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

@ 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.

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.

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).

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.

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!

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

Next question?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

@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.

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.

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