Impressive!

[David Naylor]

I'm usually a slow upgrader, waiting until at least a year after release, but with the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 I just went for it.

First impressions: wow!

This lens ...

• ... is an APS-C equivalent to a full-frame 29-56mm f/2.8 lens (same shallow DOF and same light gathering ability).
• ... can replace a collection of primes.
• ... has better image quality than most (all?) primes in the same focal length range.
• ... feels solid as a rock, like a Canon L lens or – dare I say it – slightly better.
• ... has zoom and focus rings which make you feel like you died and went to heaven.
• ... offers great value for money.
• ... makes me forget about wanting to go full frame.

Now, lets be honest. This lens is also ...

• ... fairly large, comparable to the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.
• ... quite heavy. Still, a great match for my 7D all the same.

Test shot, 18mm @ f/5.6:

Loading…

dl.dropboxusercontent.com

Test shot, 35mm @ f/1.8:

Loading…

dl.dropboxusercontent.com

 

[Bajerunner]

David Naylor wrote:

I'm usually a slow upgrader, waiting until at least a year after release, but with the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 I just went for it.

First impressions: wow!

This lens ...

• ... is an APS-C equivalent to a full-frame 29-56mm f/2.8 lens (same shallow DOF and same light gathering ability).
• ... can replace a collection of primes.
• ... has better image quality than most (all?) primes in the same focal length range.
• ... feels solid as a rock, like a Canon L lens or – dare I say it – slightly better.
• ... has zoom and focus rings which make you feel like you died and went to heaven.
• ... offers great value for money.
• ... makes me forget about wanting to go full frame.

Now, lets be honest. This lens is also ...

• ... fairly large, comparable to the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.
• ... quite heavy. Still, a great match for my 7D all the same.

Test shot, 18mm @ f/5.6:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/92517/C16286.jpg

Test shot, 35mm @ f/1.8:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/92517/C16280.jpg

Nice to know you are happy. Aside from the reported (and supported by you, image quality, your vote on the build quality is reassuring, sounds wonderful.

It sells also for almost half of the Nikkor 17-55 2.8 (used price of that seems now around 900 in EX+ condition). Aside from this Sigma appearing to be a very capable and enjoyable lens, in of itself, the value is incomparable, moreso if built as well as you say and with Sigma's warranty and support.

I look forward to when I can get mine.

Thanks for sharing your review.

--
Amateur photographer. Enjoy.....believe in yourself..

 

[David Naylor]

Bajerunner wrote:

Nice to know you are happy. Aside from the reported (and supported by you, image quality, your vote on the build quality is reassuring, sounds wonderful.

It sells also for almost half of the Nikkor 17-55 2.8 (used price of that seems now around 900 in EX+ condition). Aside from this Sigma appearing to be a very capable and enjoyable lens, in of itself, the value is incomparable, moreso if built as well as you say and with Sigma's warranty and support.

I look forward to when I can get mine.

Thanks for sharing your review.

 

[Bajerunner]

David Naylor wrote:

Thanks for sharing your review.

--
Amateur photographer. Enjoy.....believe in yourself..

Thanks. Didn't realize this review would end up in the forum (I thought I was posting it on the lens page...) Sorry for repeating what I have already said several times ...

Don't apologise, if this lens is as good as the rewiews (including yours) says, it is a significant product, especially at the price.

Basically, on the basis of the reviews and price, its a no brainer purchase.

--
Amateur photographer. Enjoy.....believe in yourself..

 

[David Naylor]

A few more photos:


22mm @ f/1.8






31mm @ f/1.8






35mm @ f/1.8






19mm @ f/1.8






18mm @ f/1.8. Focus set on my dad in the middle.






Carrot cake @ f/1.8

 

[Bajerunner]

Wow. Those are some fine photos. Can almost taste those cherries in the first.

All at f1.8 , indeed impressively sharp. No need to 'stop down one stop' as the 'rule' goes.

And from your other photos, sharp across the frame at 5.6.

Very fine lens, Enjoy it!

Now, I wonder if they will be easy to get or the demand may exceed supply. Hopefully they will not cut on quality control just to push the numbers out.

Don't think they will last very long on store shelves.

 

[David Naylor]

Well, I get the feeling this is "new Sigma", and new Sigma doesn't botch quality control =)

I should add, for the record, that I have developed these in Lightroom and added some contrast (+37 I believe it was).

 

[Bajerunner]

David Naylor wrote:

Well, I get the feeling this is "new Sigma", and new Sigma doesn't botch quality control =)

If Sigma takes that approach, to all of its lenses, then it will compete favourably with ALL of the other manufacturers and one could probably surmise, subjectively, that with such an approach Sigma would be the top lens manufacturer within five years? Excellent manufacturing QC (and sound after sales service), based on excellent lens design and competitive price?

There would be no stopping them. Such a reputation has previously come with a significant price i.e. Zeiss, Nikon, Canon.

If Sigma can compete at the demonstrated prices on such quality, and add particularly strong after sales service (as opposed to what would appear to some to be confrontational type after sales service that some complain about with brand name manufacturers), it would do very well.

I should add, for the record, that I have developed these in Lightroom and added some contrast (+37 I believe it was).

Still impressive. Did you add much sharpening? The contrast will improve the perception of sharpening, but the point is, the micocontrast does not seem impacted by LR generic contrast adjustment i.e. if it is not there, LR will not bring it out, (am I wrong?).

And in your cat in bush and background photo, the microcontrast (and in the cherries photo) seems strong. I mean the fine sharp details. I don't think generic contrast adjustment would do much for this without the details being there.

I am not any lens expert, but only talking about what I see, understand.

--
Amateur photographer. Enjoy.....believe in yourself..

 

[David Naylor]

Sharpening was at my default setting. Can't remember exactly what it is set at, but it is fairly moderate.

 

[Mekutotokuchiri]

Am I wrong to be bummed out about this lens not having IS? Still, it looks amazing, and I'll seriously concider partnering this lens with my Canon D7 in the near future.

 

[David Naylor]

Mekutotokuchiri wrote:

Am I wrong to be bummed out about this lens not having IS? Still, it looks amazing, and I'll seriously concider partnering this lens with my Canon D7 in the near future.

Well, I don't know. I see it as a great replacement for my 30mm f/1.4 prime (which doesn't have IS either) so I never felt I missed it.

 

[ZenGeekDad]

Am I wrong to be bummed out about this lens not having IS? Still, it looks amazing, and I'll seriously concider partnering this lens with my Canon D7 in the near future.

I know this is an old thread, but from a few days reading on this lens, I can report (for future readers) that some reviewers did not miss the IS, for two reasons:

(1) They felt that faster shutter speeds trump IS (if choosing between the two), since IS only corrects camera movement, whereas a faster shutter controls subject motion too ... tho obviously it depends on the particulars, and ideally one might want both. It also occurs to me that, as all landscape photographers know, IS can actually degrade sharpness in some shooting conditions, and in that same way, I suspect the sharpness that this lens gets raves for might be hard to maintain while also doing IS.

(2) The hefty mass of this lens acts as a sort of momentum stabilizer. (At the risk of being pedantic -- my apologies in advance -- it's that F=ma thing from high school physics. Hand-held motion blur is a function of camera velocity, which in turn is the integration over time of acceleration, which is the ratio of force to mass [a=F/m] ... so larger masses equal smaller accelerations, and lower accidental random camera velocities.)