Video review of the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8

<p>Shot with the lens video. Except for the so called humor, the photography is first rate and worth<br>

watching. Lots of images that show what the lens can do in various situations. <br>

<a href="

If you hate bad humor skip the first minute and a half.</p>

<p>the reviewer is a comic but this comment hits the nail on the head: "how is it done for this price and why havent the big boys at canon and nikon been able to do it"?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the reviewer is a comic but this comment hits the nail on the head: "how is it done for this price and why havent the big boys at canon and nikon been able to do it"?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'll say it again, both Canon and Nikon are no longer interested in higher-end DX, or they would have introduced some 7D Mark II and the successor to the D300s a couple of years ago. FX has now taken over that market segment.</p>

<p>And since Sigma hardly sells any of their own DSLR bodies, the Sigma 18-35mm/f1.8 DX is going to have a hard time finding matching cameras. The D300/D300S is 6-year-old technology, whose 12MP, out-of-date dynamic range, out-of-date high-ISO capability ... cannot be fixed by a lens. For people who buy sub-$1000 DSLRs, $800 is a lot of money for a lens.</p>

<p>Recall that Sigma waited a while before it announced the price for the 18-35mm/f1.8 DX. I think they are forced to discount it because:</p>

<ol>

<li>It has an inconvenient zoom range.</li>

<li>It is high-end DX that "the big boys" are no longer interested in.</li>

</ol>

<p>Who knows whether Sigma is actually making good money from the 18-35.</p>

<p>Sometimes Sigma comes out with good lenses that achieve a positive consensus but do not sell well and are rather costly to produce, so are discontinued. The 100-300 f4 was one.<br>

At least Sigma has the bragging rights of having achieved this lens, but a 18-35 f2 full-frame could have attracted more sales.</p>

<p>Yes, Nikon and Canon have sort of abandoned pro DX and this Sigma lens may seem silly to some. For me, the fast & constant aperture, decent wide zoom range, and the fact that its parfocal make this lens a winner for video on my GH2 with an adapter.</p>

<p>Just saw a DXO test of this lens vs. some well known prime lenses. Comparing<br>

a zoom to prime lenses usually is won by the prime lenses. This lens did<br>

darn well.<br>

<a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Sigma-18-35mm-F1.8-DC-HSM-A-Canon-mount-lens-review-fixed-focal-length-quality-in-a-zoom/Sigma-18-35mm-F1.8-DC-HSM-A-Canon-versus-primes">http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Sigma-18-35mm-F1.8-DC-HSM-A-Canon-mount-lens-review-fixed-focal-length-quality-in-a-zoom/Sigma-18-35mm-F1.8-DC-HSM-A-Canon-versus-primes</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>the Sigma 18-35mm/f1.8 DX is going to have a hard time finding matching <a id="FALINK_1_0_0" href="/nikon-camera-forum/00btRm">cameras</a>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sigma currently makes lenses in several mounts, so i dont see any factual basis for this claim. Whatsoever. if you look at nikon alone, besides d300 and d300s holdouts, there are d7000 and d7100 owners, for whom the 17-55 is even more expensive and doesnt offer as shallow DoF, while the 16-85 doesnt constitute an improvement over kit lenses in terms of max aperture. the 18-35 is clearly also a step up from kit lens territory, and will also appeal to video users -- an increasingly large segment. i often see video shooters using primes, and if the DxO Mark findings are accurate, this zoom could replace 5 prime ranges (18/20/24/28/35). So while the range overall may be shorter, it catches w/a to mid shooters right in the wheelhouse, covering the most common focal lengths.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The D300/D300S is 6-year-old technology, whose 12MP, out-of-date dynamic range, out-of-date high-ISO capability ... cannot be fixed by a lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>out-of-date dynamic range? Shun, let's be serious here. I've never had a photo rejected for publication for "not having enough dynamic range." The 18-35's constant 1.8 addresses the high-ISO issue by giving shooters more than 1 full stop of aperture, which decreases noise, allowing for bigger prints and cleaner overall exposures, even with older cameras.</p>

<p>Here's a shot from this past weekend from my "out-of-date" camera.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Here's a shot from this past weekend from my "out-of-date" camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eric, what is your point? Why did you post that image to this thread? What does that have to do with this discussion?</p>

<p>So you took one picture (most likely a bunch of pictures) with your D300S last weekend. Are you suggesting that is somehow "proof" that the D300S is not out of date? In particular, the contrast in that scene is low. How does that demonstrate the dynamic range for the D300S?</p>

<p>I still own a D100 and some film SLRs. I can use them to capture images any time I want, but doing so doesn't prove a whole lot of anything.</p>

<p>If I want good high-ISO results, shallow depth of field, and good wide-angle performance, I use FX. That is simple physics. Ten years ago or even 6, 7 years ago, FX was not affordable. Today, you can get a new D600 for $2000; referb and used D600 and D700 are very affordable now. There is no point to buy a fast, wide-angle DX lens that is restricted to DX bodies only.</p>

<p>I saw a review that commented loosely that f1.8 on DX was the equivalent of f2.8 on FX. What are the relevant calculations for this. I was wondering if an 18-35mm f2 on FX had to be bigger...</p>

<p>1.8/2.8 * 1.52 (= the crop factor of DX) = 0.98 which is very close to 1.</p>

<p>A 18-35/2 for FX with good image quality at f/2 would be very large indeed. </p>

<p>When Sony introduced the new RX100 M2 compact they said the BSI sensor increased the <br>

sensitivity by 40%. Soon they are going to announce new Nex cameras with APS-c sensor<br>

If they are also improved by about that much, then with new fast lenses like this lens and the<br>

Samyang 16mm f2, I think many who want to have smaller cameras will be able to get<br>

satisfactory high iso images without carrying around big heavy FF gear. We feel that if <br>

the APS-c can get to the point where ISO 3200 is low in noise most will be happy .<br>

If you have an extra f stop due to a fast lens you might only need good iso 1600 to<br>

get the same shot. <br>

I'm sure some pros might point to their iso 6400 on ff cameras, but I don't think<br>

most people need that. </p>

<blockquote>If I want good high-ISO results, shallow depth of field, and good wide-angle performance, I use FX. That is

simple physics. Ten years ago or even 6, 7 years ago, FX was not affordable. Today, you can get a new D600 for $2000;

referb and used D600 and D700 are very affordable now. There is no point to buy a fast, wide-angle DX lens that is

restricted to DX bodies only.</blockquote>

 

<p>FX camera body + prime lenses for 28, 35 and 50 (or 24-70 zoom) is several thousands dollars. Sigma 18-35 is well

under one thousand.

 

<p>For me, it's not necessity to go full frame anymore, even though I'd greatly benefit from it too.