Sigma 18-35/1.8 DC HSM Coming Soon

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>But remember that the 24mp on the DX format is about 50mp of resolution and that is</em><br /><em>something the D600 can't match</em></p>

<p>I'm not sure what you're trying to say (I do say that often, don't I?). Wide angle images shot with the D600 with the same angle of view as those shot with the D7100 using a shorter lens to match the FOV, are likely to be a bit better defined because the pixel count is the same, but lens MTF tends to be higher at the spatial frequencies corresponding to more coarse pixel spacing of the D600. On the other hand the D7100 has no anti-aliasing filter so perhaps it compensates, but my experience with existing Nikon wide angles and the 16MP D7000 is that even the 12MP D700 produced better quality at equivalent FOVs with wide angle lenses at wide apertures. Of course, here the 18-35/1.8 is a new lens and may change the situation.</p>

<p>Andrew, I think most people who have FX cameras will not be affected by the 18-35/1.8, as they have many other options for wide angle and wide aperture. But people who are using DX and would prefer to stay with DX, and yet like available light / shallow DOF portraiture / documentary work will be very much affected by this lens, and its relatively affordable pricing. Personally if I were to buy the D7100 it would be mostly for tele and macro work, and I would prefer to have a more compact fast wide angle lens than the tank sized 18-35/1.8. But that's because I already have reasonably compact wide angles for FX and the DX would need to compete with the primes to be used for wide angle work. And I have the Fuji X100s with its super compact 23mm f/2.</p>

[bruce_brown]

<p>Andrew: I HAVE the Sigma 35/1.4 ... also the Sigma 8-16. and the 'Bigma'/50-500. My expectations for this lens are +++. Nikon's Pro-Zoom Design Team? I don't know ... pre-occupied? ... sure, why not. To broaden the discussion even more, I offer this up with the greatest intention of <em>humor...</em>and I will repeat it ...HUMOR, lest someone here get totally bent out of shape, and become 'de-focused', or loose their 'perspective'. Google 'Olympus Cayman Islands' ... perhaps the Nikon folks have gone totally ... 'Japan Incorporated', and are in the Islands with the FORMER Board Chair of Oly, and most of the Board, relaxing on the beach ... drinking Duff Beer (Can't Get Enough Of That Duff!) ... gently sipping, while local baristas walk on their back. Can't think of a better way to cool through a billion+ (yes, with a 'b') these last ten years. Nikon, Nikon ... where are youuu? But I repeat myself.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Edit: Crossed over with Ilkka and Bruce while looking up PureView specs, apologies for any redundancy.<br>

Ilkka: Ah, thank you (and I'm sympathetic that sharpening can make a mess of smooth bokeh). The LoCA is a bit painful, but we can't have everything, and I get what you're trying to do; I could do with something wider than 50mm that's faster than f/2.8.<br />

<br />

T: Yes, I've argued in the past that the sensitivity advantage of FX sensors largely goes away if you can compensate by speeding up the lens (especially with gapless sensors). Whether the lens can really do a D7100 as much justice at f/1.8 as a 24-70 can do a D600 at f/2.8 we'll have to see - there are still some optical and tolerance limitations that favour the bigger format, and optical aberrations are much easier to control on a slower lens - but it'll certainly close the gap.</p>

 

<blockquote>But remember that the 24mp on the DX format is about 50mp of resolution and that is something the D600 can't match.</blockquote>

<p>Huh? Neither can the D7100. A PureView 808 would be about 650mp of resolution (in FX sensor size terms), but that doesn't mean you can use that fact for anything. What the D7100 can do with its higher pixel density is act like it has a perfect 1.5x teleconverter... but you can buy teleconverters for FX cameras. You can't currently buy a speed booster for DX cameras, so this lens will be as good as it gets for a zoom.</p>

 

<blockquote>The D300s lags way behind either of these recent Nikons in most sensor tests.</blockquote>

<p><i>Most?</i> The sensor is, of course, not why people like the D300 (at least, not now). The combination of why people <i>do</i> like it and the D7100 sensor is why some want a D400. But that's several other threads.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Ilkka: Yes, I don't think it's relevant to existing FX owners. But if a DX owner has a great deal of 24-70 envy and is prepared to buy an FX body to get it, this might just change their approach. It's certainly a good thing that the option exists - though I agree that, as an FX owner, I wouldn't rush to get one for a DX back-up body.<br />

<br />

Bruce: I'm sure Nikon's lens designers are busy (and not on holiday). Whether they're producing what everyone would like them to produce - particularly in the DX range, where I'm sure they feel that "pro" shoppers can just buy FX lenses - is another matter.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>My question is does it even make economic sense to buy a used D300 in 2013?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>for some, sure, why not? if you dont need the latest and greatest, and/or are willing to use flash in low-light situations instead of hi-ISO, the d300 is still a very good camera with a very solid feel in the hand, and very affordable at current used prices. the d300s is even better, with the dual card slots.</p>

<p>FWIW, i still find myself using the d300s a lot--there's a noticeable difference in weight with my d300s+sigma 17-50 OS set-up, as opposed to my d3s+24-70 set-up, and if i'm not shooting in an environment where i know i need the better hi-ISO performance, and/or dont wanna carry all that weight, i wont hesitate to grab the DX body. i will most likely continue to use it until it dies.</p>

<p>my point, however, was that there are d300/d300s owners--a lot of them--who havent jumped to FX, and for that segment, the 18-35/1.8 will be very appealing. just to clarify, i also think that lens will do well with d7000/d7100 owners. it makes less sense for those with consumer-grade bodies, perhaps. the bottom line is that, for all those who were asking for a pro-spec DX lens, well, this is it. actually, sigma does pro-spec one better by introducing a 1.8 zoom, which mitigates the DoF advantage of FX compared to DX. for someone heavily invested in DX thinking of jumping to FX, who has held off because of the overall cost of upgrading, the 18-35 is a reason to stay with DX. it's also an innovative design, in a segment where it was beginning to look like there were no more innovations to come as far as lenses.</p>

[andylynn]

<blockquote>

<p><em>But remember that the 24mp on the DX format is about 50mp of resolution and that is</em><br /><em>something the D600 can't match</em><br>

I'm not sure what you're trying to say (I do say that often, don't I?).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think it means that if you took the pixel density of a D7100 and put it in an FX sensor it would be 50MP. But I don't think that is very meaningful. In reality both those camera have 24 MPs.</p>

<p>If we do the "f-stop equivalent" - and I've only read this, but haven't really put any thought into whether the math is correct, so forgive me if it's a bit off - multiply both the focal length and the aperture by the crop factor to get the FX equivalent. This is said to account for both the difference in light gathering ability between sensor sizes (which makes sense to me because both the crop factor and the aperture number are square roots, extrapolations left as an exercise to the reader) and depth of field. So when you say "18-35 f/1.8 on DX" this is roughly equivalent to "27-53 f/2.7 on FX". Assuming the lens performs well, that's how it would work in the field. A D7100 owner could get this lens and be basically caught up to a D600 with an f/2.8 zoom, except missing the long end.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<blockquote>

<p>my point, however, was that there are d300/d300s owners--a lot of them--who havent jumped to FX, and for that segment, the 18-35/1.8 will be very appealing</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agree to that, but if this would be the only targeted groep it would be quit stupid for Sigma to spend all that research on this lens. Ppl here seem to forget often that brands like Sigma target all other DSLR brands too.</p>

[t._zenjitsuman]

 

<h2>Sensor INFO</h2>

 

 

<strong>Nikon D7100</strong> comes with a 23.5 x 15.6 mm CMOS sensor, which has a diagonal of 28.21 mm (1.11 inch) and a surface area of 366.60 mm².

<table >

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>

 

Diagonal

 

 

<strong>28.21</strong> mm

 

[<a id="show_diagonal" title="Sensor diagonal calculation" href="http://www.digicamdb.com/specs/nikon_d7100/#diagonal">details</a>]

</td>

<td>

 

Surface area

 

 

<strong>366.6</strong> mm²

 

[<a id="show_area" title="Sensor surface area calculation" href="http://www.digicamdb.com/specs/nikon_d7100/#area">details</a>]

</td>

<td>

 

Pixel pitch

 

 

<strong>3.9</strong> µm

 

[<a id="show_pixel_pitch" title="Pixel pitch calculation" href="http://www.digicamdb.com/specs/nikon_d7100/#pitch">details</a>]

</td>

<td>

 

Pixel area

 

 

<strong>15.21</strong> µm²

 

[<a id="show_pixel_area" title="Pixel area calculation" href="http://www.digicamdb.com/specs/nikon_d7100/#photosite">details</a>]

</td>

<td>

 

Pixel density

 

 

<strong>6.59</strong> MP/cm²

 

 

 

 

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

 

 

<h2>Sensor INFO</h2>

 

 

<strong>Nikon D600</strong> comes with a 35.9 x 24 mm CMOS sensor, which has a diagonal of 43.18 mm (1.7 inch) and a surface area of 861.60 mm².

<table >

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>

 

Diagonal

 

 

<strong>43.18</strong> mm

 

[<a id="show_diagonal" title="Sensor diagonal calculation" href="http://www.digicamdb.com/specs/nikon_d600/#diagonal">details</a>]

</td>

<td>

 

Surface area

 

 

<strong>861.6</strong> mm²

 

[<a id="show_area" title="Sensor surface area calculation" href="http://www.digicamdb.com/specs/nikon_d600/#area">details</a>]

</td>

<td>

 

Pixel pitch

 

 

<strong>5.95</strong> µm

 

[<a id="show_pixel_pitch" title="Pixel pitch calculation" href="http://www.digicamdb.com/specs/nikon_d600/#pitch">details</a>]

</td>

<td>

 

Pixel area

 

 

<strong>35.4</strong> µm²

 

[<a id="show_pixel_area" title="Pixel area calculation" href="http://www.digicamdb.com/specs/nikon_d600/#photosite">details</a>]

</td>

<td>

 

Pixel density

 

 

<strong>2.83</strong> MP/cm²

 

 

 

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>The point I am making is that while they are both 24mp sensors, because the number<br>

of pixels packed in the pixel area on the D7100 gives it a resolution edge.<br>

6.59 MP/cm squared vs. 2.83MP/cm squared. That high density is both a blessing<br>

and a hindrance, less light gathering ability but higher resolution if you can<br>

get a really sharp, steady shot using a very sharp lens, and nail the focus.</p>

 

 

[andylynn]

<p>If by "higher resolution" you mean "more pixels per area" translating to "smaller pixels" - I don't see how that can be a good thing. Presented with two 24mp images from cameras of similar generations, where one sensor is smaller than the other - how is the image from the smaller sensor supposed to be sharper? I can't see why smaller pixel sites are a good thing. If there are situations where a D7100 is going to have a sharpness advantage over a D600, it might be because the D7100 omits the AA filter - but in practice, in actual use you'll have a really hard time finding a difference in sharpness. Unless it's going to be in situations where either the D7100's superior AF or the D600's superior high ISO quality are important. But both <em>sensors</em> are as "sharp" as anybody could really need them to be.</p>

[t._zenjitsuman]

<p>DPreview tested the D5200 vs the D7100 DPreview says the sensor is similar except one<br>

has no anti-aliasing filter. They didn't notice a vast improvement overall.<br>

I just say if you have to crop and lose pixels then you have more pixels to work with, also<br>

if you use the 1.3x crop on top of the DX you still have about 15-16mp. As I stated before<br>

I would have rather had an 18mp sensor in the D7100 and a better noise profile.<br>

Having said that, its still an excellent low light sensor. Getting back what this lens<br>

means for trying to equalize for the FF superior low light performance, I figured that<br>

maybe 1.25 f stops faster lens may almost catch up to the D600, not quite. But, real world<br>

if you shoot raw and use Denoise or Define you have to do very little to make images<br>

look the same when looked at on the wall (not pixel peeking). </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>None of them are zooms, but I stumbled across <a href=" and thought people on this thread might be entertained. I'll have the 150mm, please. (Though that Topar is interesting too!)<br />

<br />

T: I think you can assume that people on this forum know the area of a sensor (though actually I'll admit the D7100's is a fraction of a mm smaller than I'd expected), and that we know that 24MP = 24MP. The smaller sensor receives less of the image circle of a lens than the larger, unless you use some kind of focal reducer (like the aforementioned speed booster) to concentrate the result. The higher pixel density sensor resolves more detail, unless you use a teleconverter on a bigger sensor to enlarge the detail: in both cases, you throw away the edges of the image, so the "advantage" is effectively just a change of focal length and aperture; so long as you can match the absolute aperture with a shorter lens, the same argument also removes the primary advantage of an FX system. It is, nonetheless, generally easier to get a lens to resolve detail for a larger sensor.<br />

<br />

Don't get me wrong, DX has its advantages over FX. It's generally cheaper, lenses are shorter, the whole system is lighter, the outdated mirror box given better AF coverage, that the "integrated teleconverter" is perfect makes it tempting to me for macro use and good-light distance shooting. For DoF control and low-light shooting, I'll still take the bigger format. And I actually <i>have</i> a teleconverter. And, of course, Nikon don't make a 36MP DX camera. (IIRC, Canon allegedly made a 50MP one at one point, though since so many people complain about the D800 having too many pixels it's probably for the best they didn't ship it, even if it mostly resolved lens aberrations.)</p>

[andylynn]

<p>If the idea is to get the most pixels while shooting tele in DX crop, then yes, putting the 24mp inside the DX crop area as opposed to about 12 when setting a D600 to DX is an advantage. Don't worry about more pixels causing more noise. That only matters when you pixel peep. If you print or shrink for screen display from a higher res file, the noise is smaller. In actual use you won't see the image as noisier.</p>

[t._zenjitsuman]

<p>I too thought the D800 had too many pixels, I wish I could afford the Pentax D645, I have a<br>

Pextax 6x7 and could use my lenses on the D645 which has I think 40mp on a medium format<br>

sensor. I concur with your thought on the fact that more MP doesn't always equate to being the best mix. For me if I ever go FF it will be a mirrorless that can take advantage of my Leica M<br>

lens collection. These lenses are small, pretty fast, optically and mechanically excellent and<br>

would make a great system, and I have 6 prime lenses, from 15mm thru 90mm. Even so I would want no more than 20MP, that is plenty on a FF. <br>

This Sigma lens being so fast would eliminate on DX having a FF lenses like 20mm(30mm EFL) 24mm (36mm EFL) 28mm (43mm EFL) and 35mm (53mm EFL). Other than using<br>

the with my film cameras or a mirrorless camera I don't need them.</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>T: DPReview say they had to use a decent prime at f/3.5 to see the edge enhancement from missing the low pass filter, which doesn't surprise me. The maths says you've thrown away the difference to diffraction, and sure enough that's what they found. Even on the D800e, I know I'm down to "plain D800 resolution" if I shoot at f/8, and I try to stick to the f/4-f/5.6 range when I can. The difference from no AA filter is small, but there. I got a D800 because I wanted the resolution, so <i>not</i> going for an "e" and getting every scrap of resolution I could seemed unwise. It costs you very little on the D7100, beyond a little moire at the wrong aperture, and if you want the resolution it's nice to have it.<br />

<br />

You obviously lose some noise handling by "further teleconverting" the D7100 with the 1.3x crop, due to the reduction in light contributing to the image area, but at full size I believe it's pretty close to the D7000. I don't believe there's a significantly "better noise profile" to be had, with the arguable exception of moving the whole shebang to back-side illumination or the recent organic sensor announcements (when mature) - the D7100 is within a small fraction of class leading, and identical to the D600/D800/D4 sensors in terms of areal efficiency, as far as I know. "Better" isn't asking Nikon to catch up with everyone else, it's telling them to invent something better than everyone else has, which is a bit of a big ask. Though stuffing more light into the camera with one of these obviously helps...<br />

<br />

Anyway, talking to Canon about their dynamic range might be fairer, though I understand the 1Dx keeps the D4 quite honest. (Aside: I played with a D4 a couple of weeks back. The grip's too deep for me to reach the buttons by the lens mount, and I <i>still</i> can't reach the ISO button during shooting. My lust is dying with old age.)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>I too thought the D800 had too many pixels, I wish I could afford the Pentax D645, I have a Pextax 6x7 and could use my lenses on the D645 which has I think 40mp on a medium format sensor.</blockquote>

<p>With an adaptor, I hope you realise. :-) It's only "medium-ish format" (44mm x 33mm vs 56mm x 41mm for 645 film - you need much more expensive digital backs to get near a full 645 frame). Still, as far as I can tell, nice camera. It won't be appreciably easier to get the full resolution out of it - much of the problem people have with a D800 is that you only get the best quality by shooting like you would to get the best out of medium format. Various discussions <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/mf-easy.shtml">here</a>, <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/thoughts_on_medium_format_cameras.shtml">here</a> and <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/2010_mini_medium_format_shoot_out.shtml">here</a>.</p>

<blockquote>I concur with your thought on the fact that more MP doesn't always equate to being the best mix. For me if I ever go FF it will be a mirrorless that can take advantage of my Leica M lens collection. These lenses are small, pretty fast, optically and mechanically excellent and would make a great system, and I have 6 prime lenses, from 15mm thru 90mm. Even so I would want no more than 20MP, that is plenty on a FF.</blockquote>

<p>With the right lenses, it's possible to make pretty good use of a D800E's resolution. Just. With the wrong lenses, not so much. Generally, I'll take more resolution when I can get it (memory cards are getting cheaper, computers are getting faster), but I do think I'd be surprised if Canon - or Nikon - have much that could resolve to 50MP, at least at the frame edges. Now, a 24MP DX crop embedded in a D800-resolution border is another matter. One problem of DX is being diffraction limited - so faster lenses like the Sigma ought to help.</p>

<blockquote>This Sigma lens being so fast would eliminate on DX having a FF lenses like 20mm(30mm EFL) 24mm (36mm EFL) 28mm (43mm EFL) and 35mm (53mm EFL). Other than using the with my film cameras or a mirrorless camera I don't need them.</blockquote>

<p>If they're all f/2.8 (tiny and cheap), yes. It's not really a substitute for the better and faster primes, or even a 28mm f/1.8, on FX. Still, the same is true of a 24-70 f/2.8.</p>

[t._zenjitsuman]

<p>I hope not to use any lens that has a max aperture of less than f2.8 or with TC17e2 f4.8 used <br>

with the 105mm VR f2.8 macro. (268mm EFL DX; 348mm 1.3x crop mode). Indoors/ outdoors in<br>

low light at f2.8 or better and 13.7 ev's dynamic range the D7100 should be enough for most<br>

folks. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Sorry, T, you've lost me again. Do you mean you don't expect to use a lens faster than f/2.8 (and therefore this f/1.8 zoom won't apply to you), or you don't expect to use a lens slower than f/2.8? I've certainly seen the difference between f/2.8 and faster on a D700, or even my D800 - though with most of my lenses I'm usually at f/4-f/7 for optical quality on the D800. Sometimes, even f/1.4, FX and ISO 25600 is pushing it. Not by choice, obviously.</p>

[t._zenjitsuman]

<p>Right, I meant slower than Max aperture of f2.8. You knew what I meant.<br>

I have lots of older Nikkors, but I wanted to use the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, <br>

This new Sigma 18-35mm f1.8, then a CV 58mm f1.4 (instead of my 85mm f1.4) as<br>

the portrait lens and the 105mm f2.8 VR AFS macro with the TC-17e2.<br>

One nice feature that the D7100 has is that additional 1.3x crop. I have to<br>

check if there is a zoom feature that lets you isolate the crop in the lcd<br>

monitor, that would be handy. Anyway its still got to be easier than separate optical<br>

finders I used on Leica rangefinders. With that crop option and with and without the TC<br>

you can have the 105mm with or without the crop and attach the TC and have that with<br>

or without the crop. Only wrinkle is the TC for some reason works in AF mode with<br>

my big 70-200mm f2.8 AFS VR, but only manual focus mounted on the 105mm AFS VR.<br>

doesn't matter much since at distance focusing should be fairly easy with the in focus<br>

indicator. Working with the Leica type gear one gets used to not having a zoom and<br>

anticipating lens changes. At least 11-16 and 18-35 are zooms here and you know when<br>

your going to need to have a portrait lens and longer lens. Plus, you can get that extra<br>

reach with the 1.3x crop and still have plenty of pixels.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>if this would be the only targeted groep it would be quit stupid for Sigma to spend all that research on this lens. Ppl here seem to forget often that brands like Sigma target all other DSLR brands too.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>they also make their own proprietary bodies too, which is another reason why they want to have decent lenses. the practicality of this approach is in the fact they can split their R&D costs against all mounts they make their lenses for, which allows them to maybe take more chances with lens design than the Big Two.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

Ah, thanks T. Sorry, I was genuinely confused - please forgive me, it's late (here). And... Don't forget that all the crop does is throw away

pixels. I've used the D800's DX crop when I knew I didn't need the boundaries and I was short on storage, and you get a frame rate win on

the D7100, but it's no teleconverter substitute. I've not checked, but I'm sure the crop is obvious both in the finder and in live view.

 

Eric: Sigma *make* bodies. I'm not sure they *sell* any. :-) (That's harsh - allegedly the Foveon compacts are quite good.)

[bruce_brown]

<p>Eric: Also note, Sigma, in addition to 'one lens design, many bodies' ... ALL of their product is made 'in county', i.e., Japan. Nikon does not do this ... only the 'high end' product ...the pro bodies, and the 'pro' lenses. Other Nikon product is 'off shore' in China and Thailand. (I don't personally care where it is made, as long as it performs ..."Performance, It's Everything" ) ...but some DO CARE ... knowing that 'off shore' production and labor costs are significantly lower ... the assumption being that the resulting product is somehow less, ah, what? ...glorious? This adds to the question ... how are they (Sigma) able to do this, and undercut the 'majors' on price, significantly, not occasionally, but repeatedly. We are getting ready to clear an air field, but my co says to punch in here the old keyboard test ... 'the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog' ... I am certainly not the 'brown', and Nik is (hopefully) not the 'lazy dog' ... he just asked me to punch it in ... thought it was relevant, and he's not really the co, I am, so I do as asked.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Bruce: Now <i>you're</i> confusing me. Though on the country of origin thing, I don't believe their should be a quality control issue on lenses that Nikon feel it's worth ramping up Chinese production on. I've always found KR's "Quality: Chinese" thing to be mildly racist, whether he means it as such or not. But then I'm white and middle class, and may be inventing problems where they don't exist.</p>

[bruce_brown]

<p>Andrew: Up too late on this one? ;-) ... read... <strong>'I don't personally care where it is made as long as it</strong> <strong>performs..."Performance, It's Everything". </strong> That said, there is NO QUESTION it costs more to produce in Japan than China or Thailand. The issue is, not an issue really, Sigma produces ALL in Japan, yet is able to under price the majors in the lens category at least, all the time. Not only under price,... get a taste of their goods ... buy (or rent) Sigma 35m/1.4. Heft it up, look it over, and shoot some frames thru it ... you can't help but wonder how is this possible at this price? I know the folks at Zeiss are probably asking this, since the S outperforms the Z. Then there is the usb port ... Not only has this discussion generated EIGHT PAGES here, it certainly generated more on my end (with lots of photo types this weekend) ... one even mentioned Sig's advertising (!) ... new agency, new plan? ... their adverts are really attention getting and top-notch. Maybe they are just selling the bejeebers out of their product, and can afford to go out and 'CAPTURE' (another, sorry, to good to pass up) more and more customers. Just looks like a very 'forward-leaning' company that has, as we say in the USMC, their head and axx wired together.<br>

I need to add ...I have read every word on this thread, some three times to fully understand ...it has all been great ...(and free, well $25, I pay) ... thanks HUGE for the inputs and clarifications. I fly more informed. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Eric: Sigma *make* bodies. I'm not sure they *sell* any. :-) (That's harsh - allegedly the Foveon compacts are quite good.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>@Andrew, Sigma also makes the SD1 Merrill models, which are aimed at a niche market which wont settle for second-rate glass. They're able to amortize costs of R&D for their own proprietary mount by dispersing that cost among all the other mounts. So they probably dont need to sell <em>any</em> bodies, since they are the world's biggest lens seller. but for the ones they do, they need to have hi-end glass, as well as hi-end glass in DX format (SD1 series uses APS-C), which benefits high-end DX users for other formats. I think that explains their commitment to hi-end DX, e.g. 18-35/1.8, 50-150/2.8 OS. As to how they're able to do it at those price points--under $1000 for 35/1.4 and 18-35--with the 35, they needed to make a statement about where they were headed; with the 18-35, they were realistic about what the market will bear -- at $800, they will easily sell twice as much then had they priced it at $1200. considering that nikon has had to deeply discount some lenses just to maintain interest level, it seems like sigma has learned a few lessons from their disastrous launch of the sd1.<br>

<br>

@Bruce: not sure the made in japan tag matters as much as dedication to innovation in design and QC. Sigma has always made their lenses in Japan (so does Tokina), it's just that they've been making better lenses lately.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Bruce: I was only confused by the lazy dog analogy, but I might be slightly thrown by being too used to it in a keyboard context. So strictly speaking, you weren't the one confusing me. :-) But thank you for elaborating - and thank you for your other input. I always learn in these threads too, even if others despair of me doing so. I'm not sure I've particularly registered a recent Sigma advert, but then I've seen a few too many showing allegedly sharp images taken with the long end of a 150-500, so I may be blotting them out.<br />

<br />

Eric: I still wasn't under the impression that SD1 Merrills were selling in enormous quantities. But you're quite right that if Sigma didn't make some high end glass (though not everything they make keeps up with the on-brand lenses) they'd struggle even more to ship any. Minor glitches aside, I've been perfectly happy with my 150mm macro and my 8mm, and I wish them well. Though I'll be interested to see what happens when others come up with Foveon competitors. (Personally, I'd rather have the spatial resolution from having the sensor sites for the colours offset, but I can see benefits to the approach, at least if the noise can be handled better.)</p>