whyukon
Member
This lens is most of everything that everyone says about it: it is heavy, it has a limited range, it does occasionally misfocus, and it is indeed SHARP and FAST. You've all read the reviews, so I'll just add my personal experience and perspective.
I got this lens because I wanted a professional-quality lens to add to my mostly mundane set of consumer-grade lenses for my Canon EOS 60D. My consumer-grade lenses consist of a set of three zooms/superzooms/telezooms, the Canon nifty-fifty 1.8, and a nicely-built Sigma 10-20mm. Each of these has its place. I do mainly scenic and nature photography, and the combination of lenses cover focal lengths from 10 to 300mm with some degree of macro capability, and some decent but limited low-light capability. So, what was missing, and why did I want the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8?
None of my lenses, except the Canon 50mm f/1.8, was able to provide much control of depth of field, or adequately handle low light. While mainly a scenic photographer, I do dabble in more purely artistic shots, and have an interest in night sky photography. The Sigma 18-35mm fills those voids nicely. In combination with the Canon 50 1.8, I now have better control of light and depth of field, and a strong probabilithy of a sharp photo (assuming no user error!).
The Sigma 18-35mm is wonderfully and consistently sharp across a broad range of apertures. That means that I don't need to worry about compromising the sharpness in order to get my preferred depth of field. The focusing is quick, and quite reliable. Have I had any focusing issues? Yes, but.... only when I really try to make it fail, such as taking photos wide open in low light on a low contrast subject. The reality is that none of my other lenses would probably have done as well in those situations. The Canon 50 f/1.8, for example, I have found to be quite unreliable in such situations, in contrast to the Sigma. With the Sigma, I have not had one real photo (as opposed to test photo) fail to provide the degree of sharpness that I needed, unless through photographer error.
I find the weight of the lens to be largely beneficial. This is not a lens that I would choose to take on a hiking trip, for example, where the weight would matter. However, the mass of this lens helps stabilize the camera at slower shutter speeds, reducing the need for image stabilization, in the types of situations where I do use this lens.
I have found both the zoom and focus rings to have just the right weight, and extremely smooth operation. I have done some zoom and focus pulling on some test video, and both rings work perfectly in that respect.
This lens is what it is. It is not a do-all lens for every occasion. It is a professional quality lens for APS-C for those wanting the best picture quality and smoothest operation available in a wide-to-normal telephoto APS-C lens. It is one of a kind.
I got this lens because I wanted a professional-quality lens to add to my mostly mundane set of consumer-grade lenses for my Canon EOS 60D. My consumer-grade lenses consist of a set of three zooms/superzooms/telezooms, the Canon nifty-fifty 1.8, and a nicely-built Sigma 10-20mm. Each of these has its place. I do mainly scenic and nature photography, and the combination of lenses cover focal lengths from 10 to 300mm with some degree of macro capability, and some decent but limited low-light capability. So, what was missing, and why did I want the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8?
None of my lenses, except the Canon 50mm f/1.8, was able to provide much control of depth of field, or adequately handle low light. While mainly a scenic photographer, I do dabble in more purely artistic shots, and have an interest in night sky photography. The Sigma 18-35mm fills those voids nicely. In combination with the Canon 50 1.8, I now have better control of light and depth of field, and a strong probabilithy of a sharp photo (assuming no user error!).
The Sigma 18-35mm is wonderfully and consistently sharp across a broad range of apertures. That means that I don't need to worry about compromising the sharpness in order to get my preferred depth of field. The focusing is quick, and quite reliable. Have I had any focusing issues? Yes, but.... only when I really try to make it fail, such as taking photos wide open in low light on a low contrast subject. The reality is that none of my other lenses would probably have done as well in those situations. The Canon 50 f/1.8, for example, I have found to be quite unreliable in such situations, in contrast to the Sigma. With the Sigma, I have not had one real photo (as opposed to test photo) fail to provide the degree of sharpness that I needed, unless through photographer error.
I find the weight of the lens to be largely beneficial. This is not a lens that I would choose to take on a hiking trip, for example, where the weight would matter. However, the mass of this lens helps stabilize the camera at slower shutter speeds, reducing the need for image stabilization, in the types of situations where I do use this lens.
I have found both the zoom and focus rings to have just the right weight, and extremely smooth operation. I have done some zoom and focus pulling on some test video, and both rings work perfectly in that respect.
This lens is what it is. It is not a do-all lens for every occasion. It is a professional quality lens for APS-C for those wanting the best picture quality and smoothest operation available in a wide-to-normal telephoto APS-C lens. It is one of a kind.
