sigma 18-35 1.8 on FF

[robert_stig]

<p>How about using it on a D600 or D3? what are negatives? whats the effective focal lengths?<br />thank you. thinking about selling my 28-70AFS for this.can deal with the short range. the 70-200 can cover anything I need over that or my 85/105 I carry with me in my belt pouches.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The Sigma 18-35mm/f1.8 lens is intended for APS-C format sensors, similar to Nikon DX lenses. Those lenses are not intended for FX bodies.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>The 18-35 is intended for use on APS-C (DX) format bodies. Sure, you can use it on an FX format body like the D600 or D3. But the image circle projected by the lens won't fully cover those sensors, and the quality at the edges will be bad. But those cameras can of course be told to shoot in DX mode, abandoning some of the sensor to just make use of the part that's well served by DX lenses.<br /><br />The focal length is the same. 18mm is always 18mm. But because you can't use the full frame, you'll get framing more akin to the use of a full-frame 27-52mm lens. But again, at the expense of losing much of your sensor output.<br /><br />What is it you don't like about the 28-70?</p>

[robert_stig]

<p>I know its aps format. I want something sharper than the 28-70 AFS, and no way in hell im giving money to nikon for 24-70. the 18-35 on the d600 in dx would be 10mp and thats fine for weddings. better to buy this for $800 and get the zoom option than a 35 ART the way I see it. I dont shoot at open apertures every on any lens. almost always a stop down. 27-52 is just great.</p>

[brian_hooks]

Unless your unhappy with the range at the wide end of your

28-70 (or the weight) I'd doubt the image quality of the 18-

35 would be better than what you've already got especially

since you'd have to switch your camera to DX mode to use

that lens. I would imagine image quality would actually

decrease with this setup.

[eric_arnold]

<p>why? this is just a bad idea.</p>

[andylynn]

That's a terrible idea, and I can't imagine it would be an improvement over a 28-70.

[raczoliver]

<p>That lens is not meant to be used with an FX camera. Sure, you can mount it, but the edges will be bad and you will get dark corners. The effective focal length will be 18-35, as the name suggests. You could change to DX crop mode, but you should not expect better results than at full frame with your current lens.</p>

<p>The only thing that will truly replace your 28-70/2.8 is the current 24-70/2.8. I would make many other compromises on aperture or zoom range before using a lens that was meant for a smaller format.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>If you can't afford those big great expensive FX lenses, maybe you'd be better off with DX anyway. I know I am.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>If you imagine any Sigma zoom will be an improvement over a 28-70/2.8 Nikkor, then why not get a Tamron SP 28-75/2.8 instead? Compact, light, properly Full Frame, and probably with slightly better IQ than your current Nikkor. I'm pretty certain it would knock the spots off an 18-35 Sigma on the cut down DX format any day.<br>

I've had mine for about 4 years now with use on a D700 and D800. I wasn't sure it'd be up to the D800, but I've absolutely no complaints and in fact it's proved to be one of the sharpest and contrastiest zooms I've ever used.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>I'm quite happy with the Sigma 15-30 on FX but do watch out for lens flare - got mine for about AU$300 on that auction site.</p>

<p>I use primes most of the time, this is my only zoom and use it for general purpose stuff and flick between FX and DX to make it a very handy range 15-45</p>

 

[robert_stig]

<p>Peter, no one said anything about not affording. dont jump conclusions. Im not giving nikon money for an overpriced 24-70. no way in hell the world will freeze before that happens. I have money for whatever I want to buy. there are reasons why I wont. not because I cant.</p>

<p>I have the Tamron as well. its a nice lens but not so great in the thirds on the edges. im not putting it down. its my backup lens at the moment. the afs is dead on the 28-70. the 18-35 just got amazing reviews for apertures between 2.8 -5.6 and since I like it between 3.5-4.5 thats just great for me. 10mp is more than enough for weddings with the D600 and the D3 does 12 and it too is enough. dont know how it compares to the 28-70/28-75 but I dont view files larger than my screen size. pixel peeping is just a waste of time for me. Im guessing the sigma new tech would be better. dont know but I do also want to get into dslr video and was considering getting a d7100 for a 2nd camera and using the d600 for my main.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>The 18-35 1.8 DX is the equivalent of 27-53mm f/2.8. That's nothing special. The only reason the lens is special is that it brings performance equivalent to a 24-70 FX lens to DX - but you already have an FX camera, so you don't need this. You're talking about spending $900 to stop using half your sensor and get no particular improvement over what you already have.</p>

<p>Use your Tamron lens. I'm quite confident that you'll get better results from that, with your camera in full frame mode, than you would from a Sigma 18-35 with your camera in crop mode.</p>

[heri_rakotomalala1]

<p>I don't think it's even possible to mount the SIgma on a full-frame body? It will possibly damage your mirror. <br>

One of my friend tried to insert a crop lens on my full-frame and I nearly lost the camera</p>

[andylynn]

It shouldn't damage the camera. Nikon DX lenses can be used on FX cameras. They just project a small image - you

actually see the black area around the DX size image, which is circular, and the outer parts of that image are dark and

blurry.

 

Canons won't let you mount crop sensor lenses on full sensor cameras.

[alan_bessler_sr]

<p>The negatives are it's a Sigma enough said !!</p>