Jump to content

New B&H review with pictures of Sigma `18-35mm lens


t._zenjitsuman

Recommended Posts

<p>This is the forth review of this lens. The photos posted<br>

answer many questions I had about what the rendition in different<br>

conditions that I would be using this lens. Posting this<br>

just like I posted the other 3 review links, because reaction has<br>

been telling me many want to know more about such a fast zoom.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/indepth/photography/hands-reviews/hands-review-sigma-18-35mm-f18-lens">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/indepth/photography/hands-reviews/hands-review-sigma-18-35mm-f18-lens</a><br>

I still wonder how sales pre-orders are going. If anyone orders and is told there are waiting<br>

list type backorders please let us know. I am curious to know if lens tests matter. If the short zoom<br>

range is detrimental to sales. If sales are good, I would suppose its because the lens is 1.25 stops<br>

faster than any other zoom lens available for DX format.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong><em>If</em></strong> they bring out something like a 30-70mm f1.8, they would have a complete UWA to mid tele, mostly 'v.fast', Pro DX only lens system....something Nikon don't seem to want to make.</p>

<p>8-16mm.....18-35mm 1.8.....<em><strong>30-70mm f1.8</strong></em>.....50-150mm 2.8 OS </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Although if you break the zoom range down into components that are too small, you end up with primes...<br />

<br />

Still, from other threads there seems to be a group of people who mostly use one end of the 24-70 range, so I'm not suggesting that Sigma have got it wrong in any way. And if Nikon end up selling extra DX bodies to cover the range that FX could cover with fewer, maybe we'll see a D400 after all. :-)</p>

 

<blockquote>Here we have an optic that provides a unique window of opportunity: each captured moment can be as original as the eye imagines.</blockquote>

 

<p>I appreciate that B&H want to sell the things (and I have nothing bad to say about them as a store), but - especially in a "review" - that's marketing fluff of the highest order. Once they start talking about the scalloped lens shade, I start wondering what kind of jus it's served with...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Andrew, I guess that's the price to pay for speed. There seem to be very few x3 or x4 fast <strong>&</strong> wide zooms..:-(</p>

<p>Mind you, if it came out on April the 1st, an 18-35mm <strong>f1</strong><strong>.8</strong> zoom would be high on the list of suspects!</p>

<p>'Reviews' by those wishing to sell them are hardly neutral..... I think the term 'vested interest' comes to mind...:-)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You luurve the idea of this lens :D<br /> The slight problem I have with this is a reduced resale possibility, as it is only for smaller format sensors, effectively like a 28mm-50mm f1.8. When I think of it like that, the range and aperture becomes rather less exciting. Sorry.<br /> If they had brought out a 18-35mm f2 for full-format at the same price it would be <em>much</em> more attractive because I could use it in two different ways.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Nico, there are a lot more DX users out there than FX users. The average number of lenses bought is probably lower, but I suspect you're still on safe ground trying to sell a DX lens if you want to. It may depreciate because it's <i>Sigma</i>, at least until their reputation reaches where it should be (I'm on my second 150mm macro because the AF stopped working and there are wildly varying reports on the quality of the 150-500; I believe they're improving from the "friends don't let friends buy Sigma" days, but they're not Leica yet).</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>So the classic lenses that used to be provided with 35mm cameras and compacts used to be 28, 35, maybe 40, and 50mm. It's a perfectly sensible range offering a fairly natural perspective but that's also why I can't get excited about it. I know an full-format lens of this range would be much more big and expensive but if they're going to do a DX/APS-C of it I wish they'd done it as 16-35mm so I could really cram things in with the wideangle. The 35 & 50mm that the zoom is supposed to replace happen to all be compact and inexpensive lenses and I actually feel the absence of the 24mm capability more than I feel the benefit of this zoom. But the price they're asking really isn't so bad if it delivers the goods.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thinking about it if I didn't have an 11-16mm, I would have loved to see a 16-30mm for the same<br>

size. That would be a 24mm to 45mm lens. I was never a big 50mm guy on FF 35mm film.<br>

I have a tiny 45mm f2.8 P lens, kind of liked the extra room, and still 35mm seems way different<br>

than 45mm on film. You know on the wide angle side just a few mm wider makes for big changes<br>

in acceptance angles of the lenses. Personally 24mm view on FX, 28mm and 35mm and 45mm<br>

are 4 primes I have had on one camera system or another as prime lenses. From 46-59mm is<br>

my no interest zone on DX that is say 31-39mm. A 60mm on Dx is a handy portrait 90mm lens.<br>

I was never attracted to the FF 24-70mm, instead I have the 24mm-85mm f2.8-4 AF-D macro.<br>

On FF that was a great walk around do almost anything lens. Too bad it was already big<br>

I don't think I would want to carry an f1.8 version, that is if its even possible to make one.<br>

Sigma got this pretty right, most 16mm in zooms at the wide end have sad IQ with extra<br>

vignetting and barrel distortion. I would rather have good than bad compromise. I don't mind<br>

having to switch to a wider angle zoom. But a 16-30mm might be even a better idea.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I would have loved to see a 16-30mm for the same<br /> size. That would be a 24mm to 45mm lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>if the "review"--really more like a reviewvertisement, although the pics speak for themselves--is accurate, then the rectilinear rendering makes up for this. i often have to use my 17-50 at 20mm and the 24-70 at 28mm, to avoid overly distorted images, in pics where that matters. incidentally, i have a sigma 15-30 already, but it's not f/1.8.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>There's another review with more tests:<br>

http://www.camerastuffreview.com/sigma-lens-review/sigma-18-35-art-review<br>

http://fstoppers.com/fstoppers-reviews-the-sigma-18-35mm-f1-8-dc-hsm-art-lens<br>

both have little negative to say of the lens either, though fstoppers do talk about it like it is a tweener in absolute quality with a little zoom range.<br>

This lens made me investigate prices of current primes, which turn out to be strangely high for 28mm but the zoom seems to be in line with what one would pay for a third-party manufacturer set of 28mm, 35mm and 50mm f1.8 primes, the 28mm being probably as much as the other two put together.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>the zoom seems to be in line with what one would pay for a third-party manufacturer set of 28mm, 35mm and 50mm f1.8 primes, the 28mm being probably as much as the other two put together.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>actually, the 18-35 is cheaper than a three-prime 3rd party set. the sigma 50/1.4 is $450; the sigma 35/1.4 is $900; and a sigma 28/1.8 is $450. even if you swap out the FF 35/1.4 for the DX 30/1.4 ($400), you're still looking at a fair amount of cash. You can get a nikon 3-prime set of 28/1.8G ($700) , 50/1.8G ($215), and 35/1.8 ($200) for less, but that's still several hundred dollars more than the 18-35 and doesn't include 18, 20, and 24 focal ranges. that being said, the 18-35 seems like a bargain.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>People may be puzzled as to why you are comparing a set of f1.4 primes to the price of an f1.8 zoom. In case anyone skipped some discussion, I was waffling about what an equivalent set of f1.8 lenses on FX format would cost. I was thinking more along the lines of a Nikon 50mm f1.8D, 35mm f1.8G and then you could even fit the Sigma 28mm f1.8 Macro in to come under $800.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Nico, here's your previous post, which clearly states you are comparing the 18-35 with 3rd-party primes:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the zoom seems to be in line with what one would pay for a third-party manufacturer set of 28mm, 35mm and 50mm f1.8 primes,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Obviously, Nikon is not a 3rd party, so it's disingenuous to switch the parameters of your comparison. I noted the cost of 1.4 primes because Sigma doesnt make a 50/1.8 or a 35/1.8 (and AFAIK, neither does Tamron or Tokina), and in any event, i wouldn't seriously consider the Nikon 50/1.8 D lens because of the awful bokeh, especially since the G version is only a little more expensive. It's also disingenuous to compare a DX zoom to "an equivalent set of f1.8 lenses on FX format", as you have done. For one thing, your comparison doesn't work because the 35/1.8 is a DX lens.<br>

<br>

But even if we ignore the inconsistencies in your comparison and go with the 50/1.8D, 35/1.8G, and sigma 28/1.8, sure you come in at under $800--though i would probably spend more for the nikon 28/1.8G as the Sigma is a film-era design and is likely more prone to flare--but you're not covering the same range as the 18-35. So it's just not a comparable comparison you're making. And even if it were, are you really getting the same IQ from two older primes and an el plastic DX cheapie as you would from the 18-35? not talking about sharpness stopped down but at open apertures? my experience with the 50/1.8D is that it doesn't get sharp until 2.8. i think lenstip said the 18-35 is equal or better to the 35/1.8 in sharpness, and the sigma 28/1.8 has lousy corners, according to photozone.<br>

<br>

If you look at this lens tip <a href="http://www.lenstip.com/374.4-Lens_review-Sigma_A_18-35_mm_f_1.8_DC_HSM__Image_resolution.html">review </a> , you can see that the 18-35 outresolves all those lenses you mentioned at wide apertures. as they wrote, "Sigma shows that their zoom lenses can break records and set new standards as much as (or perhaps even better than) the best “primes”.<br>

<br>

So, for $800, you're getting equal or better IQ as well as an extended range of focal lengths. The only downside is perhaps the size and weight of the zoom, but that also balances out if you're carrying 3-5 primes just to match the sigma's range. I'm not sure, then, why anyone would prefer the 50d+35/1.8+28/1.8 trio over the 18-35, <em>especially since, at full retail, your cost savings would be just $30</em>.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...