Official Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 Reviews (Lenstip, SLRGear, etc)

Looks like an absolutely amazing performer. The sharpness at f/1.8 is really stunning. At f/1.8 the Sigma is sharper than the Canon 17-55 IS or Nikon 17-55 G @ f/2.8.

http://slrgear.com …wproduct.php?pr​oduct=1609
http://www.lenstip.com …est=obiektywu&t​est_ob=374
http://fstoppers.com …35mm-f1-8-dc-hsm-art-lens

Looking good

This is definitely a step in the right direction. Perhaps in 3 years Sigma will follow up with a similar quality 18-50mm f1.8 crop lens, making Canon's crop offerings a laughstock. Even if it will cost more than 1000$, a lot of people will buy it, and many will reconsider "upgrading" to FF.

pulsar123 wrote in post #16043609
This is definitely a step in the right direction. Perhaps in 3 years Sigma will follow up with a similar quality 18-50mm f1.8 crop lens, making Canon's crop offerings a laughstock. Even if it will cost more than 1000$, a lot of people will buy it, and many will reconsider "upgrading" to FF.

They are making Canon and Nikon a laughingstock in several areas already. The 18-35 f/1.8, 35 f/1.4, 10mm fisheye, 8-16, USB dock, etc. While Canon is giving us "new" 24 and 28 f/2.8 and 35 f/2 glass at outrageous prices, Sigma is innovating and doing it at great prices. I'm digging it.

looks a little too soft wide open, no?

ekinnyc wrote in post #16070772
looks a little too soft wide open, no?

not really, the 50D is a crop camera after all, not sure what type of sharpness you're expecting.

have you seen the 70-200 on a crop camera?

it's not super sharp either. There's only so much sharpness you can squeeze from a crop camera.

Lets see how "consistent" Sigma is then we can talk about sharpness. Its meaningless to be sharp when it cannot focus properly. Where sigma loses is the reliability. As long as they have the focus issues, they are bound to lose customers to Canon.

What use is a lens when it cannot properly focus. There is a reason it costs less than the cheapest L lens.

Charlie wrote in post #16071056
not really, the 50D is a crop camera after all, not sure what type of sharpness you're expecting.

have you seen the 70-200 on a crop camera?

it's not super sharp either. There's only so much sharpness you can squeeze from a crop camera.

Please explain... i dont mean that in a challenging way, im juat trying to understand. A lens is a series of smaller lenses that ensure that an image is focused sharply on a perpendicular plane, so how does crop vs ff change how much sharpness we can expect from a given lens?

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16071073
Lets see how "consistent" Sigma is then we can talk about sharpness. Its meaningless to be sharp when it cannot focus properly. Where sigma loses is the reliability. As long as they have the focus issues, they are bound to lose customers to Canon.

What use is a lens when it cannot properly focus. There is a reason it costs less than the cheapest L lens.

Well, for one thing, it doesn't cost less than the cheapest L lens.

The Sigma 18-35 costs $799.

The Canon 24-105L = $735
The Canon 17-40L = $739
The Canon 70-200 f4L = $629
The Canon 200L = $769

And secondly, you have absolutely no idea how well this lens's autofocus performs. According to reviewers, it works just fine.

ekinnyc wrote in post #16071273
Please explain... i dont mean that in a challenging way, im juat trying to understand. A lens is a series of smaller lenses that ensure that an image is focused sharply on a perpendicular plane, so how does crop vs ff change how much sharpness we can expect from a given lens?

Not to mention this lens is designed for crop sensors.

pulsar123 wrote in post #16043609
This is definitely a step in the right direction. Perhaps in 3 years Sigma will follow up with a similar quality 18-50mm f1.8 crop lens, making Canon's crop offerings a laughstock. Even if it will cost more than 1000$, a lot of people will buy it, and many will reconsider "upgrading" to FF.

Have you seen the size of this lens? it's already at 29oz. An 18-50 f/1.8 would probably require a 77mm or 82mm filter and would probably weigh 40oz and be way more expensive. Not exactly a walk around lens.

Charlie wrote in post #16071056
not really, the 50D is a crop camera after all, not sure what type of sharpness you're expecting.

have you seen the 70-200 on a crop camera?

it's not super sharp either. There's only so much sharpness you can squeeze from a crop camera.

ekinnyc wrote in post #16071273
Please explain... i dont mean that in a challenging way, im juat trying to understand. A lens is a series of smaller lenses that ensure that an image is focused sharply on a perpendicular plane, so how does crop vs ff change how much sharpness we can expect from a given lens?

The only argument I can see being made for a lens seemingly performing worse on a crop sensor compared to a FF sensor of the same MP is that the sensors have different pixel densities, and so the crop sensor may reveal limitations in resolving power of the lens that are not seen in the FF sensor image.

But, since this lens is for crop only, it would make better sense to compare to another crop-only lens like the Canon 17-55 (or other brand).

One also needs to recognize that "wide-open" at f/1.8 is probably going to look softer than f/2.8...so perhaps an even better comparison would be the new Sigma 18-35 at 28mm vs the Canon 28mm f/1.8 mounted on a crop sensor (for the aforementioned reason), both at f/1.8. Looking at the image posted by ekinnyc vs the lens sample image for the Canon 28mm f/1.8 mounted on a 60D at the-digital-picture.com, the new Sigma appears to be pretty darned good - better than the Canon, based on what I can see.

Take it FWIW, YMMV, etc,

shinksma

mwsilver wrote in post #16071625
Have you seen the size of this lens? it's already at 29oz. An 18-50 f/1.8 would probably require a 77mm or 82mm filter and would probably weigh 40oz and be way more expensive. Not exactly a walk around lens.

None of those are limiting factors for me. Most new L lenses are 82mm filters, that's not really that big anymore. If it delivers better IQ than the 17-55, which I like a lot, AND lets in more than a stop more light, I'd buy it, even if it is bigger and heavier. Price... I'd pay an extra 20% premium for the IQ and 1.8 aperture.

ekinnyc wrote in post #16071273
Please explain... i dont mean that in a challenging way, im juat trying to understand. A lens is a series of smaller lenses that ensure that an image is focused sharply on a perpendicular plane, so how does crop vs ff change how much sharpness we can expect from a given lens?

See for yourself: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …p=736&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

I can't explain why this is the case, from a physics point of view. It just generally seems to be true...

ekinnyc wrote in post #16071273
Please explain... i dont mean that in a challenging way, im juat trying to understand. A lens is a series of smaller lenses that ensure that an image is focused sharply on a perpendicular plane, so how does crop vs ff change how much sharpness we can expect from a given lens?

crop cameras have a lower max sharpness compared to full frame, just like full frame has a lower max sharpness compared to medium format.

The image circles of the larger formats allows for more light capture per pixel/area. That's about as simple as I can explain it.

Photozone and dxomark has max sharpness values of camera bodies, and generally, the bigger the format, the higher the sharpness values.

The lens certainly looks very good for what it is, but it may look soft if you've been looking at FF test charts all day

guess i shouldnt be MFA-ing my 24-70 then, and just get a FF :-p