Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Preview

April 2013 - updated July 2013 | By Andy Westlake and Richard Butler

Preview based on a pre-production Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM

Sigma has a long history as a lens maker, having been founded over 50 years ago. In the film era it was best known for relatively inexpensive lenses that undercut the camera makers' own equivalents in terms of price. But this has changed over the part decade or so; while other companies have shifted manufacturing to cheaper locations such as China and Thailand, Sigma has stubbornly refused to move from its factory in Aizu, Japan. This means it can no longer compete in the same way on price alone, and it's therefore switched its focus towards higher-value offerings.

Over the past few years we've seen increasingly ambitious concepts appear from the company's design studios. The original (and recently-replaced) 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM has long been one of our favourite lenses for APS-C SLRs, and the 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM grabbed our attention back in 2008 due to its sharpness at large apertures. Most recently the 35mm F1.4 DG HSM impressed us with its exceptional optical quality at a very competitive price. This all bodes well for the company's latest offering - the record-breaking 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM, which is the first constant F1.8 SLR zoom lens to hit the market.

Sigma's choice of F1.8 as maximum aperture isn't a coincidence; it means that the lens will offer the same control over depth of field as an F2.8 zoom does on full frame. What's more, it will also offer effectively the same light-gathering capability as an F2.8 lens on full frame. By this we mean that it will be able to project an image that's just over twice as bright onto a sensor that's slightly less than half the area, meaning the same total amount of light is used to capture the image. This is important as it's a major determinant of image quality. Essentially it means that APS-C shooters will be able to use lower ISOs when shooting wide open in low light and get similar levels of image noise, substantially negating one of the key advantages of switching to full frame.

As we'd expect at this level, the lens uses an ultrasonic autofocus motor for fast, silent focusing. It's compatible with Sigma's new USB dock which allows you to fine-tune autofocus behaviour in much more detail than the AF microadjust corrections found on SLRs, which should help get the best possible focus accuracy and make the most of the large aperture. It also incorporates several of the thoughtful design touches that we were impressed by on the 35mm F1.4, including an improved AF switch, and a large grip area on the base of the barrel for better handling.

The lens's 27-53mm equivalent focal length range is obviously a little limited, but should still be rather useful for such applications as wedding and events photography. So while it may not quite match the capabilities of a 24-70mm F2.8 on a full frame SLR, for existing APS-C users it should offer something very close. Sigma has said nothing yet about pricing, so while we expect the 18-35mm to be less expensive than buying a 24-70mm F2.8 and a full-frame body, the overall appeal of the lens is impossible to pin down precisely at this stage.

Overall though the 18-35mm F1.8 is certainly an intriguing product, and we applaud Sigma for pushing the boundaries of lens design ahead of the more conservative camera manufacturers. It's a lens we think is worth investigating in more detail, and we'll be reviewing it just a soon as we can lay our hands on a shootable copy. Until then you can read more about the lens's design and operation on the next page of our preview.

Headline features

18-35mm focal length (27-53mm equivalent)
Extremely fast F1.8 maximum aperture
Ring-type ultrasonic focus motor with full-time manual override
Initially available in Canon EF, Nikon F and Sigma SA mounts

Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM specifications

Maximum format size	APS-C
Focal length	18-35mm
35mm equivalent focal length (APS-C)	27-53mm
Diagonal angle of view	76.5° - 44.2°
Maximum aperture	F1.8
Minimum aperture	F16
Lens Construction	• 17 elements in 12 groups • 5 SLD glass elements • 4 glassmold aspherical elements
Number of diaphragm blades	9, rounded
Minimum focus	0.28m / 0.92ft
Maximum magnification	0.23x
AF motor type	• Ring-type Ultrasonic Motor • Full time manual focus
Focus method	Internal
Zoom method	Rotary, internal
Image stabilization	No
Filter thread	• 72mm • Does not rotate on focus
Supplied accessories*	• Front and rear caps • Lens hood LH780-03
Weight	810g (28.6 oz)
Dimensions	78mm diameter x 121mm length (3.1 x 4.8 in)
Lens Mount	Canon EF, Nikon F, Sigma SA

* Supplied accessories may differ in each country or area

If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.

Images which can be viewed at a larger size have a small magnifying glass icon in the bottom right corner of the image, clicking on the image will display a larger (typically VGA) image in a new window.

To navigate the review simply use the next / previous page buttons, to jump to a particular section either pick the section from the drop down or select it from the navigation bar at the top.

DPReview calibrate their monitors using Color Vision OptiCal at the (fairly well accepted) PC normal gamma 2.2, this means that on our monitors we can make out the difference between all of the (computer generated) grayscale blocks below. We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally A,B and C.

GearShop

Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Lens (Canon EF Mount)●	$799.00	Buy on GearShop
Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Lens (Nikon F Mount)●	$799.00	Buy on GearShop
Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Lens (Sony A Mount)●	$799.00	Buy on GearShop

Sigma 210101 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Lens for Canon APS-C DSLRs (Black)	$795.00
Sigma 210101 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Lens for Canon APS-C DSLRs (Black)	$795.00
Sigma 210306 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Lens for Nikon APS-C DSLRs (Black)	$799.00
Sigma 210109 18-35mm Lens for F1.8 DC HSM for APS-C sized sensors (Black)	$768.65
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras (Black)	$455.95
Sigma 210110 18-35mm Lens for F1.8 DC HSM for APS-C sized sensors (Black)	$774.49
Sigma 878101 USB Dock Lens Firmware for Canon Lenses (Black)	$59.00
Sigma AF 18-35MM F/1.8 DC HSM Lens Kit for Pentax	$799.00
Sigma 884306 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM Lens	$384.45
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras	$469.00
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras	$309.95

Show all listings (11) ...

Get more prices from Amazon

Comments

Total comments: 352

Why is the lens £150 more for Sony than other mounts?

0 upvotes

Looks most interesting for us folks wedded to APS-C. Good one Sigma for showing the big boys what is possible without either going FF or a sub format. I just hope that you keep the quality standard as high on real production examples as were all too aware of the issues of duff AF on some of your other lenses...

0 upvotes

So would this lens work on a 5D MARK II? This is an aps-c lens and mark ii is a EF mount. I asked around and some are saying it works some said no.

0 upvotes

Works on Ford Escort mark 2?

4 upvotes

At 35mm it has very little dark corners.

0 upvotes

From the images I've seen looks like this is a wonderful lens. I admire Sigma for their effort at building this lens. I'm not currently in the market for APS-C lenses but if I replace any of the ones I own this one will be the one I will buy.

3 upvotes

hmm....its not bad,,,i agree with you

0 upvotes

I just bought this lens. It's rather heavy. I hold the camera by the lens, cos mine is canon 100D. Here's a photo taken with the lens. http://www.flickr.com/photos/poeyyt/9328074052/

0 upvotes

It's not been released yet. The photo you're linking to was taken with a Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM according to the exif.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

1 upvote

I add my voice to the 16-35mm wish-list, as will as to the FF version wish-list, even if filter size is to be larger, like 82mm, for example.

Hopefully Sigma is taking notes.

0 upvotes

Anyone with insider secrets of camera lens making?
It's just quite hard to believe that it's possible, as good as expensive APS-C prime lenses.

I wonder how it performs, like on a d7100.

0 upvotes

I thought it was an error in specs, but EF mount?! How does thing perform in a full frame?

0 upvotes

just did some searching and in a korean website, it is usable on FF at f1.8 @ 35mm.
the lens though is pretty problematic versus flare. i hope dpr will look into that in more detail.

0 upvotes

Fanboys: It won't be sharp.
Answer: It's pretty darn sharp.
Fanboys: It'll be too expensive.
Answer: It's a lot less than anyone expected.
Fanboys: It's too heavy.
Answer: I'll bet you wouldn't complain if it was a Canikon.
Fanboys: Due to "equivalence", it's not really that impressive.
Answer: You'll never like anything with a Sigma label on it. Just admit it.

There. I've summarized all the comments. You can save yourself 30 minutes. Thank me later.

22 upvotes

I adore!!!...
Beautiful and frank answers to the pros-Canikon which believe to know everything and the forgiveness of the optical quality mouhahahaha...

2 upvotes

This is so true!!!! I love your comment!!!

1 upvote

Now for the BIG question: is it held together with double-sided tape? :>(

If you think this is an internet MYTH, I'm sorry but I saw it with 'mine owne two eyes'.

Cheers,
Cameron

0 upvotes

...and, not designed to resemble ANY known lens...completely original...
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/p480x480/944345_515165755217770_662470666_n.jpg
...any possible resemblance is strictly a coincidence...a case of simultaneous creativity...

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Hope for 18-55 f/1.8 OS!! Sigma do it!!! Please!!! :)

1 upvote

As much as I would like this (it'd be awesome), it would also be very large and heavy.

0 upvotes

I'd prefer a 16-35 f/1.8 myself. Not being piggish, 2mm on the wide end is probably doable, much more than that is just dreaming.

5 upvotes

Agreed. In this day and age IS and OS is a must. Especially in an all-around lens like this one.

0 upvotes

"In this day and age IS and OS is a must.Especially in an all-around lens like this one."

LOL maybe for some of you. But not if you go with Sony. ;)

0 upvotes

810g weight, 12 cm long, 72 mm filter and then only 18-50 mm half format = boaring heavy.

For me it's useless - what shall I do with a 2,9/29-80 on a Eos 70D?
I would always take a 2,0/24 mm; 1,4/50 mm and 1,8/85 mm or even
Tamron 2,8/24-70 mm VC or a 5D3 or 6D.

0 upvotes

The Tamron isn't nearly as sharp wide open and loses about half a stop of light on the FF cameras compared to the Sigma on APS–C.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

4 upvotes

One blockbuster lens after another... Sigma must have found some secret sauce.

9 upvotes

Maybe some Japanese company laid off some optical engineers a few years ago? Olympus?

2 upvotes

"It's also important to remember that not only is it substantially faster than any other zoom for APS-C (or indeed full frame)" [...]

You know quite well that f/1.8 on APS-C is the equivalent to f/2.8 on FF. Same DoF for equivalent focal lengths, same images. Saying the lens is "faster than any zoom on FF" doesn't take into account that a lens never stands alone, but is always a part of a system. (Remember all: ISO is just a number that specifically does NOT take into account the total amount of light the sensor gathers.)

Example: The Canon PowerShot G2 I bought in 2002 had an f/2.0-f/2.5 lens. Was the SYSTEM "faster" than a 24-70 f/2.8 mounted on a FF camera? You pick your guess.

Don't get me wrong: the Sigma seems truly to be an exceptional lens. It has good distortion, low chromatic aberration, and vignetting figures no fast FF zoom has been even close to. So it's a gamechanger in the APS-C world. Still, your speed claim as opposed to FF is misleading. A lens doesn't stand alone.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting

4 upvotes

Accounting for TStops, the statement from Dpreview is actually correct, even including FF lenses and using equivalents.

8 upvotes

Considering what DxOmark says, its not even f1.8 lens. Cause its T1.8 lens.

Yea that means its actually f1.5 lens.. and its crazy good.

Well we should be happy that regular systems users now can benefit from Foveon system. Cause this is intended to be main fast lens for SD1M. Apart from that, it can be basic fast zoom for any APS-C camera. Quite cool if you ask me..

1 upvote

F1.8 is faster than F2.8, Full Frame or APS-C, it doesnt matter.

16 upvotes

Please let's not start this again. What is so hard about the exposure triangle that nobody in Seattle can get it right?

1 upvote

"You know quite well that f/1.8 on APS-C is the equivalent to f/2.8 on FF. Same DoF for equivalent focal lengths, same images."

In those terms yes, BUT: f1.8 => gives more light to APS-C sensor than f2.8 gives to FF sensor => faster shutter speed => faster lens

"Considering what DxOmark says, its not even f1.8 lens. Cause its T1.8 lens. Yea that means its actually f1.5 lens.. and its crazy good."

Just to be clear: f-stop comes from the physical dimensions of the lens and T-stop value doesn's change that. It just tells how much light the lens loses before it hits the sensor. 100% light transmission is impossible, which means f1.8 lens has a T-stop of 1.8 + some. This lens is so good that DxOmark has rounded the T-stop value to 1.8, but if you look at their measurements, there's still some transmission losses (max. 0,134 Ev @ 35mm).

1 upvote

"n those terms yes, BUT: f1.8 => gives more light to APS-C sensor than f2.8 gives to FF sensor => faster shutter speed => faster lens"

No, if transmission losses were equal, both the FF and APS-C sensors would receive about an equal amount of photons using the same shutterspeed. Hence why noise will be about equal too for a given >visual< exposure.

1 upvote

"No, if transmission losses were equal, both the FF and APS-C sensors would receive about an equal amount of photons using the same shutterspeed. Hence why noise will be about equal too for a given >visual< exposure."

Sorry, but f1.8 gives more light to a sensor than f2.8, ANY SENSOR => f1.8 has faster shutter speed than f2.8, ALWAYS.

Just read for example these:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/35489001
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/35491075

2 upvotes

Equivalence is considered between SYSTEMS (lens + sensor), not lenses separately.

DPReview compares only LENSES in their statement, and yes, this lens is faster, as it lets light in at a steeper angle then f 2.8 lenses.

3 upvotes

Aperture is a function of diaphram opening divided into focal length. F1.8 is F1.8, no matter what sensor you put it on. Now there is a difference in DOF, that depends on your sensor size, but not exposure. So let's put this nasty equivalence talk to rest, shall we?

1 upvote

"Sorry, but f1.8 gives more light to a sensor than f2.8, ANY SENSOR => f1.8 has faster shutter speed than f2.8, ALWAYS."

No, you're assuming the same ISO and ISO does not mean the same amplification and thus same amount of noise.

You said that the f/1.8 lens would allow more light and that's simply false, because we're not looking at just a lens, we're looking at a system. A larger image circle is being illuminated on the FF sensor, which means more light, less noise, all else being equal. So that cancels out the difference in aperture and explains why people use aperture equivalents too. Not just because it tells us more about DOF differences.

Don't stop at shutterspeeds, think noise. f/1.8 on APS-C, f/2.8 on FF, same shutterspeed will result in the same noise for the same visual exposure.
Those (sh.speed. and size of entrance pupil really) are the only 2 physical parts that determine the amount of photons and thus the amount of noise. The rest is amplification after the fact.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting

1 upvote

I think a lot of people mix up light per area (say square mm) and total light captured. The first indeed doesn't change at the same aperture or with the same lens, regardless of format. But the last part is what matters here, since we're looking at systems and images, not singled out equally sized areas.

Or they mix up exposure and total light (the latter being the subject, since Finntax specifically mentioned total light: "f1.8 => gives more light to APS-C sensor than f2.8 gives to FF sensor ").
For exposure, incorporating the ISO standards into the triangle, f/1.8=f/1.8, regardless of format indeed. But for total light, that's not the case, see above.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting

1 upvote

1. SENSOR IS AN AREA, so of course we have to speek about light per area. APS-C lens is designed to give light to APS-C area, FF lens to FF area, 4/3 lens to 4/3 area... Where do you need the light that goes outside the sensor area? Was there a phrase "total amount of light" in any of my writings? You just assumed thats what I ment.

2. Nowdays ISO performance (quality of the sensors) on APS-C is very close to FF. In some situations even better. For example Pentax K-5 has better ISO performance below ISO 800 than Canon 5D MKIII(!). And even abowe ISO 800 it's very close. So you can forget your toughts about the noise. http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/795%7C0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/676%7C0/(brand2)/Pentax

3. Once more: f1.8 gives more light to A SENSOR than f2.8, ANY SENSOR

4. As Dpreview stated: Sigma 18-35 F1.8 is faster than any other zoom on APS-C or FF

1 upvote

"4. As Dpreview stated: Sigma 18-35 F1.8 is faster than any other zoom on APS-C or FF"

Then making this affirmation is as unfair as nonsense, because you won't be directly comparing this lens to a FF lens, but will do it taking all the system into account.

A f1.8 lens allows 2,4 times the light a f2.8 lens allows through it. However, the area of a FF sensor is 2,6 times the area of a Canon APS-C sensor and thus the FF f2.8 system is finally a little brighter than the APS-C f1.8 one.

0 upvotes

"Then making this affirmation is as unfair as nonsense, because you won't be directly comparing this lens to a FF lens, but will do it taking all the system into account.

Wrong again. I already posted this once, but since you didn't bother to read it I post it again:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/35489001

1 upvote

Thanks for your response Finntax. It's true I didn't read the text and now I think we are talking about different things. I am trying to understand your and Adam's point of view, but cannot completely agree with some statements of the text.

Let's get step by step: "The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (APS-C) puts exactly as much light on any given unit area of the sensor as the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM (FF), given the same f-stop on either lens." I completely agree. If the discussion was about light per unit area (that's lux in the International System) there could not be any discussion about it. However, it is about total light captured (that's lux multiplied by coverage area or lumen in the IS).

Therefore: "if you have a handheld light meter, you have settings for ISO and shutter speed (or frame rate), and you read out an aperture. Where on the meter do you set sensor size?" Sure, why would you need it? The light per pixel (lux) will be the same and tht's what it measures, BUT not lumen.

0 upvotes

Sorry, I meant "The light per unit area (illuminance, lux) will be the same and that's what it measures, BUT not lumen (luminous flux)."

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I sure wish this went down to 15mm. I used to have a Canon 17-85, and now have the 15-85. I find I shoot a lot at 17-22mm.

1 upvote

Love the wider end as well. Even if it only added 2mm to go down to 16 it would be huge.

1 upvote

I'm so excited to see Sigma really delivering the goods with its current generation of lenses. The 50/1.4 EX (optically) and 35/1.4 DG (mechanically and optically) are both so great I have purchased not for their price but for their performance. If I were an APS-C shooter, I'd get this zoom in a heartbeat.

2 upvotes

Questions: how does it perform re AF accuracy and flare resistance? My Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 has flare issues and requires lots of AF finetuning to work with the D7000. In usual lighting conditions it's a stellar performer re IQ.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Impressive. Seems like Sigma has decided to make the best lenses around, and they are well on the way to reaching that goal with this one. If I'd been an APS-C shooter, this would have been really high up on my wish list.

Now, Sigma, what about a micro four thirds 12-35mm f1.8? If you can make this one, you should be able to pull that off.

1 upvote

That'd be some kinda feat IMO... But with Panasonic's 12-35/2.8 IS already coming in close to $1,000, it doesn't really leave Sigma much room to carve out their own market (a fast zoom on MFT is already kind of a niche within a niche). I guess if it was anywhere under $2,000 it'd still have some merit (cheaper than 3 equivalent primes), provided it isn't humongous. I'd be excited for any kind of new Sigma MFT tbh, given what they've released lately.

0 upvotes

Dear sigma. Now please release a <$1500 lens that hits 200 equiv at f2.8 equiv for APS-C and really sock it to Canon and Nikon. Say, 65-135 f1.8? Narrower range than your 50-150 f2.8 so it wouldn't steal all of it's market share.

1 upvote

i'd settle for a 35-105 f1.8 :)

1 upvote

Sigma really rocks! And others just watch....

2 upvotes

Unbelievable.

The heft is a downer but physics are physics. In any case, if I were still on a DSLR platform this would be ideal as most of my shots are taken in this focal range. But I don't think they will be able to shrink this down for something like a Sony NEX. In any case bravo to Sigma!

I still hope they give their wide angle 1.8 primes another shot. I would love a "budget" 24mm ~1.8 with AF.

0 upvotes

It's nearly 2lbs. What is the point of mounting that on a tiny mirrorless? Not exactly pocketable and not exactly comfortable without a decent sized grip next to it.

0 upvotes

They should be able to SUBSTANTIALLY shrink the 18-35 for NEX and all other mirrorless, because they would not need a retrofocus design (mirrorless have around 18-19mm of flange distance, while DSLRs have about 44mm). See all the 18-20mm mirrorless pancakes, vs 40mm DSLR pancakes.

1 upvote

Sigma is certainly on a roll. Always quite innovative, but recently they have introduced a whole range of absolutely stellar optics. Instead of marketing fluff this is real, tangible progress and improvement that we all will benefit from, as it forces the competition to improve as well. And at these prices it is nothing short of a stunning achievement.

Well done Sigma! I already own several very good Sigma lenses, but I am certainly going to buy one of these!

4 upvotes

My only real disappointment in this lens is that it is not available for M4/3. Sigma, PLEASE grant my christmas wish!

2 upvotes

Would be too big and heavy. Would also have to start 14mm. I think the best you can do is use the Zuiko 14-35 f2 but it is a big lens on an m4/3 camera

0 upvotes

"It only replaces several primes".

Sigh.

4 upvotes

This news just in: Critical hat shortage as thousands of miserly DPR comment thread grouches find themselves compelled to eat theirs.

I do wonder, though: now that we know this lens is both competitively priced and of a very high quality, what will be the next reason to criticise it out-of-hand?

11 upvotes

Fear not: I am sure the equivalence police is being mobilized as we speak.

6 upvotes

Now that's funny!
I've said it before, Sigma are taking no prisoners. Their recent offerings have been absolutely smashing while still coming in at a reasonable price. Wonder if the big boys will deign to compete?
18-35mm is not my ideal range so I'm waiting to see if they refresh their 17-50 f2.8 as well. 15-45 f2.0 anyone?

4 upvotes

where are the noobs and wannabe experts who said this lens will suck?

quiet now i guess.....

8 upvotes

the pricing for malaysia is 2599 Malaysian ringgit :)

2 upvotes

Wow. Can you buy one and send it to Germany for me?

0 upvotes

its 2588 ringgit actually, just spotted at shashinki store :P
is it worth it if I change my 18-200 lens on this sigma lens.?

0 upvotes

From the few actual reviews I have seen on this lens I think it would be nice on a second camera at weddings with a 70-200 on a full frame primary. It is reported to have excellent center sharpness right from f.18 at 18mm and throughout its range. The close focus distance will help with shallow DOF for cake shots and the like, as well as table group shots. I can't wait for more info and some samples using a D7100.
Nice preview DPR. Hope you get to the full review soon.

1 upvote

one Len that offers full frame traits on crop sensors or a full frame camera that already offers a range of f2.8 lens with varying ranges?

this len is unique, but I wish they make an 28-52mm f1.8 Len for full frame... I'm just saying this crop len is redundant.

0 upvotes

Hard to make, very big, very heavy, very expensive. APS-C among other things means less glass and everything else which means its cheaper.

Sure I would like high quality 28-50/1.8 lens on FF, but we would be quite small minority. Almost like WATE users on Leica. :)

1 upvote

First impression from samples gallery: the images are not so good in terms of resolution, most of the images are looking soft, even at f5.6.
I download in full size few samples and I think the sharp and details are inferior even than on Canon 18-55mm lens kit. So all the advantages are the blur of the background on f1.8 (but I prefer the bucket of 85mm/1.8 or 50mm/1.8) and low light photos (but if the Q is low could be better or the same with the kit and high iso).
Just my opinion.... my first opinion, from first impressions article :).

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

The lens test published recently shows that you are extremely wrong. It is one of the sharpest lenses ever made. Comparable to the 24-70L, and miles better than any kit lens.

2 upvotes

Sigma once again innovates and brings something new to the photography market,just like the fact that they introduced the first fixed lens APC sensor sized mirrorless compact---the others followed. Introduced the worlds first three layer sensor---the others are following and now prepare to introduce the worlds first 18-35 mm f1.8 lens at a below $1000.00 dollar price and people are still complaining about Sigma's effort. Complaining it isn't optically stabilized etc. Well just put it on a Sony Alpha mount DSLR or DSLT or any of the lovely Pentax DLSRs and you will automatically have a optically stabilized lens.
I'm so thankful that this site exists--so it give miserable and unhappy people a place where they can complain about things anonymously. Myself and every other pro photographer that I've spoken too--including world class model photographer John Fisher can't wait to get their hands on this new lens. Small privately held Sigma does it again!

6 upvotes

Imperial measurements were good enough for Queen Victoria and all the kings and queens before her, so they should be more than sufficient for DPReview. Please include inches in your reviews....we cannot be wasting our time doing mathematical conversions to indulge your Continental affectations.

1 upvote

I am really sorry to have to tell you, but Queen Victoria has left us in MDCCCI.
Your island is now connected to the continent by a tunnel, and uses decimal numbers and measures.
But don't worry, everything else is pretty much the same.

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting

16 upvotes

I wish someone had told me about Vickie....tragic that.
Nevertheless, this little dalliance with millimeters and liters and so forth has been a jolly romp and made us all feel quite urbane, but it has overstayed its welcome by several decades.

1 upvote

If UKIP ever get their way perhaps you can go back to proper Imperial measures and £sd.

So the focal length of this lens would be something like 11/16" ~ 1 3/8"

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting

8 upvotes

Please don't think that the curmudgeon above represents Britain in the way that he seems to think he does. Some of us are happy with SI measurements that actually make sense. Unfortunately, thanks to the misplaced pride of berks like him we have to deal with this stupid halfway house where we buy petrol in litres and measure fuel economy in miles-per-gallon. If you can handle remembering how many yards there are in a mile and how many inches to the yard then you're more than capable of performing conversions to real units of measurement.

7 upvotes

Sorry, but sometimes what "whole World uses" is the best. Decimal systems are logical and useful.

6 upvotes

If you look at the test, it includes Imperial measures for all data where it makes sense (weight, dimensions, distance).

But to see the Great People of Britain struggling to use SI units makes me feel bad personally. OTOH, they are using the SI language (en) already. Fair enough :)

0 upvotes

The "metric" system is an arriviste created by a Frenchman in 1670. And what, besides the Angenieux 12mm to 120mm and a couple of dozen other magnificent lenses, have the French contributed to photography? Maybe the invention of photography, but what besides that? OK, Autochrome Lumière which still ranks as among the most beautiful color films, and the amazing work of Atget, Cartier-Bresson, and Ilse Bing; but apart from 200 years of soul-lifting inspiration and continuing technological advancement (including DXO) what have those metric jockeys done for us?

3 upvotes

The Germans have done the most on lens engineering by far. (perhaps the Japanese have taken over by now) And the Germans have always used the metric system.

How many great English or American Lens builders are there?

2 upvotes

I was about selling the 7D, now this is a game changer...perhaps it was created to be used by videographers?
Ser

2 upvotes

Actually its for SD1M. But sure, why not, I think it might be ok-ish for videographers. Probably more for 70D with on sensor AF. I think manual focus on this wont be so great..

0 upvotes

"good luck finding 18mm f1.8 anywhere else." Doesn't this mean that such a lens is useless?

0 upvotes

I believe the writer was trying to say that finding an 18mm f/1.8 lens is somewhat difficult for Canon, Nikon and Sony owners. But I could be wrong.

0 upvotes

Most pros who buy primes are using full frame cameras. Most of the people shooting APS-C are hobbyists and usually use zooms. There are higher end primes in this 18mm territory, but they cost a fortune. People are looking for something that is the APS-C equivalent of an old school 28mm or 24mm prime for a few hundred dollars. But they just aren't available.

0 upvotes

I think only SLR Magic makes something like that, except that nobody. Its in fact probably fastest 18mm lens..

0 upvotes

How often would you shoot at f1.8@18mm on APS-C or f2.8@24mm on FF? Strongest vignetting and aberrations, and what subject? On the longer end you can have prime 30mm f1.4 for half the price. Superior optical quality? Will see.

0 upvotes

Enjoy eating that crow.

2 upvotes

A lot.

Bend over, mr conventionalist.

3 upvotes

Seriously?! How about...ALL THE TIME. With this lens I'd probably almost never stop it down, regardless of focal length.

0 upvotes

Heard somewhere that Sigma is a family owned company.
Nevertheless they got some really interesting lenses for the competition.

4.5mm FE, (supposedly to compete with "one of a kind" Nikon's 6mm FF )
8mm FE,
8-16mm UWA, (Widest zoom rectilinear UWA on APS-C)
12-24mm FF UWA, (Widest zoom rectilinear UWA on FF)
35/1.4 super sharp, (beats Nikon's 35/1.4 benchmark number, real world is another thing though).
and then this one "Crack-a-lackin" f/1.8 zoom lens.

Eventhough some may loathe Sigma's quality in the past, I suppose they change for "quite" good now.

Owning 8-16mm, very good lens on wideness; quite slow though.
For landscape, live view contrast detect gave the best most accurate & even shapness result.

1 upvote

Add new "sports" 120-300/2.8 OS, which is very very good. And compared to competition quite cheap. Plus you can microadjust lens itself with USB thingie they sell.

I just wish they remade 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 with new finish they use and maybe improved them to match 35/1.4 performance even better.

Yea and fast and good 28 wouldnt be bad..

0 upvotes

Why not one like that to a full frame sensor?

0 upvotes

I would say its because of size. Have you seen how big this lens is? Its longer than the 24-70mm FF lenses but a bit narrower (72mm filter instead of 77/82mm)
If this lens covers aps-c only - then x1.5 in size for FF lens?
=108mm filter? = 200mm f2 size? not exactly practical

0 upvotes

Yep it would be at best 105mm filter size and incredibly big and heavy.

If Sigma will go crazy route again, you might see it tho. :D They did this before. Look at 200-500/2.8 from Sigma. :D It has even own motor and batteries (cause no camera can AF that big hunk of glass). And I heard you will get it in bulletproof case and with free mule.

0 upvotes

Given this review's hope for a sub-$1200 price, today's news of $799 must have caused premature ejac. The announcement is especially welcome in Pentax Land, where we can put it on an affordable K-30 body and enjoy focus peaking and IBIS. It goes a long way towards easing my FF envy. Very nice!

3 upvotes

So, for almost as much money as a 24-70 f2.8 FF lens, you get a 27-55 f 2.8 "equivalent" that is almost as wide, longer, and heavier as compared with a 24-70 f2.8 FF. Taking into account that you STILL need additional lenses to cover the same range as a 24-70 f2.8 FF lens, Sigma has successfully shown that you'll probably spend more than the price differential between an APS-C body and a FF body trying to assemble a full set of lenses with the same range and equivalent noise capability (I won't say image quality, since it won't be equivalent in other respects more than likely) for APS-C, and that you'll likely have MORE weight to carry around based on the lens size/weight that will be necessary. Plus, of course, you'll still be stuck with a lousy APS-C viewfinder.

Thanks for making the decision to move to FF seem that much smarter, Sigma!

2 upvotes

How about you give me the price of a 24-70 f2.8 FF lens and I send you 2 Sigma 18-35 f1.8? oh, and free shipping!~

7 upvotes

change your name into "clueless-still"..

1 upvote

I can see you got your tech pundit credentials in a frantic week long study of foolish internet tropes. Congratulations on your Troll level 1 certification.

4 upvotes

"equivalent" f-stops are only for Depth of field, not exposure. Just because something correlates in one area, does not mean that it correlates in another.

0 upvotes

GeorgeD200, f-stops primary function is exposure, DOF is a side-effect :-)
F-stops control the amount of light that the sensor is exposed to which is "exposure"

0 upvotes

The well regarded Canon 17-55mm IS is about $1k. This lens is $800 and gains a stop of light, but loses the IS and the 35-55 range.

Both will have their strengths depending on what you're shooting.

0 upvotes

I just don't understand why people insist on having IS for such a bright lens... If using a telephoto lens, IS is pretty useful if not essential, but wide-mid range lens? Even for macro lens, IS is almost useless, because no matter your lens moves or not, your object will move anyway.

2 upvotes

I'm not insisting this lens needs IS, I am saying the Canon and Sigma lenses both have their strengths. The Canon's strength is its IS.

You don't always want a narrow depth of focus and therefore you sometimes have to shoot at narrow apertures. If you are shooting at F8, then the fact its a fast lens is utterly meaningless.

If you are traveling and taking handheld shots of a cathedral interior, shooting at F1.8 is silly. In this case, 3 stops of IS means the difference between shooting at ISO 800 vs ISO 6400 (for example), which is a *massive* difference in IQ.

And why must your object always move for macro? There are more than just bugs to take photos of... The IS on my 100L macro lens has enabled me to get shots at stupidly slow shutter speeds.

0 upvotes

For a wide angle lens, depth of field is not that shallow even at large aperture. F2.8 should be fine when taking photos of cathedral interior.

For macro lens, even if your object is not bugs, there will be wind. Macro ring flash will be much more useful than IS in the field. If you shoot in the studio, then you should have tripod to support your lens not IS. Of course you can use your 100mm macro as a telephoto lens. That'd be another story.

0 upvotes

akanosara... i don´t wonder.. i guess you are a P&S user who last week bought a DSLR? you sound like one.

a macro ringflash.. yeah well kiddo, not everyone likes the look a macro ringflash produces... or wants to spend 500 euro on a good one.
not everyone likes to carry around stuff because some forum noob think it´s better then IS... LOL.

IS helps... from macro to video.... to stabilizing the viewfinder.

i have the 100mm f2.8 L macro.... and guess what... my keeper rate handheld is way higher then with the 90mm tamron macro i had before. guess why.. you are right IMAGE STABILIZATION!!!

so please don´t talk about stuff you don´t know **** about... thanks!

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting

1 upvote

Am I the only one who is not very impressed about the sharpness of this lens? Also the photo of the boat, shot at f/6,3 is not very sharp IMHO.

1 upvote

To me it looks sharp on the boat (sharp enough at their default sharpening settings, which I think are fairly conservative) and the background looks like it is very slightly out of the depth of field, not surprising.

2 upvotes

I can see myself saving up for this lens when it goes on the market. Even though a pound tells a penny that it will be at the usual exchange rate of 1$ = 1£ ;-(

0 upvotes

So $799 is too much?

1 upvote

$799 might be OK, but £799 which is a bit much. The normal exchange rate is £1 = $1.50-$1.60. But by electronics or camera gear and the price in a British store has just had the currency symbol changed. In the worst cases the conversion rate is more like £1= $0.9
On a $800 lens it can be cheaper to pay the international shipping and the 20% tax on import.

1 upvote

For this lens to be a hot seller it will need to be under $1000. It's a 27-52mm equivalent which is not super attractive per se; the important feature is the f/1.8 aperture. Most folks who want a wide aperture would be happy with a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 lens or the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 which sells for about $489. IMHO

0 upvotes

Yes bet there is nothing wider than 35mm for APS-C that is fast, apart from Sigmas own 20mm. 18mm is the widest fast AF lens for crop sensors available. Price is $799.

0 upvotes

There is no way this is coming in at $1000. I'm going to guess around the $1800+ mark, possibly in the $2000 range.

0 upvotes

$799

3 upvotes

yep $799, you can preorder at B&H already

4 upvotes

$2000? Try $799. Epic fail!

8 upvotes

Just preordered it and plan to sell it for $2,000 on ebay, yeah~~~

2 upvotes

Price will be as interesting a stat as the max aperture.

1. It is a new market. If you price it low enough, it keeps away the competition. (If you price it too low, though, you are leaving money on the table, since some people would buy it even at $2000.)

2. It takes a lot of technology to make a lens with these specs. If it was easy to make a lens like this, everyone would be doing it.

0 upvotes

I am wondering why I can see here comments a couple of months old to a post that came out yesterday. Sounds misleading to me to say the least. Is blending comments with older articles the way to go, DPR?

0 upvotes

The preview (pages 1 & 2) has been out for some time. Page 3 only is new.

0 upvotes

Richard,

For your sake please consult with a large-format pro or other grizzled adept about "the greater low-light ability that a larger sensor would otherwise give."

Len speed remains constant.

All the best,

Pat

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

1 upvote

Pat, I've just seem your comment on the earlier article - I'll PM you in the morning to discuss.

0 upvotes

Pat, a f/1.8 on a full frame or APS-C would gather the same amount of light, but the full frame will have less noise at the same ISO. Therefore, as Richard said, full frame sensors do have better low light ability. This lens would let APS-C shooters shoot at f/1. 8 ISO 100 while full frame shooters would have to shoot at f/2.8 ISO 250 to get the same exposure with their zooms.

0 upvotes

Joe,

The FF shooter shoots at 1.8, just like the APS-C shooter. The inherent speed of a lens doesn't change if you use it on a big or a small sensor. The angle of acceptance, or angular coverage, changes, but not the lens speed.

Imagine a large-format photog shooting a scene at 5.6 with 8x10 film. If he now changes the format to 5x7, he will shoot the scene at 5.6 also. The required exposure hasn't changed. Only the format has changed. What it boils down to is the fact that THE BRIGHTNESS OF THE IMAGE AT THE FOCAL PLANE DOESN'T DEPEND ON THE SIZE OF THE PIECE OF FILM YOU PUT THERE. Put that way, I guess it sounds more or less obvious.

"But, Pat, doesn't a larger format glom more light energy?"

Yes, it does, but that energy is shmeared over a bigger area, so there is no net gain in brightness of image.

Let's say we have E amount of light energy falling on an area A per unit time. Then the brightness of the image is measured by E/A. Now imagine a portion B of this area...

0 upvotes

...continued.

Let's say that B = nA, where n is some fractional value < 1. Then nE amount of light energy will be falling on area B, and the brightness over area B will be nE/B = nE/nA = E/A, which is the same as the brightness over the larger area. This long-winded presentation shows that, although a larger area captures more light energy, the brightness remains the same vis-a-vis a smaller area. I hope no one's turning to stone over this.

0 upvotes

It's hard not to get very exasperated with yet another post from yet another "grizzled adept" who doesn't understand the effect of changing sensor size.

Richard and Joe are both right.

4 upvotes

There is treatise here,
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#introduction

Which is hard work to be honest, not easily digestible, the gist of it for me comes down to one key phrase, I hope the author is not offended that I quote

"However, in cross-format comparisons, the density of light falling on the sensor (exposure) is absolutely meaningless. The relevant measure is the the total amount of light that falls on the sensor (Total Light = Exposure x Effective Sensor Area), since the total amount of light falling on the sensor, combined with the sensor efficiency, determines the amount of noise and DR (dynamic range) of the photo."

For us old timers, I think this is sort of similar to being able to use a faster film in a medium format camera and achieving the same quality as a slow film in a 35mm SLR, say PanF at 50ASA in a Nikon, vs TriX in a 6x7. Mamiya, given appropriate exposure compensation for the scene and no consideration of DOF

1 upvote

Having said all that i would go out on a limb and say between APSC and full frame 35mm, i don't think the quality differences will be at all noticeable accept for carful side by side comparisons and you are reproducing the image quite large from exposure in more difficult lighting situations.

0 upvotes

Lenses do not have speed.

0 upvotes

I say this with all the love, respect, and admiration I can because DPR is a treasure on the internet. You provide a service no other publication does.
However, it is inexplicable that DPR staffers continue to perpetuate this inaccuracy about sensor sensitivity, f/stops, and sensor size.
If your handheld light meter gives you a reading of f/5.6 and 1/100 at ISO 100 you're going to get a correctly exposed photo whether you use a Powershot A70 a Hasselblad H5D-60.
Within a reasonable tolerance, lenses of the same f/stop project the same amount of light onto the sensor regardless of size.
What IS different is the amount of magnification to create pictures of equal size, and THAT'S where the added noise comes from.
To turn a 24x36mm digital image into an 8x12 print requires you to blow it up about 8.5 times.
To make the same print from an APS-C sensor requires you to blow it up 13.5 times. That's why you see more noise from smaller sensors.

2 upvotes

You are of course right but the only real problem with the equivalent focal length, f-stop and ISO numbers is that they create some confusion. We just need to properly distinguish the real from the equivalent values.

The equivalent focal length and f-stop values are useful to compare angle of view and depth of field to the de facto reference that is the 135 format but the equivalent f-stop values are not valid when exposure is concerned unless we also introduce equivalent ISO values which are less useful in practise because they rest on the assumption of a nonexistend constant sensor technology that scales linearly with sensor size.

The closest thing we have to that are probably the Sony 16MP sensor used in the Nikon D7000/Pentax K-5 and the 36MP sensor in the Nikon D800.

On APS-C (Nikon/Pentax/Sony):
AOV & DOF equivalent to 27.5-53.4mm f/2.75 on 35mm-sensors/film

On APS-C (Canon)
AOV & DOF equivalent to 29-56.6mm f/2.9 on 35mm-sensors/film

0 upvotes

I guess the solution would be using the angle of view and a format-independent measure for depth of field, if we can find one.
But until then the equivalent f-stop values do serve a purpose.

0 upvotes

Bokeh is quite smooth with minimal outlining. i'm impressed!

2 upvotes

Yep and check that CA!

0 upvotes

Very nice gallery images.

2 upvotes

Now just 50-135/1.8 DC OS HSM and APS-C can live happily ever after. Im just guessing, but that might happen.

Tho price is another matter, I seriously doubt this lens will be cheap. Sample performance is really really good for what it is.

But on other hand for people which like APS-C and dont want to move to FF any time soon (or ever), its not bad investment.

Maybe after they make my now invented 50-135, they could make 135-275/2 DC OS HSM. :) Or even longer.. That could actually shift preference between formats for some people.

1 upvote

Dpreview have gone all Yoda on us.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

We're going for Yoda crossed with Rumsfeld. But seriously, I just fixed a typo which may have made one key paragraph a little hard to parse.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

1 upvote

Hehe, thanks for the great preview! :)

I think you should start writing all conclusions in this way: "It is what it is, unless it is what it is not. Better than Canon, is there any way to know whether Nikon is, hmm, hmmmm?"

Imagine all the heads exploding in the forums as people would fight over the "true" meaning of the words. :-D

(But come to think of it, it pretty much already happens in the forums, LOL)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting

5 upvotes

It looks a cracking lens, hits the spots for me on specs, the photographs here show some separation from the background and character not achievable other than as huge expense using own branded lenses on APSC, with this and an inexpensive 50 1.8, you would, have a great little set up with any up to date APSC DSLR.

As a D300 user gives extra life to my camera that Nikon seem unlikely to have a direct replacement for.

Reservations? cost, Sigma wont be giving it away, but mainly size, OK for landscapes (but a cheaper slower lens would suffice) but a bit of a "dobber" for street and environmental portraiture, at which technically it excels based on the results here,

0 upvotes

Total comments: 352

Editorial content

Product database

Community