Adapted Sigma EF DC 18-35mm Art f1.8 to m43

[bigley Ling]

This is quite possibly one of that fastest zoom lenses in the world. The lens is adapted to m43 using a Metabones Speedbooster ultra 0.71x which changes the focal length of the lens to 13-25mm f1.2.


18-35 on Metabones speed booster ultra m43 on E-M1

It is a monster lens compared to most native m43 lenses, but if your m43 camera has a descent vertical grip, the lens will feel less front heavy, and overall easier to manage. Having a f1.2 zoom lens does come at a cost of weight and size.

The lens is sharp over the whole frame at f1.8, but has vignetting issues at the widest focal length 18mm due to the nature of the speedbooster delivering a 1.4x instead of a 1.5x crop. Bokeh is pleasing, and depth of field narrow. The vignetting issue can be easily resolved by cropping to 3:2.

Being an EF lens, the lens adapted via the metabones smart adapter allows for full aperture and autofocus. The lens behaves as if it were a native m43 lens. Autofocus is swift, accurate and quiet! This iens AF motors are quieter than my Canon L series USM lenses! Touch screen focus as as zone focus within the PDAF works correctly. Surprisingly facial recognition focus also works. As with all adapted EF lenses currently using the Metabones Smart adapters, Continuous AF is not supported and does not work. EXIF data is records aperture and focal length, so IBIS does not require user data to work correctly.


close up crop of a bee


Depth of field is razor thin,


more narrow depth of field and bokeh example


Vignetting issues at 13mm


Distortion simple test at 25mm


distortion simple test at 13mm

Comments welcome

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Sweet, I can do without that sort of temptation ....

Obviously the lens is more than satisfactory.

I crop 3:2 in camera with my Sigma 8-16mm - works fine in aps-c format. Given that the net effect of the Ultra adapter is to create an adjusted focal length of 1.5x FF eq on the aps-c sensor size that the lens was made for then the overall effect of the Ultra's 0.71x by 2.0x crop gives a slightly wider lens on M4/3 than it was designed to be on aps-c.

 

[neil holmes]

This is quite possibly one of that fastest zoom lenses in the world. The lens is adapted to m43 using a Metabones Speedbooster ultra 0.71x which changes the focal length of the lens to 13-25mm f1.2.


18-35 on Metabones speed booster ultra m43 on E-M1

It is a monster lens compared to most native m43 lenses, but if your m43 camera has a descent vertical grip, the lens will feel less front heavy, and overall easier to manage. Having a f1.2 zoom lens does come at a cost of weight and size.

The lens is sharp over the whole frame at f1.8, but has vignetting issues at the widest focal length 18mm due to the nature of the speedbooster delivering a 1.4x instead of a 1.5x crop. Bokeh is pleasing, and depth of field narrow. The vignetting issue can be easily resolved by cropping to 3:2.

Being an EF lens, the lens adapted via the metabones smart adapter allows for full aperture and autofocus. The lens behaves as if it were a native m43 lens. Autofocus is swift, accurate and quiet! This iens AF motors are quieter than my Canon L series USM lenses! Touch screen focus as as zone focus within the PDAF works correctly. Surprisingly facial recognition focus also works. As with all adapted EF lenses currently using the Metabones Smart adapters, Continuous AF is not supported and does not work. EXIF data is records aperture and focal length, so IBIS does not require user data to work correctly.


close up crop of a bee


Depth of field is razor thin,


more narrow depth of field and bokeh example


Vignetting issues at 13mm


Distortion simple test at 25mm


distortion simple test at 13mm

Comments welcome

Thanks for that.....looks a nice option.

I was hoping someone would give that a go. I would also like to see how the lens goes without a speedbooster and just a straight AF adapter (IE Kipon).

That said, a bit too much money for me right now ......my next two lenses will likely be a 10-18 Canon STM and 55-250 STM......and after that the new 105 f2 T2.3 Venus Optics (in EF mount so I can use it on both M4/3 and FF E mount.

 

[bigley Ling]

Decided to test out the sigma on the Nex5r using the Smart Adapter iv. AF speed is via CDAF (contrast detect) only. I was expecting slow AF like all my other Canon lenses attached in this combination, but this was not the case! Although the lens tracked in the wrong direction to start with, the AF algorithm chooses to limit the focus range when the subject is on the outer range. The same occurs when subject is close range. The result is relatively quick AF only falling short of the E-M1 with the same lens by about 1/2 second. Focus is accurate, and since there is no focus reducer, the lens effective focal length is close to identical to the E-M1 with a focus reducer, except there is no vignetting what so ever when using this lens on an APS-C 3:2 camera.



Image quality between the E-M1 with focus reducer and NEx 5r without focus reducer should be quite close. They both sport 16MP sensors. The Sony has the larger sensor and hence larger pixels, but the E-M1 with focus reducer gets a 1 stop light gathering advantage. Depth of field should be nearly identical as well. When I have time, will do a test comparison between the two setups.


18-35mm on Metabones Smart adapter iv EF-Emount








test image captured with the 18-35 with the Nex 5r.

What is clear is the lens is truly sharp. Even without the focus reducer improving MTF, the overall sharpness is impressive. Apart from the size of the lens, I think Sigma Art lenses are a serious contender when it comes to making fine lenses.

 

[bigley Ling]

18-35 on MB Smart adapter iv on Nex 5r APS-C 16MP


18-35 on MB Speedbooster ultra on E-M1 m43 16MP

Field of view is similar with the E-M1 being slightly wider. Also note the difference in aspect ration between the sensors.



Interesting I set both cameras to auto ISO, and both selected ISO 1000.



Using speedbooster has turned the E-M1 into an APS-C equivalent camera

 

[Tom Caldwell]

18-35 on MB Smart adapter iv on Nex 5r APS-C 16MP


18-35 on MB Speedbooster ultra on E-M1 m43 16MP

Field of view is similar with the E-M1 being slightly wider. Also note the difference in aspect ration between the sensors.

Interesting I set both cameras to auto ISO, and both selected ISO 1000.

Using speedbooster has turned the E-M1 into an APS-C equivalent camera

I think that the hopping, skipping and jumping over the "FF" sensor might have caused some overlooking of the fact that a focal reduction adapter can make a M4/3 body into an effectively slightly superior aps-c performer. This is "news" from the fact there are still a considerable number of aps-c sensored dslr camera bodies sold and that to all extent and purposes they are of similar size to their FF dslr siblings. At least the NEX series and its successors have a body shape that reflects their aps-c sensor heritage - or is this a bad move? Maybe Sony could make an aps-c sensor version of the A7 series? Not all a joke as some prefer the evf sitting square up on top and having an aps-c and a FF version of the same body gives a user double focal length duty with a crop sensor with more or less the same control structure when bodies are swapped.

I presume that both cameras were on AWB and that maybe the E-M1 was more real life "correct" although no doubt both versions are acceptable.

--
Tom Caldwell

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Sweet, I can do without that sort of temptation ....

Obviously the lens is more than satisfactory.

I crop 3:2 in camera with my Sigma 8-16mm - works fine in aps-c format. Given that the net effect of the Ultra adapter is to create an adjusted focal length of 1.5x FF eq on the aps-c sensor size that the lens was made for then the overall effect of the Ultra's 0.71x by 2.0x crop gives a slightly wider lens on M4/3 than it was designed to be on aps-c.

 

[bigley Ling]

Sweet, I can do without that sort of temptation ....

Obviously the lens is more than satisfactory.

I crop 3:2 in camera with my Sigma 8-16mm - works fine in aps-c format. Given that the net effect of the Ultra adapter is to create an adjusted focal length of 1.5x FF eq on the aps-c sensor size that the lens was made for then the overall effect of the Ultra's 0.71x by 2.0x crop gives a slightly wider lens on M4/3 than it was designed to be on aps-c.

 

[bigley Ling]

18-35 on MB Smart adapter iv on Nex 5r APS-C 16MP


18-35 on MB Speedbooster ultra on E-M1 m43 16MP

Field of view is similar with the E-M1 being slightly wider. Also note the difference in aspect ration between the sensors.

Interesting I set both cameras to auto ISO, and both selected ISO 1000.

Using speedbooster has turned the E-M1 into an APS-C equivalent camera

I think that the hopping, skipping and jumping over the "FF" sensor might have caused some overlooking of the fact that a focal reduction adapter can make a M4/3 body into an effectively slightly superior aps-c performer. This is "news" from the fact there are still a considerable number of aps-c sensored dslr camera bodies sold and that to all extent and purposes they are of similar size to their FF dslr siblings. At least the NEX series and its successors have a body shape that reflects their aps-c sensor heritage - or is this a bad move? Maybe Sony could make an aps-c sensor version of the A7 series? Not all a joke as some prefer the evf sitting square up on top and having an aps-c and a FF version of the same body gives a user double focal length duty with a crop sensor with more or less the same control structure when bodies are swapped.

I presume that both cameras were on AWB and that maybe the E-M1 was more real life "correct" although no doubt both versions are acceptable.

--
Tom Caldwell

Yes both cameras were AWB, but I accidentally left a picture profile Vivid setup on the Nex-5r. That would explain the additional saturation. I know both these are JPG so the comparison is not overly scientific. I have to add I am enjoying the the 1.4x crop over 1.5x in a standard APS-C sensor. Having ultra wides and fisheyes has always been the Achilles heel for m43. Having speedboosters for m43 fixes this.

 

[bigley Ling]

More basic bokeh tests comparing the Sigma 18-35 1.8 vs Canon 16-35 f4L IS USM at 35mm. both lenses are acclaimed to have excellent edge to edge performance. The 16-35 is a full frame lens so not a good test for ultimate lens performance, but still when used in this setup, there is only 2mm difference at the wide end.

Dimensionally both lenses are similarly sizes with the Canon sporting built in IS, which is ideal m43 cameras that do not have built in IBIS.


Sigma 18-35 f1.8 APS-C and Canon 16-35 f4.0 full frame


Sigma 18-35 f1.8 on Speedbooster ultra on E-M1


Canon 16-35 f4.0 on Speedbooster ultra on E-M1

Both lenses are super sharp, but the Sigma's autofocus is smoother and faster than Canons latest L series ultra wide lens. Canon lenses are no slouch when it comes to AF, but feels kind of clunky compared to the refined focus motors in the Sigma.



It is clear, that the Canon 16-35 feels out of place when used on the E-M1. It is designed for full frame, so best left used for full frame type applications. The Sigma 18-35 is in it's element when used on APS-C or m43 cameras with focus reducers.

 

[brian]

More basic bokeh tests comparing the Sigma 18-35 1.8 vs Canon 16-35 f4L IS USM at 35mm. both lenses are acclaimed to have excellent edge to edge performance. The 16-35 is a full frame lens so not a good test for ultimate lens performance, but still when used in this setup, there is only 2mm difference at the wide end.

Dimensionally both lenses are similarly sizes with the Canon sporting built in IS, which is ideal m43 cameras that do not have built in IBIS.

Both lenses are super sharp, but the Sigma's autofocus is smoother and faster than Canons latest L series ultra wide lens. Canon lenses are no slouch when it comes to AF, but feels kind of clunky compared to the refined focus motors in the Sigma.

It is clear, that the Canon 16-35 feels out of place when used on the E-M1. It is designed for full frame, so best left used for full frame type applications. The Sigma 18-35 is in it's element when used on APS-C or m43 cameras with focus reducers.

Aside from the Canon being limited to f/2.8 (or f/2.5 with a Speed Booster XL) as opposed to f/1.2 for the Sigma, how does it feel out of place? Just thinking that its a physically smaller lens with a larger range and it has IS. So it sounds like a really great ultrawide-to-normal video/cine lens, for example.

--
Brian Caldwell

 

[bigley Ling]

More basic bokeh tests comparing the Sigma 18-35 1.8 vs Canon 16-35 f4L IS USM at 35mm. both lenses are acclaimed to have excellent edge to edge performance. The 16-35 is a full frame lens so not a good test for ultimate lens performance, but still when used in this setup, there is only 2mm difference at the wide end.

Dimensionally both lenses are similarly sizes with the Canon sporting built in IS, which is ideal m43 cameras that do not have built in IBIS.

Both lenses are super sharp, but the Sigma's autofocus is smoother and faster than Canons latest L series ultra wide lens. Canon lenses are no slouch when it comes to AF, but feels kind of clunky compared to the refined focus motors in the Sigma.

It is clear, that the Canon 16-35 feels out of place when used on the E-M1. It is designed for full frame, so best left used for full frame type applications. The Sigma 18-35 is in it's element when used on APS-C or m43 cameras with focus reducers.

Aside from the Canon being limited to f/2.8 (or f/2.5 with a Speed Booster XL) as opposed to f/1.2 for the Sigma, how does it feel out of place? Just thinking that its a physically smaller lens with a larger range and it has IS. So it sounds like a really great ultrawide-to-normal video/cine lens, for example.