Previous news story    Next news story

Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM preview updated with lens test data

By dpreview staff on Jul 16, 2013 at 15:06 GMT

We've just updated our preview of the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM with lens test data, courtesy of DxOMark. This lens has generated a lot of excitement as the fastest zoom ever made for SLRs, but the big question is whether its speed comes at the cost of optical quality. We've looked into this by comparing the 18-35mm to some current benchmark designs - and the results may surprise you. Click through to read all about it.

Comments

Total comments: 101
appelpix1
By appelpix1 (9 months ago)

How many of you are now thinking like me: No full frame, staying with APS-C thanks to this lens!?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

this lens doesn't change the fact that it's more difficult and costly to make lenses for APS-C SLRs than 35mm format.

0 upvotes
David Naylor
By David Naylor (9 months ago)

Is that a fact? How come then that this lens is a third the price of a Canon 24-70 f/2.8? Does the focal length range explain the price difference really?

1 upvote
John Summers
By John Summers (9 months ago)

Very likely I will be with APS-C, NEX-7, Sigma 180mm f/2.8 macro, Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 DC HMS a LA-EA2 adaptor and a cabinet full of legacy Konica lens for the next 12-15 years.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

the glass in Speed Booster isn't very good to my standard, but if
they can make a good one APS-C SLR lens -> m4/3" body,
this Sigma will work as 14-27mm f/1.4 zoom on m4/3".

and there is possibility that this Sigma at 25mm will beat the hell
out of Leica the Wanca (depending on good work of Speed Booster).

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
role_of_72
By role_of_72 (9 months ago)

I'm thinking of astrophotography: imagine this lens on a Pentax K-5 with an O-GPS1 unit..!

Hmm.. I have plans now.. :)

0 upvotes
imsabbel
By imsabbel (9 months ago)

Does ANY review site test for coma? Cause there is no point to sharpness if all your stars become funky shapes...

0 upvotes
role_of_72
By role_of_72 (9 months ago)

Yep: lenstip.com. They call it 'medium'.

http://www.lenstip.com/374.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_18-35_mm_f_1.8_DC_HSM__Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

Anyway, for me a bit of coma is better some ultra-short unintended star trails.

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (9 months ago)

Next step - is to make it 24-70 FF equivalent and reduce weight a bit.
0.8 kg (Tamron 24-70 VC) is too much even on my FF.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mrmut
By mrmut (9 months ago)

From what I see, this might be a truly beautiful lens. I suppose it can be directly compared with Olympus stellar 14-35mm F2.0.

This lens looks so promising, that I personally am thinking about changing the system to be able to use it.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

the crop factor between 4/3" and APS-C is about 1.28. thus
14-35/2 works as a 18-45/2.6 zoom on APS-C, which has a longer zoom range and one stop smaller aperture than 18-35/1.8.

though this lens is unbelievably good, it does not change the fact APS-C SLRs perform far worse than 35mm formats, and this lens is not for those who don't already have APS-C SLRs.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Juck
By Juck (9 months ago)

>> APS-C SLRs perform far worse than 35mm formats,

Stupid statement. That's like me saying 'All Asian guys have small penises'.

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Nukunukoo
By Nukunukoo (9 months ago)

Definitely my next lens... just wished if had OIS.

0 upvotes
King Penguin
By King Penguin (9 months ago)

OIS? Stabilisers on a bicycle mate.......

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

this is a great lens without IS.

it will be greater with IS of good quality, no worse optical performance, no worse durability or shorter term between services, and no significantly higher cost.

0 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (9 months ago)

You don't need IS much on these focal lengths.
For people/event photograph exposure times must be at least 1/30sec, better 1/50sec. So you can shoot this lens handheld. For landscapes you do need a tripod anyway.

Also f/1.8 will give you a lot freedom.

2 upvotes
imsabbel
By imsabbel (9 months ago)

I actually agree. IS would allow you to pushi exposure times up to 1/10s or longer, but then you will get motion blur with most subjects...

The only thing I WOULD use longer exposure times is night photography (widefield astro), and then the camera is on a good tripod anyway...

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Marvol
By Marvol (9 months ago)

It does if you're on Sony or Pentax.

It has advantages not to be tied in to one of the Big Two ;)

3 upvotes
itsanewdawn
By itsanewdawn (8 months ago)

""14-35/2 works as a 18-45/2.6 zoom on APS-C, which has a longer zoom range and one stop smaller aperture than 18-35/1.8.""

A One stop advantage is significant given the fact that the best APS sensors { D7100/D5200}Already outperform even the best mFT sized sensor putting this lens into perspective you would need an mFT /FT 13.5mm- 26.25mm F1.2 lens !

0 upvotes
KL Matt
By KL Matt (9 months ago)

The main problem I've had with Sigma lenses in the past is the warm color. I would like to see DPReview report the transmission of the lens as a graph displaying the transmission at various wavelengths, much like lenstip does. This way we can gain some insight into the quality of the lens coatings not only with respect to total transmission but also regarding the type of color response. I'm not seeing the odd color response I've come to know from this company in the past in the samples, but I'd very much like to see the curve to know what I'm getting re color for this and other lenses. Especially since WB correction etc. can make these things difficult to assess on my own.

1 upvote
Rich Pix
By Rich Pix (9 months ago)

Since this new Sigma lens seems to be a Gamechanger, but has no IS (image stabiliser), do any of the lenses mentioned in the comparative study have image or optic stabilisation ?

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (9 months ago)

If you read it, you can find out.

6 upvotes
John Siward
By John Siward (9 months ago)

But that would take like, effort, man...

10 upvotes
Gary Martin
By Gary Martin (9 months ago)

Impressive lens, but I wonder how resistant it is to flare. My previous experience with Sigma lenses has been problematic in that regard.

0 upvotes
davidgp
By davidgp (9 months ago)

Not very well, unfortunately. Flare is the one area in which it gets dinged in the Lenstip review.

But that won't stop me from buying it.

1 upvote
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (9 months ago)

Same here, my 17-50 f/2.8 fails miserably re flare in very mild conditions, like a side window, ofr example. And the flare is ugly, with greenish hue that really destroys an image. If this lens does the same, I'm out, no matter how nice it may be in other areas. I tend to go with the old Nikkor 18-70, still the best APS-C kit lens Nikon have ever made.

0 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (9 months ago)

Tested this lens about 3 weeks ago. It has a positive feel, handles and balance well, focus fast but its main weakness is it does not handle flare well. Flare would arise if you aim it at a strong light source but that's usually a problem with large aperture lenses with a lot of elements.

This lens is best used in low light condition where its large aperture is its asset.

If flare is a likely outcome in the scene, its best to use a prime lens like those from Zeiss. The Zeiss lenses also has the famous T* coating which helps to prevent flare. Almost all those who have use it love its performance.

0 upvotes
Jun2
By Jun2 (9 months ago)

T stop equals to F stop, very little light loss.

0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (9 months ago)

When T-stop equals F-stops it usually means that lens is faster than marketed. About 0.3 faster usually (best f2.8 FF zooms reach usually somewhere around T3).

0 upvotes
Jun2
By Jun2 (9 months ago)

If that's true, I have no problem with it.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (9 months ago)

Yeah, I think they could have marketed this as an f1.5 or 1.6 and gotten away with it. Even pro-priced f1.4 primes generally have T1.6, which means a 1/3 stop of light loss.

0 upvotes
Ruy Penalva
By Ruy Penalva (9 months ago)

What about its video capability?

1 upvote
Halogram One
By Halogram One (9 months ago)

Dear Sigma,

Please provide the E-Mount version!

3 upvotes
Carlos Echenique
By Carlos Echenique (9 months ago)

And X-mount too!

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

it'll be huge waste to make E- or X-mount versions of this lens because bloody efforts to handle the 70mm equivalent back-focus of APS-C SLRs (it's 28mm for APS-C mirrorless mounts excluding Samsung NX).

we deserve much better and even cheaper lenses for Sony E-, Fuji X-, and Canon EF-M mounts, especially if they start from 28mm equiv. (it's a puzzle why these mounts don't come with 24mm equiv. or 15-16mm flange-back).

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (9 months ago)

Just get a Sony slt along with your nex. This lens will never be made for short flange systems. 800 grams on a puny nex is hell to hold anyway.

2 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (9 months ago)

This plus IBIS = yum.

Transmission scores are also unusually close to indicated F stops, which means that in practise, noise/exposure benefits over smaller aperture lenses can be even greater than the differences in apertures and/or exposure times suggest.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (9 months ago)

Yes, you'll probably be getting the same shutter speeds at f1.8 as someone using a typical f1.4 prime set to f1.6.

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (9 months ago)

Is it possible for DPreview to add field curvature and focus shift to lens testing? Maybe only for prime lenses, too much work for zooms.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

field curvature might be expressed like tv distortion (%)
and percentage for focus shift, too?
both as function of distance (in unit of equiv. focal length)?

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

basically we need data for 20x-25x focal length (FF equiv.)
or against a fixed target size of up to 24x36 inch,
the standard object field for portraiture breast enlargement,

in practice, just do AF, hold and lean forward or backward
for focus shift, field curvature, and micro AF adjustment,
why we should split feet forward and backward.

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
HenryKyla
By HenryKyla (9 months ago)

Very interesting and high quality lens. Waiting now next one – 35-70 mm 1,8 or 35-100 mm 1,8:)

0 upvotes
DDWD10
By DDWD10 (9 months ago)

We need more modern lens designs on the market like this one. Hopefully a sign of things to come.

14 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (9 months ago)

Fast, High IQ lens. Great addition for a wedding and event shooter.

The aperture will aid in low light focus and sharpness PLUS the slight advantage in more DOF in APS-C means that there will be more keepers.
A very important lens for anyone wanting low light capabilities. The IQ justifies the price.
More sharp pictures to show the client/spouse. What is not to like?

4 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (9 months ago)

You should try one before buying it for weddings/events, where backlight spots are common. The Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 shows very ugly greenish flare in very mild situtations like diagonal side window lighting.

0 upvotes
dave gaines
By dave gaines (9 months ago)

There's no comparison to those outstanding lenses mentioned in the review, the Olympus 14-35 mm f/2 or the longer 35-100 mm f/2. Literally no comparsion to the Olympus 14-35 or 35-100, partially because DxO Mark has not tested these two very sharp, fast lenses from Olympus, one in nearly the same mid-range zoom, 28-70 mm EFL.
What's up DxO Mark? Test these two lenses. There's a new, improved Olympus DSLR on the way by year's end.

4 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

> Olympus 14-35 mm f/2 or the longer 35-100 mm f/2.
neither good lens even at one stop smaller aperture.
image quality no good (maybe so-so),
auto-focus no good.
fair enough they were designed for a badly designed mount. a good thing for everyone that we can leave 4/3" SLR behind us. no more wast of time, waste of effort.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
olypan
By olypan (9 months ago)

Your comment will be referenced by the psychiatric profession as a definition of psychosis.

5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

Olympus were still figuring out modern lens design and it was not until 2007 that they came out with an answer the 12-60/2.8-4.0. but things became obvious at the time that 4/3" was a dead-end, a worse design than happen-to-be APS-C SLRs. they had to follow Panasonic to m4/3" and made good success. but still m4/3" is not a well thought design either though it's a great first to market.

0 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (9 months ago)

Whether you like them or not the lenses you reference are not available for APS-C and are woefully slow on m4/3. The new SLR you are hoping for is unlikely to be 4/3 but an updated m4/3. Oh, the price is sure to upset the penny pinchers in these parts.

2 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (9 months ago)

4/3 had the great design, I would say near perfection as far as the system. Main issue was high iso quality. For a few years, the only way to get image quality was large sensor. If you put a larger version of the RX100 sensor on the E-5...it would be one of the best cameras on the market.

4 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

they better move on to NEX E-mount,
a better design, easier to make good lenses.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

> high iso quality

not a problem if they have large aperture lenses.
lack of which is the biggest problem for 4/3".

actually low iso quality is a problem on the camera side.
because iso 100 is 400 equiv. (in image quality).
4/3" can never get better image even in good light.
not until someone make a sensor starting from iso 25.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
dave gaines
By dave gaines (9 months ago)

These two lenses shine on the E-5. If you want to know how good 4/3 can get look at the E-P5 or OM-D E-M5 with Olympus's current best sensor. This is the same size sensor and could be put in a 4/3 DSLR today. The Olympus f/2 lenses are even better on these m4/3 cameras due to the improved sensor, but they are slow to focus on the sensor with CDAF. Sensors and bodies keep improving. There will be an upgrade to the E-5 with the latest greatest sensor. No, it won't be another m4/3 OM-D or E-Px and a lens adapter but a DSLR with a new sensor, an OVF and 4/3 mount. Add Olympus's lenses to that and you've got a winning system that will easily compete with any APS-C body and lens.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

they are slow to focus on E-3, bad experience.
the peripheral qualities are good at open.
a good thing at higher than "normal" cost.
e.g., 24-70/4LIS weighs 600g and it's 900g for 14-35/2.

0 upvotes
dave gaines
By dave gaines (9 months ago)

Obe Wan yabokkie,
I had the E-3 before the E-5 and these lenses focus plenty fast. Faster than most photog's can react. Focus is a function of the camera more than the lens. I'm sure they focus faster than you can in manual focus mode.
You're comparing the size and weight of a Canon f/4 lens to an Olympus f/2 lens. The 24-70 f/2.8L costs $2300, is one stop slower, is larger in diameter and weighs 810 grams. The Sigma review is about an APS-C lens. A better comparison might be the Canon 16-35 mm f/2.8 L II USM with the same diameter as the 24-70 at $1700. None of these 3 Canon lenses have OIS. All Olympus lenses have IBIS.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

sorry I don't know E-5.

> You're comparing the size and weight of a Canon f/4 lens to an Olympus f/2 lens.

28-70/2.8 (old versions from Canon and Nikon) can gather one stop more light than 14-35/2 and you can see this in the output image in one stop better SNR (shot noise) or +3dB at open and same shutter speed. the difference may not be exactly 3dB but that error comes mostly from sensor.

14-35/2 can do same as, better at corners than, 24-70/4
35-100/2 can do same as, worse resolution than, 70-200/4
neither of them AF well compared with Canon/Nikon lenses.

70-200/4 worths less than a grand, 24-70/4 should be cheaper, maybe about the same with IS. I'd like to value 14-35/2 more than 24-70/4 for quality at corners, then adjust it down for narrower zoom range (24mm and 28mm are very different). 35-100/2 should worth no more than 70-200/4. there is nothing more we can expect to get out from the lens.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mytake
By mytake (9 months ago)

Thank you, "dave gaines".
Yabokkie, never met an Olympus camera/lens that he didn't want to toss. The best thing you'd get out of him is "I could not fit as many in the trash can, as I would have liked".

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

whatever you say 4/3" is thrown into Olympus' own toilet.

0 upvotes
ptox
By ptox (9 months ago)

Yaboooooooorring.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (9 months ago)

"What's up DxO Mark? Test these two lenses. There's a new, improved Olympus DSLR on the way by year's end."

When (if) it arrives, it would make sense to test them. No point on a 3 y/o E-5.

0 upvotes
scrup
By scrup (9 months ago)

Good job Sigma. Competition is good for consumers. Now just reduce the price a little more to put some real pressure on Canikon.

0 upvotes
Impulses
By Impulses (9 months ago)

Hah, the price is already putting quite a bit of pressure on their 2.8 zooms and even some of the primes, what more do you want? When the preview first came out the guesses for the price were all over the place, if you look at the comments you'll see everything from <$1,000 to $2,000... I think few guessed it'd be as low as $800 tho (US). Even DPReview didn't seem to expect a sub-$1K price!

7 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

I did.
it's not very difficult to calculate "reasonable" price of a lens within +/-20% error range. just convert the spec to 35mm format equivelant and compare against similar lenses. though Sigma have all the rights to choose an "unreasonable" price.

0 upvotes
Impulses
By Impulses (9 months ago)

That's fine, but you can't argue that the market would easily bear a higher price (and it'd still be reasonable, at $800 it's a strong value). For a lot of buyers the comparison to FF lenses or even the cost to manufacture is irrelevant (nevermind R&D), ultimately it's all about what it directly competes with (primes and 2.8 zooms) and what the market's willing to pay. Sigma probably developed and built it from the start to hit a <$1K price point anyway.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

it's is relevant in that anyone can freely choose full-frame and enjoy far higher image quality and at the same time save money. though I do know there are many overthere who are trapped behind the bars of their lack of knowledge.

this is no good thing. it's against efficiency, better use of resources for the society as a whole.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Dimit
By Dimit (9 months ago)

Reduce the price??? It's already a steel !! I bet it won't be reduced for the next 10 years...

0 upvotes
NetMage
By NetMage (9 months ago)

Explain how FF saves money over this lens - it obviously doesn't for an existing APS-C owner, so for a new owner???

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (9 months ago)

Now we know why it is so big.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

don't know the volume but for the weight,
Nikon 28-70/2.8D: 935g
Canon 28-70/2.8L: 880g
Sigma 18-35/1.8: 810g (heavier for narrower range?)

0 upvotes
Philip Goh
By Philip Goh (9 months ago)

The range is narrower, but you're getting an additional 1+ stop of light.

6 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

same light through the same aperture at same angle of view.
f-number is irrelevant. nothing same at the same f-number.

1 upvote
Impulses
By Impulses (9 months ago)

He was probably alluding to the length, tho it can replace a couple of lenses so it's all relative.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (9 months ago)

I just meant they compromised on size instead of optics, vignetting, etc.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

the size/weight are quite reasonable inline with comparable lenses. vignetting and other peripheral issues are handled by aspherical elements at the cost of onion rings.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (9 months ago)

There are no comparable lenses.

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

> There are no comparable lenses.

that's one kind of bars people stay behind.

0 upvotes
imsabbel
By imsabbel (9 months ago)

Wow. Surprised.

At 18mm, it has peak sharpness even wide open, nearly no gain for stopping down. Even at longer focal length its still good.

Which makes sense: If you buy that lens, then because you WANT to use it wide open.

Also, surprised that the vignetting is so low: Less than a stop including the corners at 18mm, and just barely 1 stop at 35mm in the extreme corners. Thats damn good for a F/1.8 lens, nevertheless a zoom, even if its only APS-C.

I wonder how it would look on FF with that kind of modest fall-off.

6 upvotes
Rocket09
By Rocket09 (9 months ago)

I was thinking the same thing,1.2 crop on the D800 might be still quite usable

0 upvotes
tomservo33
By tomservo33 (9 months ago)

Well, the numbers are very impressive, especially at the wide end, and much more afforadable than the Canon in the same range. I feel this would be a great lens for me for indoor use, some street, and landscapes as well, with the deep resolution and (probably) nice bg. blur. Well, Tokina, it is your turn to impress, and it has been a while boys!

3 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (9 months ago)

I guess I don't see the point of this lens anymore, now that ISO performance is at least 1.33 stops better than it was when I first bought my 17-55/2.8. I'll keep the extra 20mm (30mm) of reach, thanks.

And don't say DOF control. The DOF of a 35mm lens at f/1.8 is pretty deep unless you are right on top of your subject. Certainly not enough shallower than f/2.8 to warrant giving up the range.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

30mm more of reach at the cost of 1.3 stops of light (and we should count the poor performance of 17-55/2.8 zooms from both Canon and Nikon).

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (9 months ago)

I already addressed the 1.33 stops. Only a bench-racing pixel-peeping non-owner/non-user would ever call the performance of the 17-55/2.8s "poor".

Keep waiting for your "perfect" lens/camera. I'll be taking photos.

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

no perfect lens but far better ones than 17-55/2.8s (s for shame).

1 upvote
mosc
By mosc (9 months ago)

I half agree with JackM and half don't. I agree for most situations the 17-55 2.8s are very much the same. I disagree on two areas:
1) If I was in the market, why would I even consider Nikon and Canon's offerings now?
2) Low light APS-C, this lens is unmatched. A few primes in this range but for indoor general use, it's very flexible.

1 upvote
imsabbel
By imsabbel (9 months ago)

Don't see it as a zoom.

Think of it as three lenses: A 18/f1.8, a 24/1.8 and a 35/1.8, each of them as good, if not better, than the compareable canon primes, in one package, for less than one of the primes.

11 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (9 months ago)

You could make that same argument to end up with a 15-85, too.

"Cameras are so good now, that f3.5-5.6 is just as good as f2.8 5 years ago. I'll keep my extra 50% more zoom and 15% wide angle, thanks"

If you need the stops of aperture, you need them.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

both Canon and Nikon 17-55/2.8s are of poor quality because it's more difficult to make standard zooms for APS-C SLRs and none of the companies were good enough at asph lenses as Sigma is now.

especially Nikon, almost all of their lenses were of poor quality before 2007 when they made a great leap forward. Canon users could choose 24-70/2.8 or older 28-70/2.8 or Tamron 28-75/2.8 on full-frame or APS-H so less people cared the low quality of 17-55/2.8IS.

@imsabbel,
it could be a 28/1.8 and 35/1.8 on full-frame.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (9 months ago)

@mosc: 1) because you can use a 17-55 as a portrait lens. An 18-35, not so much.

@imsabbel: IQ is not the only reason to shoot with a prime. There are also benefits for handling, portability, discretion, and the fact that the lens does not zoom.

0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (9 months ago)

@tkbslc: that's quite a stretch.

@yabokkie: you are a nut job.

1 upvote
Lanski
By Lanski (9 months ago)

I'm sorry but the OP just doesn't make any sense. I know sensor technology has improved, but you can use this lens on a new sensor too, regaining the 1.33 stop advantage. Sensor tech is irrelevant here as we're comparing lenses, not sensors. There are always users that can gain from using higher shutter speeds or lower ISOs.

the 17-55 is a good lens and offers IS and a longer range. This one is faster though, regardless of the sensor.

3 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (9 months ago)

@JackM, it's no more of a stretch than claiming f1.8 and 2.8 are close enough. The average aperture difference between f2.8 and f3.5-5.6 is about 1 and 1/3 stops also. (2/3 at one end and 2 at the other average out to 1 and 1/3)

2 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (9 months ago)

Look at the Tstops, it's about 2 stops difference in reality. Obviously, the difference in shutterspeeds will not reflect that, the noise for a given visual exposure will (cameras also boost under the hood to compensate for Tstops).

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (9 months ago)

this is too good to believe if we compare it to 24-70/2.8L2 at 24-35mm at open on 5D2 and take into consideration that APS-C SLRs got a longer equiv. back-focus of about 70mm, far more difficult than 45mm for full-frames.

it will be great if Sigma can make a 24-70/2.8 equivalent, or 16-45/1.8 at the same quality and better with smoother bokeh.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (9 months ago)

and all the wannabe experts here said it will suck..

8 upvotes
SHood
By SHood (9 months ago)

I hope Sigma has improved their QC. Lens variance has been an issue with Sigma in the past.

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (9 months ago)

well the new lenses don´t seem to suffer from it.

my new sigma 35mm f1.4 is awesome and everyone who owns one loves it.

1 upvote
Chaitanya S
By Chaitanya S (9 months ago)

most of the recently released Sigma lenses have much better QC than in the past. I got a 150mm f/2.8 OS macro and compared to my other Sigma lens- 18-50mm there is a definite improvement in overall quality of lenses from Sigma. This lens is going to be heavily backordered after all the rave reviews it has been receiving from many photography review sites. I am certainly impressed with Sigma.

2 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (9 months ago)

I guess it's like buying a Fiat; the new ones are supposed to be great but it helps to not be aware their past history. The 35mm has convinced me that Sigma is up to the task, if they want to be.

0 upvotes
drif8r
By drif8r (9 months ago)

We rarely hear about poor QC from the big two. Both my recent 300F4LIS and 50mmF1.4 from Canon failed.

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Steen Bay
By Steen Bay (9 months ago)

Yes, very impressive. Especially the sharpness wide open at the wide end.

2 upvotes
Total comments: 101