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

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.

Apr 23, 2013*permalink

Good Sigma lenses aren't exactly inexpensive.

Apr 24, 2013permalink

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.

Apr 24, 2013*permalink

Ken Aisin

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.

Apr 30, 2013permalink

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.

May 1, 2013permalink

forpetessake

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?

Apr 23, 2013permalink

Kodachrome200

exactly

Apr 25, 2013permalink

Larnus

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?

Apr 25, 2013*permalink

Chiemaiy

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).

Apr 23, 2013permalink

matt_nnn

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

Apr 23, 2013permalink

flipmac

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).

Apr 30, 2013permalink

audijam

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~~~

Apr 23, 2013permalink

tom sugnet

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.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

Kodachrome200

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

Apr 25, 2013permalink

Anepo

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?

Apr 27, 2013*permalink

TheAlexMoore

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

Apr 23, 2013permalink

sportyaccordy

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

Apr 23, 2013permalink

Anepo

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

Apr 27, 2013permalink

wootpile

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?

Apr 22, 2013permalink

agentul

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.

Apr 22, 2013permalink

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).

Apr 22, 2013*permalink

Richard Butler

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.

Apr 22, 2013permalink

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

Apr 22, 2013permalink

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!

Apr 22, 2013*permalink

Andy Westlake

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

Next question?

Apr 22, 2013permalink

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

Apr 22, 2013permalink

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.

Apr 22, 2013*permalink

audijam

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

go sigma!

Apr 22, 2013permalink

photog4u

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

Gorgeous models though...

Apr 22, 2013permalink

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

Apr 22, 2013permalink

Redteg94

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.

Apr 22, 2013permalink

Andy Crowe

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

Apr 23, 2013permalink

Joe Ogiba

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

Apr 23, 2013permalink

PK24X36NOW

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.

Apr 22, 2013*permalink

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).

Apr 22, 2013*permalink

Andy Crowe

> 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?

Apr 23, 2013permalink

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.

Apr 22, 2013permalink

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.

Apr 22, 2013permalink

Combatmedic870

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

Apr 22, 2013permalink

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.

Apr 22, 2013permalink

moizes 2

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

Apr 22, 2013permalink

Abhijith Kannankavil

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)

Apr 22, 2013permalink

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.

Apr 22, 2013permalink

brendon1000

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.

Apr 22, 2013permalink

AbrasiveReducer

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

Apr 22, 2013permalink

pyrula1

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 :)

Apr 22, 2013permalink

Kodachrome200

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

Apr 22, 2013permalink

Emopunk

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.

Apr 22, 2013permalink

Naveed Akhtar

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!!

Apr 22, 2013permalink

Matthew Miller

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.

Apr 22, 2013permalink

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.

Apr 22, 2013permalink

@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.

Apr 23, 2013*permalink

Naveed Akhtar

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

Apr 22, 2013permalink

agentul

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

Apr 22, 2013permalink

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

Apr 22, 2013permalink

LJ - Eljot

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€.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

moimoi

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

Apr 22, 2013permalink

Naveed Akhtar

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!!

Apr 22, 2013permalink

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.

Apr 22, 2013*permalink

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.

Apr 22, 2013*permalink

moimoi

@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.

Apr 22, 2013permalink

@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.

Apr 22, 2013permalink

moimoi

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

Apr 22, 2013permalink

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.)

Apr 22, 2013*permalink

Jerry Ci

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.

Apr 22, 2013*permalink

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.

Apr 22, 2013*permalink

Redteg94

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.

Apr 22, 2013permalink

TWIZEEL

..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

Apr 23, 2013*permalink

NetMage

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.

Apr 23, 2013permalink

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?

Apr 23, 2013permalink

TWIZEEL

could be better if 12 - 24 or 35 - 70

Apr 22, 2013permalink

ceaiu

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.

Apr 22, 2013permalink

Jan Kritzinger

Nope, this is the sweet spot.

Apr 22, 2013permalink

TWIZEEL

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.

Apr 23, 2013*permalink

CameraLabTester

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".

Apr 22, 2013permalink

AshMills

That's terrible. Sorry.

Apr 22, 2013permalink

balios

Ba-dum ching!

Apr 22, 2013permalink

Photato

Game Changer potential.

Apr 22, 2013permalink

pc168

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

Apr 22, 2013permalink