Sigma 18-35/1.8 DC HSM Coming Soon

[bruce_brown]

<p>Eric: ++ ...I only add more because we MAY be heading toward a thread record ... we as consumers may only have to worry about Sigma, if, in the future, due to any successes they may continue to have, THEY start adding a colored band around their product ... won't be red or gold, as those are taken. Perhaps orange, yellow, green or blue. This, if done, it would necessitate what? ... a 10 to 15% price increase of the product. ;-)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Bruce: It's already gold, on "EX" lenses (except the 200-500, because I guess gold wouldn't go with the green... and nobody's going to mistake that lens for anything else.) There's sometimes some different paint, too. Interestingly, the 18-35 isn't "EX" (though it is "Art", if they're mutually exclusive). Nor is the 120-300, which you'd kind of expect to be a premium lens. I've no idea why a few of the lenses have a red ring.</p>

[bruce_brown]

<p>And Andrew: History trivia ... when the original 'hot-line' was set up between Washington and the Kremlin ... late Eisenhower or early JFK ('59, '60. or'61), it was not a phone line, just a DIRECT text line. The first message sent by USA to the Russians to test the connection was ... 'The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog'. The Russians did not know English keyboard test, and took it poorly ... they thought the US was calling itself a 'quick fox', and the Russians a 'lazy dog'. Caused a BIG INCIDENT, the Russes threatening to cut the line before it could even be used. The NSC people spent all night and the next day gathering up every single HS and College text they could ... USAF air-lifted them to Moscow the following day ... to prove ... it was just an innocent test, and noting else. Everyone calmed down ... for awhile.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I still wasn't under the impression that SD1 Merrills were selling in enormous quantities.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They're not. it's a niche product as i said before, designed for landscape, macro and studio portrait work. Not really intended for mass consumption, even at the current selling price, and not really a camera i'd recommend for photojournalism, sports,or action, since the body design and UI lag behind the Foveon sensor quality. However, for photographers seeking the best possible IQ from a DSLR, the SD1 represents an intriguing, if eccentric, choice. I'd probably be more inclined to pick up a DP-series compact on deep discount, although the newer models with the Merrill sensor have been generally well-received.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The way i see this is, good glass is a necessity, since the SD1 will only accept Sigma-mount lenses. That sort of explains the recent upward momentum of their lens line, from an IQ standpoint, since they have incentive now not just to produce volume, but to produce quality. But what's interesting about Sigma is that they continue to put out innovative new designs, and are getting much better at making zooms -- they've long been known for making good macros and decent primes -- my 17-50 OS has been a real solid performer, as has my 50-150/2.8 non-OS. I wish Nikon would take more chances with their lens designs, which have seemed about as exciting as grandpa's cardigan. When was the last truly innovative lens Nikon put out? Why can't they do a 28-105/2.8 or a 20/1.8? or a stabilized 24-70/2.8? Even the Coolpix A has ho-hum specs which make it less appealing than the Ricoh GR and Fuji X100s, especially at that $1100 price point. You can't be an innovator if you're not pushing the envelope... but i digress.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Interestingly, the 18-35 isn't "EX" (though it is "Art", if they're mutually exclusive). Nor is the 120-300, which you'd kind of expect to be a premium lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I could be wrong, but i think the EX line may have been discontinued in favor of "Art" and "Sports." that's just marketing jargon, but if the end result is better lenses and better build quality, i'm okay with that.</p>

 

[wmervine]

<p>For what it's worth. A review from SLRgear.com<br>

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1609</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

Bruce: Always assume incompetence instead of malice. Especially of me.

 

Incidentally, finally had the chance to look at the dot focus links. I should have thought of that. Though I'd probably binary chop rather than

using increments of one. Thanks for the tip.

 

Eric: I think you're right about the rebranding for new lenses. Maybe there'll be a new coloured line at some point! (And supposedly Nikon

asked pros about a vr 24-70 but claimed reduced image quality for a vr design, so the vote was no vr. Maybe design has moved on.)

[bruce_brown]

<p>Andrew and all ... thanks for all ... Watson (the OP) ... thanks, too ... bet you had NO IDEA ... huh?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon asked pros about a vr 24-70 but claimed reduced image quality for a vr design, so the vote was no vr.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that makes no sense. they have VR in the 70-200 and even the 16-35. and, since tamron's 24-70 got high marks for IQ <em>with stabilization</em>--and at a lower price point--it kind of looks like nikon's being lazy here. how long before sigma comes out with an updated 24-70/2.8 OS?</p>

[rick_chen]

<p>wow...someone can replace their 20mm f/2.8d, 24mm f/2.8d, 28mm f/2.8d, 28mm f/1.8g, 35mm f/1.8g with this lens and not lose speed? heck of a deal :)</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>If anything, I personally think Nikon should try to improve the corner sharpness, reduce the physical length and improve the construction quality of the Nikon 24-70/2.8 rather than add VR. All of the current Nikon wide angle and standard zooms that have VR also have more distortion, vignetting and reduced corner and edge sharpness at equal focal length and aperture, compared to the current Nikon 24-70/2.8 and 14-24/2.8. Long lenses are different as those have a lot of empty space inside for extra elements and the rays are already near parallel at this point, so a VR system can be incorporated with less damage to image quality. In my opinion adding VR to the 24-70 before it can match the size, zoom smoothness and image quality of the current Canon version would be a mistake. The physical size advantage of the Canon lens is quite remarkable.</p>

<p>Tamron have their own examples of the adverse effect of vibration reduction on image quality in wide and normal zooms. Photozone shows that the earlier non-VC 17-50/2.8 is optically superior to the VC version. The 24-70 Tamron seems to produce good test results, but again there is no telling how great the lens could be if the VC feature hadn't been incorporated. Photozone show roughly similar sharpness and CA between the Nikon and Tamron 24-70/2.8's, with some differences (e.g. Nikon shows better corner sharpness at wide apertures at 70mm, and better center sharpness at 24mm, whereas the Tamron is slightly better in some other areas), but the 24mm focal length on the Tamron appears to show more vignetting and distortion than the Nikkor which are exactly the type of effects seen in Nikon's VR zooms at 24mm in this range as well. Also, the bokeh of the Tamron appears to be more complex (inner area of highlight discs out of focus are complex) than in the 24-70 Nikkor in that test. So I wouldn't go say that the Tamron is better than the Nikkor (or the Canon 24-70 II) based on this test. It seems to be getting close though. Nevertheless I would prefer improved, rather than almost as good.</p>

<p>Nikon could work on the mechnical quality (zoom ring smoothness is frequently complained about, mine is not smooth either, which is something distracting), long distance and edge sharpness at 24mm, size reduction, bokeh fringing at 24mm, and so on, rather than incorporate VR into an already complex lens. But I have nothing against Nikon making a separate VR version of the 17-55/2.8 and 24-70/2.8's if that is what some customers want. Since resolution of cameras has been increasing, I've found increasing myself resorting to high shutter speeds rather than VR for best image quality. I do take advantage of VR on the 70-200/2.8II even though I know that best image quality is with a tripod and VR off. VR does help with keeping the AF point squarely on the subject when shooting hand-held at 200mm and longer focal lengths, and this translates to a greater percentage of in focus shots. Also in dark churches etc. indoor environments, in the 70-200mm range I find VR beneficial as sometimes the subject is sitting relatively in the dark part of the audience section, and without VR an extremely high ISO or a faster lens would have been needed. Shooting in similar conditions with the 24-70mm, I didn't have difficulty holding the lens steady without VR.</p>

<p>But your needs may be different from mine. Perhaps the solution is separate lenses for different users. Since Tamron already makes a reasonable 24-70 with VC, perhaps it is not necessary to Nikon make one.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>that makes no sense. they have VR in the 70-200 and even the 16-35. and, since tamron's 24-70 got high marks for IQ with stabilization--and at a lower price point--it kind of looks like nikon's being lazy here. how long before sigma comes out with an updated 24-70/2.8 OS?</blockquote>

 

<p>I assume Nikon had two designs which were "the best they could do at the time", one with VR and one without, and the one without was appreciably sharper. Remember the 24-70 was a significant performance improvement on its predecessar. The 70-200 is longer and I suspect easier to fit a VR group to the back of (it took Canon a long time to get a 70-200 IS that was as sharp as their non-IS version). Still, technology moves on, and it's clear than Tamron made a compelling product. But like Ilkka, if I were Nikon, I'd be losing more sleep over the new Canon than the Tamron. Given the history of f/2.8 lens revisions and given that Canon's newest versions seem to be outperforming the Nikkors in tests, I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon updated their 24-70 and 70-200 designs sooner rather than later - though what I'd really like is for them to clone the 17mm T/S, especially with the independent axis rotation (I have a superrotator, realigning with screws seems primitive).<br />

<br />

Of course, I have no internal knowledge of Nikon's product release plans. I've noticed increasing amounts of white glass in press circles, though (maybe helped by the 5D3 probably being a better press camera than the Nikons, and at least on specs the 1Dx has the edge on the D4), so I wouldn't be surprised if they had some pressure on trying to pull the press to the dark side.<br />

<br />

For what it's worth, I thought Nikon's sample images for the D800 that were shot with the 24-70 showed a bit of softness even at f/8 - it looked like some kind of wavy field curvature. The 70-200 held up much better. (My 14-24 seems to have field curvature problems as well, but it may need a CLA.)</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I think we have to wait to see Canon make a high resolution full frame camera before we can really say how the newest Canon lenses perform vs. Nikkors on the D800. Using Canon full frame lenses on 21/22MP cameras and concluding perfection is a bit premature, I think. A lot of Nikon lenses look nearly perfect on the 24MP D3X, e.g. the f/1.4 AF-S Nikkors even close to wide open, but on the D800 a slightly different story is seen. Some testers give high points to Canon lenses vs. Nikon lenses just because they meet the resolution expectations of the 21/22MP sensors better than Nikon lenses meet 36MP. This is of course ridiculous and would lead readers to the wrong conclusions.</p>

<p>Robert Cicalo compared the Canon 24-70 II + 5D Mk III vs. Nikon 24-70 + D800E and noted that mounted on D800E, the latter would still produce higher resolution images even though the Canon lens may in itself be better (it is significantly smaller and better constructed than the Nikkor in my opinion, which is why I would like Nikon to feel some pressure):</p>

<p>http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/a-24-70mm-system-comparison</p>

<p>This gives Nikon some time before the <em>need</em> to revise the 24-70, as they can ride the benefits of the D800(E) sensor for the time being but given the typical cycle of revision of these lenses, I think a new 24-70/2.8 may be only 1-3 years off. It is Nikon's best selling professional optic and given its significance and popularity, active development effort is justified. Canon will surely be out with a high resolution camera eventually and by then hopefully Nikon's efforts in revising their professional lens lineup (that has been quite active since 2007) will approach completion. I am waiting for the replacement to the 135 DC, though at the moment it seems the Zeiss 135/2 is better than either the Nikkor or the Canon lens, though manual focus of course. After that I could say I am happy with Nikon's lenses as a whole, where it pertains to my needs. </p>

<p>I think Andrew's observation about Canon becoming more popular in photojournalist circles may be true, as the newest focusing system in the 5DIII and 1D X is earning very high marks among users, and Nikon has had some difficulty with the D800 and the Multi-CAM 3500 (I cannot count the number of hours I've spent trying to work out the fine tuning of the D800 with my fast primes - with the conclusion that the setting depends on the distance, making optimal use of many of these lenses tricky in practice, especially at longer distances). Also 6fps is a bit more practical than 4fps, though Nikon also offers DX and FX 6fps models. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Ilkka: I've seen a magazine review of 24-70 lenses do exactly what you say, comparing a 5D3 and a D800. They tested fairly near the middle of the frame, too. The <i>old</i> Canon 24-70, which is generally considered to be a step behind Nikon's offering, got higher scores than the Nikkor. I wrote them a strongly-worded letter asking them to do it again, but better.<br />

<br />

My understanding is that the Canon does a bit better in lens-independent tests (and the one you link to is a good point - though that test also suggests the Tamron isn't exactly smashing the Nikkor). I'd really like people to do more tests independent of the sensor, since a D800-based test won't necessarily tell you much about how a lens performs on a D600 and vice-versa. There aren't enough multidimensional graphs out there. If Nikon could get better out of the D800 by upping the lens quality, it wouldn't be a bad thing for them to do. I doubt either Canon or Nikon will produce another FX camera in a hurry (though since I vaguely expect a D5 at some point I guess there might be a 1Ds4), but it'll happen at some point. Your 1-3 years guess wouldn't surprise me, either.<br />

<br />

I need to give my DC one last go, or actually get it on ebay before Nikon release a successor. Though if it doesn't have DC, it <i>isn't</i> a successor. The Zeiss is, admittedly, a pretty special piece of glass. I'm kind of sympathetic that Nikon would make more of its users happy if it gave DX a bit more love, though.<br />

<br />

As for the Canon AF system (and while I keep claiming the 5D3 is a better general-purpose camera than the D800 because of it and the frame rate - though to be honest, most of the sports and photojournalists I see still have the unibodies), <i>surely</i> KR can't be wrong in saying that the Canon's AF is hopelessly over-complicated and useless? :-)</p>

[daniel_z1]

<p>VR adds a few more elements to the lens and thus reduces light transmission. whether that trade off is worth while would depend on the intended use of the lens.</p>

<p>For UWA, few shoot it in low light at high shutter speed. Most light light shots are done with tripod so light transmission is not really an issue. Why is 16-35 VR the only UWA with stablisation is quite a mystery.</p>

<p>For standard F2.8 zoom, maybe Nikon thinks majority of its customers are wedding and event shooters, who prefer light transmission because they need to shoot at relatively higher SS to avoid motion blur. Canon probably takes the same view which is why its new 24-70 F2.8 also does not have IS. But for less"pro" and more "hobbyist" lenses, such as 24-70 F4 and 24-105 F4, 24-120, 24-85, Canon and Nikon do include IS/VR. It should be pointed out that 24-105 is the prime example of light transmission loss - as an F4 lens its light transmission is only T5.1, while most F4 lens have trnamission of T4.50~ish.</p>

<p>For medium telehoto, fast shutter speed is needed to freeze action and light transmission is preferred over stablisation, I presume.</p>

<p>But for super telephoto, I am guessing, non-stablised minimum shutter speed is faster than that is required to freeze motion, thus they have stablisation.</p>

<p>That is my rationalisation of the whole stablisation situation.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't go say that the Tamron is better than the Nikkor (or the Canon 24-70 II) based on this test. It seems to be getting close though.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fyi, DxO mark rated the tamron as 1 point better than the 24-70 nikkor. Not saying the Nikon doesnt outperform the Tamron in real-world usage, but that shows that stabilization can be successfully put into a standard 2.8 zoom. also, i had the non-VC tamron 17-50 and now use the sigma 17-50 OS for DX. the tamron was maybe a hair sharper at 2.8, but stabilization does help when shooting still subjects in low light, as well as live shots where there may be more camera movement, even with a fairly high shutter speed.</p>

<p>i'm still not sure there's a good explanation for why the 24-70 isnt stabilized and the 70-200 is. if the VR degraded the IQ so much, then how come both versions of the 70-200 are regarded as optically better than the 80-200/2.8 D?</p>

<p>In any event, it's kind of a moot point since the 18-35 isnt stablilized--which may help explain its apparent optical superiority.</p>

[vladimir__imovi_]

<blockquote>

<p>since the 18-35 isnt stablilized</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

it is in K and alpha mount ;)</p>

[bruce_brown]

<p>Vladimir: Here: <a href="http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/new/new_topic.php?id=379">http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/new/new_topic.php?id=379</a> </p>