Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 DC HSM reviews

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by t._zenjitsuman, Jun 18, 2013.

  1. Two full measurement based test, that correlate corroborate each-other in the main
    One review I posted the link to days ago.
    http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1609
    Here is a Lenstip review posted today
    http://www.lenstip.com/374.1-Lens_review-Sigma_A_18-35_mm_f_1.8_DC_HSM_.html
    The summary
    Pros:
    • solid and stylish casing,
    • simply brillant image quality in the frame centre,
    • very good image quality on the edge of the frame,
    • sensibly corrected chromatic aberration,
    • negligible spherical aberration,
    • moderate distortion for a zoom lens,
    • slight astigmatism,
    • silent and accurate autofocus,
    • rich accessory kit,
    • good price to ability and quality ratio.
    Cons:
    • weak work against bright light.
    You should congratulate the Sigma Corporation and their optics specialists for two reasons. Firstly for their courage – they attempted to produce an instrument no other company had tried to construct before. Such a situation a lot can be forgiven so their product didn’t have to be outstanding. Still it is obvious Sigma wasn’t contended with half measures; not only they manufactured a unique instrument but also made it optically excellent in many categories.
    What’s important, I am sure there would be those willing to pay 4,000 – 5,000 PLN for such a lens and Sigma, taking into account the lack of competitors, could demand easily such an amount of money; however the company didn’t decide to follow that strategy and suggested a price which is within the reach of many amateur photographers. That’s why I don’t doubt that, like the Sigma 35 mm f/1.4 EX HSM, the 18-35 mm f/1.8 model won’t stay long on the shop shelves.
    Despite the slip-up during the work against bright light, taking into account all the achievements of the Sigma and its price we don’t doubt it deserves the badge below. Congratulations!
    Some of these results were better than separate primes like the Nikon 35mm f1.8 known as
    a great lens for the money. My takeaway is that this is one sharp fast AF lens.
     
  2. Can a moderator please fix the subject?
     
  3. I agree, I will try next time to catch all the Typoos, OOPS. I would appreciate Shun
    if you could do what Rob suggested. We are trying to just provide info for those
    who are following this product. Of course a Photo.net review would be desired,
    I read the Sigma 35mm review. I like the fact that this review is from Poland, the whole
    world is interested just like photo.net I guess we are up to at least 8 pages on that other
    thread on the same lens.
     
  4. "never in our wildest dreams had we thought that the resolution results of this lens would be so sensational. We thought that a new construction, difficult to design, would be full of compromises, sometimes necessary to swallow if you want to own an f/1.8 zoom lens We are happy to announce we were wrong. When it comes to the resolution there are no compromises almost at all and the lens provides you images of great quality practically for every combination of focal lengths and apertures."​
    that's from the lenstip review. i'd want to see what photozone and dpreview have to say, but in general, reviews dont get much more glowing than that. is this lens a game-changer? could be. if you shoot DX and already have 1.8 or 1.4 50 and 85 primes, the 18-35 could be a perfect piece of kit, particularly for event shooters, PJs and anyone else who needs blurred backgrounds or low light ability. i was intrigued before; now i'm interested.
     
  5. And from this I get what if I buy it, since I already have the Nikon 17-552.8? My wife pays attention 'a little' ... money is not a real issue, but if I 'double-down' ....??? Gotta stay at least a legs length away for awhile to avoid an ... well, some kind of kicking...;-)
     
  6. from this I get what if I buy it, since I already have the Nikon 17-552.8?​
    i'd wait for reviews in Nikon-mount before buying, but if they have similar findings, i'd sell the 17-55 (you should be able to get the asking price of the sigma), and gain a stop-and-a-third of aperture and what may be class-leading performance. if you're really attached to the 17-55, and/or would miss the 35-55 range, sure, keep it. but the 17-55 is a design from 2003; the sigma's high resolution figures, especially sub-2.8, are likely the result of making a 2x zoom, as opposed to a 3x zoom. tokina did the same thing--lower the zoom range--with their 11-16, which has what is often described as prime-like performance, so it's not totally unprecedented.
     
  7. Today's issue (for me, in the mail) of Popular Photography has an announcement of the lens:
    http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2013/06/sigma-18-35mm-f18-zoom-lens-will-cost-just-799
    This sounds interesting at a good price. Sigma seems to be following a very intelligent (IMHO) strategy of pushing the envelope into places the Canikon companies are slow in getting to. Good for them.
     
  8. Eric, you and I have read lots of lens reviews, the review measurement numbers speak for
    themselves, so far we got numbers from the 2 different sources, I too would like
    to see photozone.de, but since I placed an pre-order, each test assures me more and more
    that this won't be a big flop of a purchase.
    I looked at all the picture posted so far on Dpreview, that Korean sight, the Slrgear sight,
    etc. They looked good. I like that this test review the Bokeh, and said it was fine, that is
    important, as much so as good edge resolution and all the tests where we can get numbers.
    For the fastest zoom available it breaks new ground, but the numbers put this on par
    with fixed fast primes, and that is really a DX game changer.
     
  9. while as a night shooter I am interested in this lens, I am trying to avoid adding "pieces" to my system. I currently am using Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, Nikons 17-55mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8 VR on my D7100 and D5100. The 17-55mm is my most used lens, so I don't want to dump it. I'm not sure how often I'd use something wider than f2.8 either. SO, without a clearly identified need, I will pass on the lens for now, even if it is as excellent as it sounds. I just don't have a "job" for it. Now if they come up with a 17-50mm f1.8, hmmm...........
    Kent in SD
     
  10. So as a night shooter, you don't think that an extra 1.25 f-stop faster won't make
    for less high iso noise, a higher shutter speed or a lower iso? I think it helps
    narrow the difference between FX and DX in night photography. If that was
    the type of environment I shot photos in I would be shooting FX gear, just buy one
    FX camera body instead of two DX bodies.
    I always preferred fast lenses, was never crazy for slow zooms that averaged f4.5
    I have F1.2, and f1.4 prime lenses, and a couple of medium fast f2 prime lenses
    bought for indoor available light shooting. This f1.8 lens would have been a dream come
    true when color film went maybe to ISO 800.
     
  11. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Sorry to rain on your parade, but I think this lens will be a touch sell. For one thing the zoom range is odd for DX, and if I want f1.8 for low-light work, I would use FX, which is getting cheaper and cheaper. I have mentioned before that a relative of mine recently bought a brand new Canon 6D for around $1500. I think we'll see the D600 and its successor in that price range within a year.
    Nikon will continue to sell a lot of DX-format DSLRs, but those will be mainly consumer-grade, sub-$1000 D3200 and D5200 types. It'll be difficult to get those owners to spend $800 on a wide zoom. I don't see any more D300-class DSLRs from Nikon.
    I happen to love higher-end DX cameras, but only for telephoto and super telephoto work. I use the D7100 very often with 400mm lenses and up. For any wide-angle work, FX is the answer.
    IMO, this lens is mis-guided approach from Sigma. Canon and Nikon will not bother with an f1.8 wide zoom for APS-C DSLRs.
     
  12. 'Tough Sell'? Maybe, maybe not. Stopped by my local store yesterday to give them some work. They are small by any standard, but have loyal customers, are an HQ outfit, and have been in business for 99 years. While talking about the 'work' ... they asked ME if I'd heard about this new lens ... they volunteered THEY had 27 preorders ... in WED, THURS, FRI, SAT. of last week alone, all local, no net stuff. "Mr. Brown, we have not had that kind of traffic since my Grandfather was running the store back when ... and Polaroid came out with their first 'instant' camera." When was that, early 50's or so?Feeding frenzies subside ... we will see if this one does, but judging from traffic on other net sites...and commentary on those sites, and this one .... hmmmm, I dunno.
     
  13. A lot of people can't afford FX, and still have family (often the children are the reason why they can't afford FX), they want to do environmental portraits, and events where they would like to use wide angles even in low light. A lot of newcomers who buy DSLRs to document their children growing up don't have the skills to use flash well (in my opinion it takes many years to master lighting; after 20 years in photography I wouldn't make the slightest claim of mastery of lighting), so they tend to prefer available light where they can. Nikon's entry level DX cameras have significant problems with the preflash timing which basically close the subject's eyes just in time for the main exposure with a very high frequency when the flash is the dominant source of light (to avoid mixed color lighting), a problem that doesn't exist with the D7000 and higher end cameras. I have a friend whose family basically don't use flash for this reason (D80); they can't use manual flash well and TTL gives systematically closed eyes. They could either upgrade the camera to a more expensive model and spend a lot of time learning flash or just obtain a fast wide angle lens for their family events (it is a large family and they often have other kids over, so there is a lot of activity to cover, and 35mm is just too long for many shots).
    DX cameras are still widely used for PJ work, especially in less affluent countries. I think this zoom will sell in very large numbers, five digits for sure, probably not millions given that price. Without it DX is limited in its applicability, quite unnecessarily in my opinion.
    It is quite possible that Nikon and Canon won't make f/1.8 zooms for DX, in response to this lens, but I hope they make at least one fast wide angle prime, which could be a 23mm or 18mm f/2, f/1.8, or f/1.4. It is badly needed and has been for over a decade. FX may be the solution in 10 or 20 years when the price of the camera has gone down, but for now, at least a few generations of DX are still needed so that people can get started and are not restricted to tele work mostly (a ridiculous limitation given that typically the best photographs are made at a close distance to the subject, and the fact that a lot of people spend most of their time indoors).
     
  14. For night shooting I'm not all that blown away - f/1.8 is nice, but it's not like there aren't f/1.4 primes - but it certainly has its uses, and I'm glad to hear good things about the performance. I agree that a 2x zoom seems to be within the bounds of what can be made as good as a prime - hence the 14-24, for example.

    Shun: I can't speak about your friend's deal, but in the UK the D600 is about £100 cheaper than the 6D in most places. Though that price is "£ = $", so don't get too excited. I'm interested that you suggest that the D600 will be replaced relatively soon - on a consumer camera schedule, rather than on an FX sensor schedule. I'm not sure what I expect here, but I'll look forward to finding out!

    It's looking like the "lens of the year" competitions are going to be interesting. Lest anyone think it's a slam-dunk, Zeiss's 135 looks pretty impressive as well, and I'm looking forward to their normal lens getting tested too. Fun times.
     
  15. Tough sell, maybe in the future DX won't be as advantageous as it is now. Maybe in the
    future FX will catch up to the unit sales cameras like the D7000 sold per model.
    But, lets not forget that DX was all Nikon sold us for years, and then when FX sold
    for years it was too expensive for regular hobbyists. There are a lot of
    DX cameras out there and many like the D300 could use a lens
    that is 1.25 f-stops faster. This is still a big market to sell into.
    I think a $799 list price lens of this quality will sell well in this market. What is a
    24-70 f2.8 selling for? $1,888.00. Sure you can buy a third party 24-70mm, but
    looking at the lens reviews its not as good as this lens' reviews and the buyer
    would have to purchase a new FX body to use it. That is enough reason to
    just buy the new lens and use a camera your basically familiar with its interface
    and get better performance for a few more years until these FX cameras go
    down in price further. This lens is not aimed at pros like Shun, but I bet a lot
    of pros will use it for weddings and landscapes.
     
  16. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I think Sigma prices the 18-35mm/f1.8 to $800, which is quite low for such a fast zoom, because they realize that it will be a touch sell. If it were like $1200 or so, they would hardly sell any. If it is indeed the case that some small camera store already has a long pre-order list, that means Sigma prices it very wrong.
    Recall that a year ago, there was a long waiting list for the D800 and D800E. Since it was "free" to pre-order, people just got onto many waiting lists from B&H, Adorama, Amazon .... They would just take whatever one that came first and cancelled the rest; it was quite chaotic. I ordered my D800E from my local store only, around April 18 and they delivered it just before mid June, so it was almost a 2-month wait. If this Sigma 18-35 were the hottest-selling item in decades, it sounds like some store may have missed the introduction of the D800 as well as many other items. Likewise, IMO Nikon probably should have set the D800 to around $3500 (like the 5D Mark III) instead of $3000 and then lower it after, say, 6 months. Nikon would have made more money and we would have avoided such chaos.
    Nikon has already phased out the entire high-end DX DSLR category. I wouldn't expect them to update the 17-55mm/f2.8 DX AF-S either. Their emphasis is now the lower-end FX. Not that the Mutli-CAM 4800 is bad, but I would like to see them update the D600 to a better AF module to have more AF points covering the FX frame.
     
  17. My 'local' does not do internet sales ... I suppose they would, but they certainly don't encourage it. Just left there to leave MORE material from a busy weekend ... talked about it some more with them. "I think we are a disgrace to capitalism in some ways ... we don't want to be big...we do however want to be excellent", they say, (my experience, ARE). Henry Posner (B&H) posted a piece on DPR awhile back for folks who pre-order everywhere, and take what comes first, and sometimes cancel the multiple pre-orders they have made. Others order, say, a D600, a D800, and a D800E ... get all three, fool with them for a few days to see which one they like best, and send the others back. Still others order something, don't read the manual ... get confused, and or po'd, because it doesn't 'work right' and send the goods back. My local has no shipping department, per se, and certainly does not want the sales staff fooling about with packing peanuts and cardboard boxes. I also must add ... 'Sigma prices it very wrong...' Remembering last year, and always, actually, lots of folks pining away for a, perhaps $100 discount on a piece of equipment in the 1500-2000 range ... 'Should I order now, or wait for a possible holiday rebate?', they asked. PRICED TOO LOW ... maybe it's a new marketing strategy ... looks like it will be a 10 pointer quality wise ... everyone expecting $1200 or so ... the strategy? Perhaps they plan to loose a little on EVERY SALE, and make it up in volume...they obviously have their corporate head screwed on a little different than the 'majors.' Got no plans to sell my 17-55/2.8 ... excellent in every way, no complaints. But I WILL buy the Sigma after the first of the year ... my wife's chagrin at 'doubling-down', not withstanding. Also, the store corrected itself ... two other occasions of interest HUGE ... one in '64 when they hired a Marilyn Monroe 'look-alike' (a dead ringer for MM), you could come in, in a set-up studio setting, and take her picture ... free... (place was mobbed), and another, when Neil Armstrong landed on the Moon, July 20, 1969, with The Moon Camera ... a Hasselblad 500EL ... local store had Hasse, both the 500C and the EL in stock ... when the crowd found out how much it was ... they mostly (not all) kinda faded. God save us from pricing too low.
     
  18. OOPS ... a little vexed at 'priced wrongly' or (implied) priced 'too low'. Should read "God save us from pricing too low, NOT".
     
  19. On pricing, I did find it interesting that Nikon seem to be under-cutting the Canon equivalent models in FX (still true of the D800 vs 5D3 and D4 vs 1Dx in the US; true of the D600 vs 6D as well in the UK). I can understand a price war, but there's always the problem that a higher price makes people wonder if there's a reason for the premium. I tend to look at the additional price of a 5D3 and think "enough people must think this camera is better than the D800 that Canon can charge more for it" - whereas admittedly with the D600 vs 6D I tend to think "Nikon can make this for less than Canon can and they're price gouging each other".

    Honestly, I do think the 5D3 is better for more people than the D800 is (which doesn't stop my D800 being better for me), but I have a low opinion of the average consumer and expect more people to go "ooh, megapickles" rather than "actually I'd like a better autofocus system and an extra 2fps", so I'd have expected Nikon to try to wring profits from people more. I guess they're really going for market share, but if the "cheaper means worse" perception is true, they're doing themselves a disservice with the current pricing structure.

    My point being that Sigma might have the some problem. People think twice about buying, say, a 100mm Tokina macro lens when the Nikkor is twice the price, irrespective of whether the Nikkor is actually better. Zeiss benefit somewhat from this in reverse (some of their glass is epic, some is actually about the same as the Nikkors). You may sell more lenses at a cut price, but you might always lose sales from people who pay the premium "just to have the best".

    But it's all a game theory marketing problem, and I'm sure people who are far more aware of the principles than I am have worked it all out. At least Sigma weren't afraid of charging for their 50mm f/1.4.
     
  20. For the fastest zoom available it breaks new ground, but the numbers put this on par
    with fixed fast primes, and that is really a DX game changer.​
    that is precisely the thing, here.
    if I want f1.8 for low-light work, I would use FX​
    well, since there aren't any other 1.8 zooms, that would mean copping the 24/1.4, 28/1.8, and a 35/1.4, as well as an FX camera. there are no 18 or 20mm 1.8 lenses, except for the film-era sigma 20/1.8, so you wouldn't be able to duplicate the entire range, plus you'd have to pay upwards of $3500 for those three primes new.
    I think this lens will be a tough sell​
    how,? why? this seems like backwards logic, since there have been far more DX DSLRs sold than FX. let's say i'm a DX camera owner. i can get a refurb d600 right now for $1600, but then i'd have to also plunk down serious cash for a 24-70, and likely replace other lenses too, and i'd gain... what? one stop of hi-ISO vs. a d7100 with an 18-35? in other words, the FX DSLR would only be an asset at above ISO 3200, however with an 18-35, i could keep my ISO at 3200, because of the ability with the 18-35 to shoot at sub-2.8 apertures (with what looks like critical sharpness). Shooting low-light as often as i do, i can tell you that aperture trumps ISO, since often you have varying light levels (in a concert/club environment). if you have a bright light source within the frame, but the rest of the scene is not so well lit, shooting at hi-ISO can cause overexposure. OTOH, opening up the aperture, you don't have the same problem.
    IMO, Shun is just being skeptical here for the sake of skepticism, but that skepticism also maybe speaks to the fact that people have to wrap their heads around innovation, especially once they get used to the mundane. A game-changer is called a game-changer for a reason.
    Nikon has already phased out the entire high-end DX DSLR category.​
    We don't know that for sure, but even if that were the case, they haven't eliminated the need for such bodies, especially since they built those expectations up with the d300. I'm a d300s user, and not only does my camera continue to see use, but one of the big reasons i haven't gravitated to the d7000 or d7100 is they dont have all the pro features i need for shooting events and have become accustomed to. I know i'm not the only one in this boat; there have been many threads in the past couple months on this topic. And, i've said this before, but IMO the only fault in the d300/d300s is the hi-ISO performance. The 18-35 mitigates this.
    Not that the Mutli-CAM 4800 is bad, but I would like to see them update the D600 to a better AF module to have more AF points covering the FX frame.​
    and there you have it: the lack of a top-end AF module is one of the things which has kept me away from a d600, which otherwise i would consider. but in terms of image quality, i dont think FX necessarily has a big advantage over DX, especially if you're using good lenses. the main advantage these days is really hi-ISO performance, which, again, the 18-35 sigma mitigates.
    f/1.8 is nice, but it's not like there aren't f/1.4 primes​
    oh yeah? show me a an 18mm or 20mm 1.4 prime, if you will. i'll be waiting... as i noted earlier, you can't get a good 1.8 prime in the 18 and 20 focal lengths. the 24/1.4 is $2000, or more than double the price of the 18-35, and obviously a fixed-focal is a lot less versatile than a zoom which covers 5 prime ranges (18/20/24/28/35). But we are not merely talking about versatility and convenience here, but performance which appears to be as good as it gets in zoomland--similar to how the 14-24 made all the other primes within its range obsolete.
     
  21. F1.8 to f2.8 is about twice speed gain as f1.4 to f1.8. So if 1.8 doesn't blow away your
    17-55mm f2.8 then carrying several prime lenses just to go from f1.8 to f1.4 is something
    you are most welcome to pack on vacation, hikes, etc. For me a 27-53mm range on DX
    is useful. Many WA shots can be handled in that range, street , group portrait, and
    interiors in available light can usually be handled too. With a D7000 , D5200 and D7100
    High ISO is clean enough to get useful shots at ISO 3200 with f2.8 , with this lens
    you can get the same shot in 1.25 f stops less light, meaning you can reduce that ISO
    or raise the shutter speed. Ilkka makes a good point about many people who don't
    ever use external flash, only the pop up flash. Many will get this lens, maybe on a Christmas
    rebate sale.
    I hope someone from Adorama or B&H can settle this by telling us how well the pre-orders
    are going. There are 5 more weeks before the product is supposed to start shipping
    to pre-orders, in two weeks I bet the first wave of allocations is sold out.
    Bruce, I think your local camera store is indeed a good random sample, because
    people who don't multiple order via the internet didn't walk in the shop, real people
    drove down to a shop, looked the salesman in the eye and said "I want this lens"
     
  22. on a personal tip, a game-changing DX zoom lens with incredible sharpness at sub-2.8 apertures for $800 was the last thing i needed right now. i'm still considering the sigma 35/1.4 (for my FX camera) and the Fuji X100s, dammit! if the cost was $1000+, i could say "nah, too rich for my blood," and pass. but at that price, i might just have to check it out. not sure how i'm going to afford it as well as the other goodies i want--note to self: get more paid work at higher prices!--but i think Sigma was smart to set such a reasonable price point, considering the glut of options which are oversaturating the imaging market right now. it's a revolutionary idea to price a product at a point which is exactly what it should cost, as opposed to making it overpriced because of the idea of cachet. if this lens does sell in high numbers, it could be a wake-up call to Canikon to treat their consumer base better.
     
  23. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    well, since there aren't any other 1.8 zooms, that would mean copping the 24/1.4, 28/1.8, and a 35/1.4, as well as an FX camera. there are no 18 or 20mm 1.8 lenses, except for the film-era sigma 20/1.8, so you wouldn't be able to duplicate the entire range, plus you'd have to pay upwards of $3500 for those three primes new.​
    Eric, you are completely missing the point. DX needs larger apertures because they have worse high-ISO capability.
    Currently, FX has about a 1.5-stop advantage over DX as far as high-ISO capability goes, based on my observation since I have a D800E and a D7100. Therefore, an f2.8 zoom on FX will give you about the same high-ISO results as an f1.8 zoom on DX. Meanwhile, a 24-70mm/f2.8 on FX will give you a very convenient zoom range, compare to 18-35 on DX, which is the equivalent of 27-53mm on FX, a very awkward zoom range.
    Therefore, I don't even care how good a 18-35mm/f1.8 DX lens may be optically, it is certainly not the same event, indoor lens a 24-70mm/f2.8 is on FX.
     
  24. I looked at upgrading to FX a while back. But I struggled that with the same final image there might not be a significant difference in the majority of my photos for me to justify the upgrade costs. By the same final image I mean matching the field of view, visual depth of field and sensor noise in the picture.
    You have to move a stop on the FF to get the matching DX visual depth of field so you have to run at a higher ISO to compensate. So the “1 stop” advantage of the FF has just been lost to make the prints look the same as a DX.
    The advantage comes when you use the narrowest DoF. With FF it’s easier to go “1 stop shallower” in the final print.
    So with FF you can get a shallower depth of field in the final image compared to a DX image and so with it the advantages that gives. Less noise as you lower the ISO back a stop (or more artistic DoF effects? could be seen as good or bad depending on subject!).
    So if a difference of 15 in a DxO score equals 1 stop would a 24MP D7100 (DxO score of 83) with the Sigma 1.8 produce a better print in low light conditions than a 24MP D600 (DxO score of 94) with a 2.8?
    Based on approximate recent street prices:
    £1600 (£900 + £750 (estimate!)) DX kit
    vs
    £1950 (£1350+£600) with a Sigma 24-70 to
    £2600 (£1350 + £1250) with the Nikon 24-70 FX kit.
    Is it worth £350-£1000 extra cost, a lesser focus module and more weight just for more zoom range?
    So it comes to the personal choices of what lenses (quality, cost, size, weight) and camera (body quality, size, weight, focus module, FPS, viewfinder) and convenience (zoom range) you want and looking at the price for the system to upgrade or change from where you are.
    Yes a 3x zoom is more useful but I think currently it will cost you for that. But then again you could add a 50mm 1.8 to your DX system to make up for that. But that is adding another £150 and the inconvenience of swapping lenses.
    And on the workarounds and compromises go to build your system…
    But many with a DX system may find trying the Sigma 1.8 2x zoom a reasonable upgrade to their existing camera kit for the $799 verses switching to a FF system and a 2.8 3x zoom.
    00bkvr-540880384.jpg
     
  25. pge

    pge

    I understand why we talk about how good a lens is or how bad it is. I am not sure why we care about how many lenses Sigma will sell. How is that relevant to someone who is considering buying one? In any case, in that regard Sigma has an advantage over Nikon or Canon since they sell to both platforms.
     
  26. F1.8 to f2.8 is about twice speed gain as f1.4 to f1.8. So if 1.8 doesn't blow away your
    17-55mm f2.8 then carrying several prime lenses just to go from f1.8 to f1.4 is something
    you are most welcome to pack on vacation, hikes, etc. For me a 27-53mm range on DX
    is useful. Many WA shots can be handled in that range, street , group portrait, and
    interiors in available light can usually be handled too. With a D7000 , D5200 and D7100
    High ISO is clean enough to get useful shots at ISO 3200 with f2.8 , with this lens
    you can get the same shot in 1.25 f stops less light, meaning you can reduce that ISO
    or raise the shutter speed. Ilkka makes a good point about many people who don't
    ever use external flash, only the pop up flash. Many will get this lens, maybe on a Christmas
    rebate sale.
    I hope someone from Adorama or B&H can settle this by telling us how well the pre-orders
    are going. There are 5 more weeks before the product is supposed to start shipping
    to pre-orders, in two weeks I bet the first wave of allocations is sold out.
    Bruce, I think your local camera store is indeed a good random sample, because
    people who don't multiple order via the internet didn't walk in the shop, real people
    drove down to a shop, looked the salesman in the eye and said "I want this lens"
     
  27. T: Heck of an echo you've got going there. :)

    Eric: You're quite right, I was thinking higher up the zoom range for f/1.4 lenses. And yes, they're expensive - I was trying to say that alternatives were available to get the same functionality, not that this lens wasn't useful. But you're very right that the only real fast wide(r than 24mm) lens I'm aware of is the Sigma full-frame 20mm f/1.8, and it's not exactly good.

    I would encourage a reality check for those who are actually considering this lens as a substitute for an FX body. It's one lens. It's a partial substitute for a 24-70 f/2.8 on an FX body, which isn't even a lens that I personally particularly want to own, since I could get better depth of field control in much less cost with a few primes. If the only thing that made you want an FX body was that the mid-range professional zoom gave you more depth of field control, it might work for you. Until Sigma replace the 14-24 and 70-200 with f/1.8 10-18mm and 35-135mm lenses, we've not got the pro zooms covered (though they do, admittedly, have the 120-300mm f/2.8 ready as a DX substitute for a 200-400mm f/4), let alone any of the interesting primes. One lens is a good start, and I commend them for it, but it is just a start.

    If they've publicly committed to producing the others, I retract my concern and rejoice for all the new amateur photographers in newspapers that they'll get good flexibility from a cheap body. But I'm not holding my breath just yet.

    Jon: If you're looking at matching everything including depth of field with the same field of view, FX has absolutely no advantage over DX. The advantage is when you want a faster aperture than is available in DX (allowing for scaling the f-stop by 1/1.5 to allow for reducing the focal length by 1.5), or when the equivalent aperture is available but has appreciably worse optical aberrations (common for faster lenses). Otherwise, the cameras behave the same because the same amount of light is contributing to the image - if that wasn't true, teleconverters would be magic. To me, I went FX because I want fast (and wide) lenses. If my only fast(ish), wide(ish) lens was a 24-70, this Sigma would make me take notice, but I have more lenses than that. :)
     
  28. Eric, you are completely missing the point. DX needs larger apertures because they have worse high-ISO capability.​
    i'm going to respectfully disagree here, Shun. i dont think i am missing the point. in fact, i made that exact same point in my earlier comment, although i phrased it differently. maybe you weren't crystal clear in your post about using FX "if i want 1.8 for low-light work." maybe you meant to say, "i use FX for low-light work," because otherwise, what you said doesn't completely make sense, since there are only a few FX 1.8 lenses in the 18-35 range, and in order to cover that entire range with fast primes, you'd have to come out of pocket for a considerable sum, with IQ performance the same or worse.
    I don't even care how good a 18-35mm/f1.8 DX lens may be optically, it is certainly not the same event, indoor lens a 24-70mm/f2.8 is on FX.​
    This is just a silly comment.Who doesn't care about optical quality? Regardless, 1.8 is still 1.8--meaning that a 1.8 lens will always transmit more light than a 2.8 lens shot wide open--and a faster lens in low-light situations is always preferable to a high ISO, whether on DX or FX, for reasons i explained earlier. I have the 24-70 too, but there are times when i don't want the weight of my FX rig, as well as times i wish the 24-70 was faster than 2.8.
    As for the 27-53mm FLE being "awkward," i dont think that's even close to being a deal-breaker, if the trade-off is performance that surpasses some primes. Looking at the Lenstip charts, the 18-35 appears to be optimized for shooting at open apertures--it doesnt get appreciably better past f/4. That's exactly how i like to shoot. For a DX landscape shooter who's often at f/8-11, the 18-35 would be a complete waste of time and money, but for events, PJ, indoor candids, etc., it would be the opposite.
    Getting back to the comment about "awkward" zoom range, not really. Sure, a longer zoom range is nice to have, but as an event shooter, i've shot a bunch of times with set-ups which exclude the middle range and havent missed it terribly. of course, i have the 50-150/2.8 for DX, which would pair great with the 18-35. i cant imagine i'd be despondent over not having 36-49mm. that's maybe more of an issue with event shooters who shoot DX and carry the 70-200, but then the standard "pro" PJ set up is a wide-angle for environmental/group portraits and a tele for headshots, and technically 18mm on DX is still w/a, so i think folks will manage. in fact, i'll bet there will be a lot of shooters who will use the 18-35 with 50 and/or 85 1.8 or 1.4 primes on DX for a super-fast kit.
    Shun, i hate to tell you this, but even if we take this comment at face value--"DX needs larger apertures because they have worse high-ISO capability"--then you are indirectly (and, likely, unintentionally) making a case for the 18-35, since it is the first 1.8 DX zoom. The other technical reason to get this lens is to equivocate the shallower DoF inherent in FX.
    Also, while those of us with both FX and DX cameras may or may not regard the 18-35 as a must-have, it's quite a different situation for the DX user considering FX mainly for the better hi-ISO performance. as i noted earlier, we're talking about investing under $1000 on a new lens vs. investing upwards of $3000 for an FX body and compatible lenses. For most of us, that's a compelling reason to stay with DX.

    I would encourage a reality check for those who are actually considering this lens as a substitute for an FX body.​
    Ok, well i'm going to encourage a reality check for people that shoot DX, but are are considering FX primarily for high-ISO. DX lenses are generally lighter and less expensive, and unless you have a huge collection of legacy glass, and/or need to shoot above ISO 3200 regularly, FX is really just a money trap. Mind you, i say this as a D3s owner with 24-70, 70-200, etc., etc. The other reality check is that camera bodies begin to depreciate in value the moment you buy them, so the smart investment is in lenses, which not only hold their value much better, but will take you farther--a good lens collection will see you though thick and thin, even as digital bodies come and go. What the 18-35 does, in a sense, is add value to older bodies which are still perfectly good, except for hi-ISO performance. So this lens could theoretically appeal to all pre-d7000 Nikon DSLR owners, as well as d7000/7100 owners who otherwise would migrate to FX. In other words, score one for the consumers.
    Until Sigma replace the 14-24 and 70-200 with f/1.8 10-18mm and 35-135mm lenses, we've not got the pro zooms covered (though they do, admittedly, have the 120-300mm f/2.8 ready as a DX substitute for a 200-400mm f/4), let alone any of the interesting primes.​
    Wishful thinking, indeed. a 35-135/1.8 would be sweeet!!!! It will be interesting to see what Sigma comes up with in the next few years. As i've noted previously, the company is committed to DX, if for no other reasons than a) it's the most popular camera format in the world and b) their own SD1 flagship body is in APS-C format, so there's no reason to think they won't continue to release innovative new designs for DX.
     
  29. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    This is just a silly comment.Who doesn't care about optical quality? Regardless, 1.8 is still 1.8--meaning that a 1.8 lens will always transmit more light than a 2.8 lens shot wide open--and a faster lens in low-light situations is always preferable to a high ISO,​
    That is not a silly comment at all. For example, I don't care for a second how good some of those Zeiss ZF lenses may be optically; their lack of AF and zoom means I cannot get a lot of action and PJ-style images I need to capture with them.
    I certainly do not always prefer a faster lens in low-light situations than high ISO. In my book, the final result counts. If the combination of better high-ISO results and f2.8 gives me better results, I'll take it over f1.8. The 24-70mm/f2.8 is a high-qulaity 3x zoom that can easily cover most of indoor party, wedding images, in conjunction with decent ISO 3200 and 6400 results. And if I am willing to carry a second body, I put a 70-200mm/f2.8 on it and I am all set with two cameras. With a 18-35mm/f1.8 DX lens, you'll be busy changing lenses and/or cameras. And if you want to avoid changing lenses, you'll need at least 3 cameras, which is not a workable solution.
    If Sigma could come up with a 16-47mm/f1.8 to give me the equivalent of 24-70 or even just a 18-47mm DX, we'll talk. IMO 18-35 is not at all the answer due to its inconvenient zoom range. That is why its optical quality is meaningless to me, especially since these are lenses for hand held, high-ISO work. A lens' optical quality is mainly important if we use base ISO from a tripod (or with very high shutter speed or flash to stop all vibration).
     
  30. I'm sympathetic that features other than the optical quality mean this lens doesn't appeal to Shun. Likewise, I don't really want a 200-400 f/4 even though I know it's very good (though I'd love to use one to clear a credit card, via ebay). I think we can talk in the abstract and assume that there are some people to whom this will appeal, especially with the observation that there's a dearth of fast wide DX primes to compare it with.

    I actually do shoot above ISO 3200 regularly (it's called "indoors", especially in UK weather), and I also like to lose the background as much as possible some of the time, though I don't do either of those things with a mid-range f/2.8 zoom. I'm happy that my FX money wasn't wasted - if anything, I'm looking at bigger formats. Besides, 36MP. But I concede that if you usually shoot at lower ISO and longer lenses, DX cameras are perfectly capable - and I'll join the crowds suggesting that most would be better with a D7100 than a D600.

    This is one (apparently) good lens that compensates for some gaps in the DX line-up, and if that's what you need to cover your shooting requirements in DX, and it stops you from a need you might otherwise have had to go to FX, congratulations: Sigma probably just saved you some money and inconvenience. I just don't want people to get carried away and ignore the fact that there's more than one lens you can stick on an FX camera - it seemed to be getting presented that way in this thread. (If the short end of the 24-70 was all you cared about, your slightly-specialised dreams have come true. If you actually wanted other lenses to behave differently, this would have to be one of many lenses to get a revamp.)

    You'd think Nikon would have got the idea of releasing some more DX lenses by now as well, but I concede that Sigma might be listening more to those calling for DX glass. For the sake of those with DX cameras (selflessly, since that's not me) I hope they continue.

    But I was serious in a comment that I made a while ago: It ought to be possible to stick a third-party teleconverter on this and use it on an FX camera. I'd be interested to see how the result compares with the 24-70 optics. (I suspect poorly, but you never know.)
     
  31. With a 18-35mm/f1.8 DX lens, you'll be busy changing lenses and/or cameras. And if you want to avoid changing lenses, you'll need at least 3 cameras, which is not a workable solution.​
    could you be more pessimistic, Shun? i dont think that's true at all. i've shot events just with a 12-24 as well as with the 50-150. i wasn't like, oh now i need another camera for the 25-49 range, lol. and most event shooters i know aren't mollified at the thought of having to carry two bodies and/or two or more lenses; when you're working events, you simply switch lenses as needed. it is true that a shorter range means you have to get closer and actively engage your subject, but some photographers actually prefer this approach. we talk about engagement all the time on the street forum.
    If the combination of better high-ISO results and f2.8 gives me better results, I'll take it over f1.8.​
    well, high-ISO always degrades image quality. and while it is true that some fast lenses arent particularly sharp wide open or under 2.8, that doesnt seem to be the case with the Sigma. the other maxim is that you can stop a 1.8 lens down to 2.8 to improve sharpness, but you can't stop a 2.8 lens up. since most lenses arent at their sharpest wide open, 1.8 has an advantage over 2.8.
    IMO 18-35 is not at all the answer due to its inconvenient zoom range.​
    i'm glad you stuck the "IMO" on there, because i dont think the range will be as limiting to everyone as it seems to be for you. personally, i'm glad sigma didnt make a 16-47, because by limiting the range to 2x, they locked in optical quality. a fast lens with so-so optical quality just isnt appealing to me. but maybe that's just me.
     
  32. I would have preferred a 16-35 but I can work with a high quality 18-35 on my D7100. I also use a D800 with 24-70 F2.8 but it is big and heavy and limits the weight and amount of other equipment that I might want to carry on a trip where I have to travel by air. Also, for a 10"x14" print, the images produced by my D7100 are at least the equal of my D800, maybe better. (I don't do a lot of low light shooting.) The D7100 is the most "fun" camera I use and is subsequently used a lot more often than the D800. BTW, I'm not a pixel peeper or tester type. I pre-ordered mine from a local camera dealer earlier today.
     
  33. Effects that reduce image quality (i.e. camera shake, subject movement, focusing errors, optical aberrations in the lens, atmospheric scattering etc.) are cumulative, not binary.

    Optical quality of the lens is all the more important in difficult situations where there are other factors that reduce image quality, such as dim lighting, or e.g. atmospheric scattering in long distance photography, so that a sufficiently good end result can be obtained.
     
  34. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    i'm glad you stuck the "IMO" on there, because i dont think the range will be as limiting to everyone as it seems to be for you.​
    Eric, this whole discussion is about opinions, not facts. If you visit, for example, the wedding forum, experienced event photographers will always explain that something like 24-70mm/f2.8 for FX or 17-55mm/f2.8 for DX is the most important lens for event, wedding photography. If you don't even agree with something so fundamental, we just have to agree to disagree.
     
  35. Scenario you have a Tokina short range 11-16mm f2.8 , then this 18-35mm lens, basically covers
    on DX 16mm to 53mm range then you can use the 15.4 mp 1.9x crop to cover up to 100mm.
    How many of you only had 12mp D700 and D3 cameras and thought they had lots of resolution.
    And then in my case I have the 105mm VRII AFS and a 1.7x TC that could be used at either
    standard DX crop or the 1.9x crop to extend the long end. This crop mode can indeed be handy.
    I think you can set up going into it with a function button. Its like carrying a Micro 4/3
    camera as a second camera.
     
  36. That should be 66.5mm now that I checked for the 1.9 crop of a 35mm.
     
  37. How many of you only had 12mp D700 and D3 cameras and thought they had lots of resolution.​
    That's a dangerous argument. I did think my D700 had lots of resolution, then I found some cases where it didn't (so I got a D800E, and there will be times when that runs out of pixels as well). I'm not interested in "buy a 14-24 and use digital zoom" image quality. Plus I'd kind of hope that my longer lenses would be a bit faster and better at subject separation than cropping this would be.
     
  38. You still get more detail with an actual 70mm lens than a 35mm, no matter which way you look at it.
    I don't know about others, but I wasn't talking about professional event / wedding photography, but simply people with some artistic bent documenting their lives and families which to a large extent happens indoors. A professional would have a different budget and in the first world at least, can usually afford FX; they also know how to use additional lighting as needed (so they have many options). Few events and weddings at least where I live are documented by a paid professional. Maybe 5-10% of weddings, is my guess, and fewer of other types of events. The formal portraits, are almost always shot by a professional, and sometimes the ceremony, but for most couples here there is no budget for having the reception photographed by a professional - it's not even in the consideration. From a point of view of documenting family life, reasonably competent amateurs are a much more important group than professionals and they do usually put food and shelter etc above spending a lot of money on the camera. In many cases it means buying a camera which is not able to do the job. This Sigma lens fills an important gap in the lineup for users who have e.g. D80/D90 or D7000/D7100+35/1.8 and nothing fast that is wider than the 35mm prime, without going to the full cost of e.g. D800+28/1.8 which of course would also do the job, and very well at that, but how good something is that you cannot afford is rather academic. I do hope this lens pushes Nikon and Canon to make at least one wide angle prime for 1.5X/1.6X cameras. Perhaps they're afraid that it'll turn to be good enough for a great many people who are now squeezing their pennies to be able to afford an FX solution (without really being able to do it without damaging other aspects of their lives). I'm all for FX but for the next 10 years or so I don't think it'll meet the budget of most amateurs who have family to document. And often 36MP just isn't interesting or useful for this kind of use; it'll just strain their computers and hence their budget even more.
     
  39. If you visit, for example, the wedding forum, experienced event photographers will always explain that something like 24-70mm/f2.8 for FX or 17-55mm/f2.8 for DX is the most important lens for event, wedding photography. If you don't even agree with something so fundamental, we just have to agree to disagree.​
    i dont shoot weddings, so i can't really speak on what works best for those. but weddings arent the only type of event photography, and what works for those may not always be the best choice for a street fair, festival, or live concert. also, if you're coming from a PJ perspective, the classic setup is 17-35 and 70-200. so there's not just one way to skin a cat.
    i do cover events, do PJ work, shoot a bit of street, and enjoy candid photography. i like having options as far as lenses. Sure, if you could only have one lens, a 17-55 or 24-70 would be the go-to choice for a broad majority of situations. but there's no hard and fast rule about event shooting that says that's the only possible choice. there are pro wedding photogs who shoot with only primes, for instance. and most of them carry 2 bodies and at least two lenses. i'm not suggesting the 18-35 is perfect for everyone, but speaking as someone who already has a 17-50/2.8 for DX and 24-70/2.8 for FX, i'm interested in this new lens, because i think it would be advantageous for what i shoot and open up some new creative possibilities. i'm aware that such optical goodness comes with a trade-off, i.e., a truncated long end. but as i said before, the 1.8 aperture can breathe new life into my D300s, mitigating its hi-ISO issues somewhat, while also offering more shallow DoF. i have plenty of options i can pair it with, from 50/1.4 to 85/1.4, to 50-150, to 70-200 if i so choose, so i'm not going to lament the loss of a longer zoom range.if i'm getting amazing shots, particularly in the f/1.6-2.2 range, i probably wouldnt even notice the shorter zoom range. and if i did, well, that's what feet are for.
    i dont subscribe to the idea that photography is so static and rote that shooters can't ever try new things. when i got an UWA for the first time, i had to adjust my style to accommodate the new creative possibilities that lens offered; ditto my first fast 1.4 prime. lately i've been shooting a lot with my 50 and 85 primes, and i find that the more i shoot, the more comfortable i become with framing and composition with those specific lenses, to the point where i know what will work and what won't, before i shoot the shot. i really dont see why a similar comfort level can't be attained with an 18-35, or any other lens.
    another thing is that when i shoot live shows, which i do several times a week, most of the other shooters i see dont have FX cameras--they shoot APS-C, and often have to rely on their fast primes, which is obviously limiting. Those shooters would certainly benefit from the fast variable aperture of the 18-35, which could give them the ability to shoot the whole band, or a tighter focus on the singer or guitarist, as necessary. the idea that an ultrafast zoom could not only replace a bag of primes but also be a substitute for FX is a new one, and as such, probably isn't going to resonate with traditionalists, but then tradition and innovation are often opposing concepts. But even if this particular lens is not your cup of tea, i think the notion that someone is offering innovative offerings for DX is to the benefit of every DX user, if you really think about it. would nikon have come out with a 35/1.8 had sigma not made their 30/1.4? maybe not, even though the need was there.
    i have to agree with Ilkka on his point about d80/90/300 users of which there are still quite a few. heck, there are still folks who rely on d200s, and the d90 (and 3100, even) can still be bought new. if you look at where photojournalism is going, today's depleted newsrooms may not even own their own equipment, which puts more of the burden on photographers. And in developing nations, photographers use camera bodies which are often 2-3 generations behind where we might be in the US. For all those reasons, the 18-35 is a welcome addition to the DX field.
     
  40. As so often, I'm bemused by the claim of "high quality plastic" in any review. How would they know any plastic is low quality until it breaks? Can they claim they test the plastic in a laboratory? No. The primary advantage of plastics to a manufacturer is that it can be moulded and does not need to be machined, hence low cost, even if plastics can theoretically be tough.
     
  41. Nico: Absolutely EVERYTHING you said was true ... 15 years ago. Don't know how much you follow technology/manufacturing/innovation ... but the Space Shuttle would not be 'up there', and the Mars Rover be "roving' without ... whatsit? ... 'high quality plastic' ... NASA isn't particularly known for 'cutting costs' ... or using materials that are 'theoretically tough'. Additionally. open the hood, or bonnet, of almost ANY new automobile and you will see, I guess, 'high quality plastic'. This would include BMW, Porsche, and ... Mercedes Benz. The Benz motto, incidently, from Daimler himself, way back when, was ... 'Das Beste Oder Nicht!' ... 'The Best Or Nothing!'...anyone that thinks that company , is using 'high quality plastic' ... to ... cut costs ... is cosmically mis-informed.
     
  42. Excited technobabble about the brave new world of materials science in space is not the same as benchtesting materials from specific items on earth and does not contradict the fact that plastics appear extensively in $1.00 items from China. You have not usefully informed us how we are to discern a high quality plastic from an everyday plastic.
     
  43. Likewise all the same is true with metal ... heat treated? Shop with ISO standards? Alloy? What mix? Machined? To what tolerances? The list is long and continuous. There is a saying ... 'Performance, It's Everything'. Read the reviews FROM, NOW, EVERY SOURCE, on this lens ... 'nuff said, 'high quality plastic' notwithstanding. Also note patents have been filed for 'liquid lenses' (new technology, ugh !) ... stay away at all costs if they come into production in the future, as they are not 'glass' ... far to similar to an ... eyeball. Also, I understand there are some great buys on buggy whips ... no production 'shortcuts' or lack of 'testing' then, just good, solid wood and leather.
     
  44. And more ... got some very young interns looking over my shoulder ... far enough away that they can't give me a dope slap for not including it ... technobabble? ... how about your whole camera? Remember film, and the first digital camera ... not much comparison. How about your cell phone? How about the system that heat/cools your house? How about ... the internet. Nonsense, eh what? Also, because there are cheap goods from one country (actually every country), to quash all seems ... not ... well, relevant and as others have suggested, mildly racist. Please note, also, after WWII, and well into the late 50's and early 60's, items from (gasp) JAPAN were widely regarded a low-grade ...well, you know.
     
  45. The rest of the world can decide for itself whether your replies are clever or not, if they can be bothered to wade through your dots. But you certainly never enlightened us on spotting a high quality plastic. When I read the reviews I suspect the idea of a high quality plastic is directly repeated from manufacturer literature or based on the amount of mechanical play in the lens, which is not very related to the endurance of the plastic.
     
  46. It is statistically unlikely that Bruce is a plastics engineer or somebody who should have to justify the term "high quality plastics". But if you handle the newer, better plastic gear you can easily tell that it is sturdier than the plastic gear of previous generations. Whether that's because of improvements in plastics technology or because as customers have become more accepting of plastics manufacturers have made progressively higher end gear from them, and the higher end the gear the more expense they put into making it well, I couldn't tell you, but it is clearly the case to anybody with a sense of touch that current "high quality plastics" products are not flimsy crap.
    Hell, even the plastic parts of 20-30 years ago are holding up just fine, as far as I can tell. I buy and sell a lot of used gear, and I don't see any more problems with the parts people used to stay away from, like Series E lenses and EM bodies, than with other items. Twice I've seen a crack in plastic on a camera body that's more than 25 years old.
    You are of course free to not buy anything with plastic in it, but I'd be more worried about the lead-free solder myself.
     
  47. This will be my last on this. High quality plastic? Low quality plastic? Don't believe Sigma calls it plastic at all ... their words are 'composite material' Want to know the difference between 'low quality' plastic and 'high quality' plastic ... as you call it? Go to Baskin-Robbins and get a cup (not a cone) of peanut butter and chocolate (my favorite) or perhaps pistachio (lots of nuts), or tutti-fruity (its seasonal) ...I go for a small cup, trying to hold 158lbs and run a mile or two w/ a 9:15 average ... then go plunk down $899 for the Sigma lens, twist it on to your Nikon, or whatever, shoot a few frames thru it, print an 11x14 or a 16x20 print. NOW you know the difference ... what you ate the ice cream with (the spoon) is 'low quality' plastic... what you took they very high quality pictures with is...'high quality' plastic (as you insist on calling it). Sorry about the dots ... I most of the time have a pa (personal assistant) as I am 65yrs old, made a few $ here and there, and mostly don't have the time, or inclination to work a keyboard on ...ah ... well I won't say it. Let me add one more ... nah, I won't ... just got some more dots, and a frown from the pa. CHEERS, and the VERY BEST to you in your studies, and research.
     
  48. Bruce: Thank you for your insights. I've seen some products listed as "100% metal, advanced composite materials" which seem dubious. (Frankly, a 100% metal lens is pretty unlikely unless Scotty has been handing out transparent aluminium.)

    I don't believe the poor reputation of Japanese manufacture just after WWII was entirely unjustified, since they were mostly copying external engineering and - especially with limited resources - took a while to get it right. It's certainly clear that they have now got it right, and that location is now a poor estimator of production quality in most industries.

    For amusement, I must bring up the novel plastic used in the case of my employer's Galaxy S3. There was a lot of exciting technology in that, and people were proud of it. The reviews? "Nice phone, shame it feels very cheap and plasticky." One person's "good quality plastic" is another's ergonomic failure. So long as it's fit for purpose (which, in the case of a lens, means "doesn't break", "bounces rather than bends", "doesn't freeze your fingers in winter", "doesn't expand inappropriately in the wrong temperatures", "doesn't weigh too much" etc.) then I don't really care what they make them out of.
     
  49. Andrew: Thx. As an aside, and an priori feedback on Samsung Galaxy S4 ... my wife got one last month ...'PLASTIC' aside, we have been together 32 years ... I try to take it away, and we will have BIG problems. Architect type ... occasionally TRY to loan the D80 or even the D7000 with the Sigma 8-16 for her work ... waves the Samsung and says 'if I have THIS, I would want either one of those things ... WHY?? More 'PLASTIC'... two 'factoids' ... recalling the back-yard pool party in the film "The Graduate" '67-'68?? ... Dustin Hoffman, the newly minted college graduate, with his parents and the next door neighbors ... next door guy is a techno ??? ... pulls Hoffman aside and says ..."I have just one word to say to you about the future ... PLASTIC" One more, far, far more relevant ... circa 1982, in Austria. Fellow by the name of Gaston Glock is making entrenching tools (read, shovels), out of 'PLASTIC' for the Austrian military. A PLASTIC shovel for the military to dig ... in dirt and rocks? Very successful. Found out the Austrian Military was soon to conduct 'pistol trials' to replace the aging Walther PPK (I think), designed in 1929 - all steel and very durable. Glock had NO EXPERIENCE at all with firearms, but designed a very simple (13 or 15 parts TOTAL), durable 9mm pistol that beat the bejeebers out of all others, including the all- steel Walther, the Beretta, Colt, S&W, Steyr, and others. It was made (mostly) of the same materials as the shovel, PLASTIC. Turned out to be far more durable, more reliable, easier to fix, and lighter ... by a lot in all categories. Today, the Glock is easily the most prolific law enforcement sidearm in the US, if not the World. It's mostly PLASTIC (as some would say) ... stainless steel barrel, springs, and slide, but the frame is PLASTIC, and the whole thing is virtually impervious to heat, cracking (even when run over by a vehicle), salt water (perspiration) and very high and very low temperatures. You can fill in the blanks as to HOW FAR the technology has jumped since the mid-eighties, OR, pickup now, what Sigma is calling ... 'Thermally Stable Composite', not 'plastic' (lower case). The times continue to change, as to materials, technology, and durability ... kind of exciting, especially if you have Samsung Galaxy S4 (I'm told) ;-)
     

Share This Page