentul (Apr 22, 2013)

i'm guessing the one on the right will have motion blur? also, the frame of his glasses covers the viewfinder. both guys seem to touch their glasses with their cameras, which looks weird to me - i try my best not to do that EVER.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 22, 2013)

count bone joints from support (the ground or the wall) the more you count, more shaky is the camera.

the guy on the right is not holding the camera right but elbow-on-the-wall gives him a huge advantage (if the guy on the left is not doing the same).

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Apr 22, 2013)

There's also a chance that I'm not actually trying to shoot, but trying to show the lens to the camera, which is a rather different requirement.

13 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 22, 2013)

it's advisable to try to use the palm near wrist to support first. the right guy is almost doing it right.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 22, 2013)

No, you really can't tell just by the photo. The reality is that it still depends on how steady your supporting hand is. A moment ago I was emulating both holding techniques shown in the photo, and I was getting absolutely no difference in camera shake. It just depends on what you're comfortable with and what works best for you. Not everyone is comfortable putting their palm (near the wrist) flat up against the body and lens because it puts the wrist at a sharper angle. And it doesn't necessarily result in more stability, especially if that wrist angle is less comfortable. Ultimately, the answer is that it depends on the person.

Maybe you just drink too much caffeine!!

BTW, an electronically/mechanically stabilized lens will still usually give you a bigger advantage than most "human" efforts of stabilization!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Apr 22, 2013)

The one on the left gets sharper shots, as his lens is stabilised.

Next question?

3 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Apr 22, 2013)

Andy, too bad they didn't make an a-mount version of this sigma yet lol!

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 22, 2013)

I cannot see the VC switch.
I see there may be no blurred shot if there was no shot.

btw, viberation tests need statistics on large data (that I don't have either). also untrained individuals may not give reliable result (think of a test on baseball techniques) that you need even larger samples to get same quality result.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (Apr 22, 2013)

this is a backup camera segement game changer for wedding photographers....f1.8~~~ i would rather use ISO3200 than ISO12800+

go sigma!

2 upvotes
photog4u
By photog4u (Apr 22, 2013)

What a boat anchor! I would no sooner lug that mess around as I would an anvil.

Gorgeous models though...

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 22, 2013)

An anvil won't get you photos at f/1.8.

6 upvotes
Redteg94
By Redteg94 (Apr 22, 2013)

It's 800 grams; a lot for a standard zoom I guess, but hardly an issue for most (I'm 5'6" and 125lbs soaking wet), especially if you're used to lugging around a 70-200 all day.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Apr 23, 2013)

It's still slightly smaller than many 24-70mm f2.8s

2 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (Apr 23, 2013)

Stick with a lightweight 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens if that is what you like.

2 upvotes
PK24X36NOW
By PK24X36NOW (Apr 22, 2013)

This lens won't change anything, it will simply reveal just how much size, weight and cost (as in, it won't be worth it) you'll have to bear for APS-C to be on a similar DOF and noise level as FF (ignoring other issues). It changes nothing because it's much too narrow a range of focal lengths, and the cost (especially when you consider the cost of the extra lenses you'll need to cover the rest of a FF 24-70 lens' range) will make APS-C users puke. This is Sigma's new, "high QC" line, for which the price tag is much higher than their old lenses.

The 120-300 OS price tag went up by $1,000 (STREET prices) when it went through the transition to the new "C/A/S" "dock compatible" version, with the same optical design from all appearances. If you think this lens will be close in price to their previous APS-C zooms, you're in for a rude awakening.

Comment edited 52 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 22, 2013)

it's not our business what price Sigma want to set.
but we can discuss how much it could worth for us.

to me it may be one or two Franklins under Cleveland,
because it doesn't provide much added value
(it is a leap forward in the APS-C world).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Apr 23, 2013)

> This lens won't change anything, it will simply reveal just how much size, weight and cost (as in, it won't be worth it) you'll have to bear for APS-C to be on a similar DOF and noise level as FF

Except if you don't need 100% of the FoV coverage of a 24-70 f2.8 this lens is slightly smaller and lighter than those lenses, and given that you can get APS bodies smaller and ligher than FF bodies where exactly is this "size and weight" that APS users must bear?

0 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Apr 22, 2013)

Thanks DPR for continuing to try and explain total light to people. Also seems like there will be more to this when you get a real copy, specifically focusing on comparing it to f2.8 FF which I am really looking forward to.

FF sensors take in more light but this lens promises to level that. APS-C has some real advantages to it in terms of sensitivity per unit area. Coupled with equivalent light from the faster aperture, it might even give noticeably lower noise than equivalent exposure time shot on FF f2.8.

I'd also ask you push it in low light trying to show exactly how low you can go with both setups where ISO of each camera is free to roam.

3 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Apr 22, 2013)

How low you can go ideas:
Use a tiny checkerboard black and white in a studio setting with controllable light. Put both cameras at the same distance and hold exposure time to something reasonable (1/60s or somesuch). ISO's can be adjusted as high as you can still get away with distinguishing the squares. Reduce light until one of them gets too noisy to tell where the checker lines are.

0 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (Apr 22, 2013)

Everyone need to remember in regards to size. It has internal zooming.

14 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Apr 22, 2013)

It's kind of clear their focus was on ignoring weight and size with this thing despite it being APS-C. It's focus is on delivering pro performance to APS-C with pro weight/size as a non-restriction.

3 upvotes
moizes 2
By moizes 2 (Apr 22, 2013)

New Sig 55-58/1.2 OS, new 135/1.8 OS, that is what I need today... Canikon missed the target, again...

1 upvote
Abhijith Kannankavil
By Abhijith Kannankavil (Apr 22, 2013)

i really love the way sigma is heating up the market. Others need to come up with better stuff to keep up at those higher prices they sell (canon and nik)

15 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Apr 22, 2013)

We won't know anything until there is a price and some information on how sharp this thing is wide open across it's range. If it's soft at f2.8 and costs $2000, it's not going to change much. If it's sharp throughout wide open and costs $800, it'll change camera purchases single-handedly for years.

3 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Apr 22, 2013)

Pricing is still a mystery but judging from the MTF charts this has decent center sharpness but borders will be soft unless stopped down.

If this is $2000 then sales for sure will be low as no one would wish to pay so many $$$ for a lens that will be useless (for Canon users at least) when they upgrade to FF.

Even Nikon users wouldn't really want to buy a FF body and use it in crop mode so at $2000 it makes little sense. Lets hope Sigma prices it properly.

3 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Apr 22, 2013)

These comments are encouraging. I thought people wanted this lens like this so badly, they didn't care if it was soft.

3 upvotes
pyrula1
By pyrula1 (Apr 22, 2013)

if they make a rummored 135/1.8 for FF (at the same IQ level as 35/1.4) I'll sell them my soul :)

2 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Apr 22, 2013)

especially for nikon witch you have to buy a lens from the film era to in this class from nikkor

2 upvotes
Emopunk
By Emopunk (Apr 22, 2013)

Why no A-mount Sigma, why? We really would love the last two aps-c lenses you made, too; the other one being the update 30mm 1.4.

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Apr 22, 2013)

i think sigma does some surveys before building a mount to justify their spendings .. they must have realized their are not many serious photographers in A-mount for art lenses...

There must be some (including yourself mate), but not as many as other two brands!!

3 upvotes
Matthew Miller
By Matthew Miller (Apr 22, 2013)

Yeah, no Pentax K mount either. They're aiming at the big two brands because that's where the money is.

And of course their own mount, because, hey.

1 upvote
mosc
By mosc (Apr 22, 2013)

Naveed you're crazy. This lens isn't stabilized. That makes it better suited for Sony and Pentax than Canon and Nikon even. Sony sold a lot of SLT's in recent years. I think the odds of this NOT coming out for A-mount are slim to none. In fact, I would wager that the A-mount might outsell the Nikon mount eventually.

1 upvote
Josh152
By Josh152 (Apr 23, 2013)

@mosc

You missed the point. Most, by a very large margin, people who are serious enough about photography to buy a lens this big, heavy, and expensive are shooting Canon and Nikon. Sigma probably simply decided they would not sell enough of them to justify this lens in the A mount. At least at first. They may very well make them for A mount once the sales of the Canon and Nikon mount versions slow down some.

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Apr 22, 2013)

I wish if my lovely m43 companies will also get this courageous and offer f1.8 for their smaller sensors!
Bravo Sigmaaa!!!

2 upvotes
agentul
By agentul (Apr 22, 2013)

i'm afraid of what that kind lens will look cost. look at the Panasonic f2.8 zooms.

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 22, 2013)

the brothers Oly and Panny may well planning a bombing of Sigma, who is threatening their profit.

0 upvotes
LJ - Eljot
By LJ - Eljot (Apr 23, 2013)

Olympus makes the 14-35mm F2.0. I can tell you this lens is realy big and heavy. I mean, realy. Last time I checked it was about 2200€.

0 upvotes
moimoi
By moimoi (Apr 22, 2013)

18 is not wide enough on APS-C. But Sigma is clearly putting an interesting new set of lenses.

3 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Apr 22, 2013)

it still can replace your 28mm, 35mm and 50mm lenses!
and even bit wider and farther!!

all I care to know now .. how sharp it is!!

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 22, 2013)

moimoi:

Um, so a 27mm full frame F1.8 lens isn't a good idea? And even exceptional?

Naveed Akhtar:

All well and good, but colour quality matters in addition to sharpness, Nikon is very able to do sharp lenses, but colour suffers, even in the "ED" ones. Yes, I know that good new Sigma lenses have a better reputation than Nikons.

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 22, 2013)

You're probably one of those people who wants a 14-100 f/1.8 zoom. LOL. Well, considering that this lens is the only f/1.8 zoom available (!), it's amazing that there are people who still complain. If you can find a wider and broader-range f/1.8 zoom, then buy it. In the meantime, I'm pretty sure there will be plenty of people who will manage with this lens.

I can understand people saying that 28mm is "not wide enough on APS-C", but 18mm on APS-C is equivalent to 28mm on FF, which has been sufficiently wide for FF zooms for quite some time.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
moimoi
By moimoi (Apr 22, 2013)

@T3: certainly not. I have two zoom lenses 24-70 and 80-200 and a 35mm f/1.4. The f/1.8 is actually equivalent to f/2.7 on a full frame. If you want real f/1.8 on APS-C, you will need f/0.9.

2 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 22, 2013)

@moimoi - While "f/1.8 is actually equivalent to f/2.7 on a full frame" in terms of DOF, this f/1.8 zoom will still put more light onto the sensor than an f/2.8 FF zoom. So you still get an advantage in light speed.

3 upvotes
moimoi
By moimoi (Apr 22, 2013)

@T3: that's certainly true. I appreciate Sigma's effort to move forward.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 22, 2013)

moimoi--

It aint simply Sigma moving Sigma forward; assuming this lens is a good one, this lens moves all APSC DSLR lens forward. There aren't a lot of 18mm F1.8 lenses out there. (Or too many 27mm 1.8 lenses for 35mm slrs.)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 36 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Jerry Ci
By Jerry Ci (Apr 22, 2013)

APS-C 18-35mm actually works for Nikon (FF equiv. 27-52.5mm. OTOH, it doesn't work for Canon, where the FF equiv. is 29-55mm. The wide angle difference between FF 27mm and FF 29mm is significant for the majority of shooters. I would buy a 27-52.5mm/1.8, but NOT a 29-55mm/1.8.

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 22, 2013)

Jerry Ci:

What's the rule for Pentax and Sony dslrs? I see Canon is 1.6X, at least for the 7D.

A 29mm F/1.8 lens is still a big deal if it's good optically.

DPReview needs to effing fix its log in system.

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Redteg94
By Redteg94 (Apr 22, 2013)

I shoot a 24/1.4 on APS-C 90% of the time (as close to 35/2 on 35mm as possible); a lens like this will significantly increase flexibility of framing while more or less maintaining the DOF and low-light performance that my pricey prime gives. I've been planning on going FF for a while now, but this may (again) delay the move. I'm at least going to consider it.

0 upvotes
TWIZEEL
By TWIZEEL (Apr 23, 2013)

..I can understand people saying that 28mm is "not wide enough ...
You dont need it if you buying lenses just for fun but for job 12 (18 full frame) is essential

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
NetMage
By NetMage (Apr 23, 2013)

While I think that should have been "you will need an f/1.2", the other point is still correct.

On a FF camera, raising the ISO one stop over the APS-C camera will give an f/2.8 the same shutter speed, the same DOF and the same noise level as this lens at f/1.8.

IOW, it's not just DOF but also IQ that is equivalent with an f/2.8 on FF versus an f/1.8 on APS-C, as the preview article makes clear.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 23, 2013)

TWIZEEL:

Of course some have a need for something wide, like 18mm on a APSC sensored dslr.

But one of the real motivations for buying this Sigma zoom, assuming it's a good lens, is the F1.8 throughout the range.

Are there many ff F1.8 12mm lenses available?

0 upvotes
TWIZEEL
By TWIZEEL (Apr 22, 2013)

could be better if 12 - 24 or 35 - 70

1 upvote
BorisAkunin
By BorisAkunin (Apr 22, 2013)

While we're making wish lists:

14-28 f/2.0 (FF-equiv.: 21-43 or 22-45 [Canon])
28-55 f/1.7 (FF-equiv.: 43-84 or 45-88 [Canon])

For me 28-30mm is the perfect transition point on crop sensors, am I really alone there?

1 upvote
ceaiu
By ceaiu (Apr 22, 2013)

Maybe they will add a 35-70mm and that range will be very well covered (for APS-C):
- 17-70mm f/2.8-4 light, versatile and affordable (travel)
- 30mm f/1.4 light, super fast and affordable (indoor)
- 18-35mm f/1.8 (walk around) + 35-70mm f/1.8 (portraits) not so light but manageable, fast, not so cheap but still competitive compared with Canikon
- I don’t see 17-50mm f/2.8 (or 50-150mm f/2.8) being re-released with options above though
Really nice lineup coming from a 3rd party producer.

0 upvotes
Jan Kritzinger
By Jan Kritzinger (Apr 22, 2013)

Nope, this is the sweet spot.

0 upvotes
TWIZEEL
By TWIZEEL (Apr 23, 2013)

I dont need "sweet spot" I want to do my job as good as I can. In nearly of 40 years to be photographer I use wide angle and next step is portrait angle, in most of my shoots. Even for landscapes.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Apr 22, 2013)

The nickname of the lens is rumored to be "Go Round".

It will be sold at HALF PRICE when bought with a Sigma DSLR camera.

The kit will be called:

"Merrill Go Round".

.

14 upvotes
AshMills
By AshMills (Apr 22, 2013)

That's terrible. Sorry.

13 upvotes
balios
By balios (Apr 22, 2013)

Ba-dum ching!

4 upvotes
Photato
By Photato (Apr 22, 2013)

Game Changer potential.

6 upvotes
pc168
By pc168 (Apr 22, 2013)

Sigma is pretty impressive, though it's not my cup of tea. I need FF lens :)

5 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 22, 2013)

Sigma also makes full frame lenses, just not this one.

Just imagine how expensive and heavy a F1.8 25mm-50mm lens for a 35mm camera would be.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
JWest
By JWest (Apr 22, 2013)

Mmmmm... Shh now! I'm busy imagining.

2 upvotes
Anepo
By Anepo (Apr 27, 2013)

Oh well a full frame lens would still be smaller than the sigma 200-500 lol!

0 upvotes
SunnyFlorida
By SunnyFlorida (Apr 22, 2013)

Sigma is really cranking out quality, value and fun!

8 upvotes
William Koehler
By William Koehler (Apr 22, 2013)

It's hard to say anything about value until the price is known.

3 upvotes
SunnyFlorida
By SunnyFlorida (Apr 22, 2013)

Sigma I love you!

7 upvotes
Total comments: 92