Feeling a little jealous of APS-C users today...

<p>I must admit, I'm very interested to see what this guy will be capable of. More importantly, what it signifies it terms of the larger world of 'fast zooms'... We've spent the last 20+ years 'stuck' at f2.8 max apertures (with a <em>very</em> few bad variable zoom exceptions)<br>

Afterall, if Canon can't do it too, they ought to feel a bit embarrased. If they can, they they should IMO...</p>

<p>OTOH, maybe I should wait to see what this is capable of before I get too excited...</p>

<p><a href="http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/18-35mm-f18-dc-hsm-art">http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/18-35mm-f18-dc-hsm-art</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>It's not really <em>that</em> exciting, to me at least. It's a 29-56mm zoom equivalent for a start. Not really that exciting a range. The f1.8 is OK but I'm not sure when I'd want a lens in that range of that speed. Maybe if I did a lot of low light indoor work it might be useful.</p>

<p>I really don't feel all that "stuck" at f2.8 most of the time, but then again if I want fast I'll choose a fast prime.</p>

<p>If you're thinking it will give you a nice shallow DOF, it will - but only the same shallow DOF as an f2.8 lens would on full frame. You're still not going to beat a cheap 50/1.8 on a old EOS 5D!</p>

Equivalent DoF is f/2.9. I would have to see the bokeh to get excited.

<p>Since I don't shoot much APS-C at all anymore (I still have an old rebel I let my kids play with), this <em>particular</em> lens does not appeal to me. Except in that, depending on the optics, it <em>may</em> be usable at <em>some</em> FLs giving FF coverage. It's, in fact, kind of ironic that they chose to make it APS-C only, since, as a general rule, FF users tend to budget more for glass, and this particular FL range has a shortage of fast primes that put out excellent IQ WO. </p>

<p>So while this is really <em>kind</em> of cool, to me, the exciting thought is a FF 16/17-35 f1.8... That would seriously rock. <em>Especially</em> if it performs half decently WO and near. Given the lack of decent UWA fast primes (aka none -at least that are not manual only) Perhaps that'll be something that's coming soon?</p>

<p>Worst case (other than it completely sucking of course) is that it puts the ball into other lens manufacturer's court. To me, I'd <em>happily</em> drop 2-3k on a 16-35/1.8L (or even /f2), and call it a deal.</p>

<p> </p>

I think it'll be cheaper and easier, and use less space in the camera bag, to just carry a few fast

prime lenses. It is a neat thing though, I must admit, especially for people who do low-light wide

angle photography in confined spaces (concerts, nightclub photos, museums) and who might

not want to carry a bunch of lenses.

My Nex-7 is APS-C and when I want a 1 lens walking around experience, I like the Sony/Zeiss 16-80. It's the equivalent

of about 24-120 (which is perfect for me). I get wide enough to get good wideangles, and enough zoom to cut something

out of the shot. Much nicer APS-C range.

<p>Hey Marcus- I've got an interesting hypothetical for you...</p>

<p>Given Canon's (it is SINGULAR, darn it!) two recent lens introductions:<br>

24-70L/f4.0<br>

and<br>

28/f2.8<br>

with street prices of $1,400 and $799 respectively, what is YOUR guess a 16-35L/f1.8 would sell for? ;-)<br>

(I tried to guess, but I couldn't get my Excel spreadsheet columns wide enough to display the result....)<br>

Robert</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Michael Young referred the DOF equivalency and coming back to aperture, how "faster" do you think DX F:1.8 will be compared to FF F:2.8?<br>

It will be smaller, lighter and probably cheaper but we should look for IQ and (as Michael said) at the kind of bokeh it will produce wide open.</p>

<p>Michael Young referred the DOF equivalency and coming back to aperture, how "faster" do you think DX F:1.8 will be compared to FF F:2.8?<br>

It will be smaller, lighter and probably cheaper but we should look for IQ and (as Michael said) at the kind of bokeh it will produce wide open.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>xIt will be smaller, lighter and probably cheaper but we should look for IQ and (as Michael said) at the kind of bokeh it will produce wide open.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why? Bokeh is important to a small number of people who would want this lens. I would be very happy to use it if it came in APS-H, which is what I use most of the time. The extra stop+ over the zoom I use most of the time would be welcome. I shoot a lot in dark environments, I could care less about bokeh. I just care about light, and it's very difficult to shoot what I shoot with primes. I would have been incredibly happy for an extra stop with this one, for example.</p>

<p><img src="http://spirer.com/rctvindependent/content/images/large/_57P8099.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="525" /></p>

<p>Sigma doesn't use the EF-S mount so you will be able to use this on a full frame body if you want, and crop to the smaller image circle.</p>

<p>As a Nikon crop shooter who desperately wants a good 24mm f/1.8 that doesn't cost a fortune, this may be a better bet. If it's any good wide open. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would be very happy to use it if it came in APS-H, which is what I use most of the time...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If my experience with 3rd party 'digital only' (aka APS-C) lenses has taught me anything, it's that the image circle is rarely static. Since they don't have a separate category for APS-H, we'll have to wait until somebody can mount it on a 5D/1D/1Ds body to see how big the actual image circle is throughout the zoom range. I wouldn't be surprised if it only suffered mild vignetting at some FLs on an APS-H. Certainly there are quite a few APS-C lenses who work pretty darn well on an aps-h, but @f1.8? who knows...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think it'll be cheaper and easier, and use less space in the camera bag, to just carry a few fast prime lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even if you went uber-cheap, and tried to cover this range w/ say a 20/2.8 + 28/1.8 + 35/2, you are still looking at a $1200+ cost new, a heavier bag (the three lightweights still outmass this lens), considerably more space in your bag (especially if you add padding to keep the three from clunking around), plus, trying to figure out, on the fly, in a dark room, which you need, and mounting it, and stowing the lens you just removed. That isn't even discussing the penalty in speed from the prime route. I wouldn't call that easier. All 3 have marginal (at best) IQ WO, and If you bump any of those up to their L equivalent, you've just doubled the cost, <em>and</em> the weight.</p>

<p>No, I'd say the days of the argument that a few primes is faster/cheaper/easier/better are numbered if a lens like this can produce decent results.</p>

<p>"No, I'd say the days of the argument that a few primes is faster/cheaper/easier/better are numbered if a lens like this can produce decent results."<br>

<br>

That is entirely possible.<br>

<br>

Then again, pop a 24L/1.4II on a FF body for a day of shooting, and you may be reminded how vast the gulf really is...<br>

rt<br>

</p>

<p>18-35/1.8 for APSC - that's neat. Good on you Sigma!</p>

<p>Now, how about a 16/1.4 APSC prime and a 50-135/1.8 APSC zoom?</p>

 

<p>The review here is very positive.<br>

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sigma_18_35mm_f1_8_dc_hsm_review/<br>

I my experience of owning several Sigma wides: 12-24, 10-20, 8-16 and 17-70. they have all delivered quality sometimes beyond their price range. Bokeh has always been a strong point though its less important with an ultra wide. The Sigma looks to be a very useful lens for stage photography and especially video. I will want one to go with the new 70D.</p>