Sigma 18-35 1.8!!

[Bobster]

the sharpness and focus shift was tested yesterday confirming that buying this lens was a good decision for me

http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/ind...ma-18-35-f1-8/

[Saracen]

Very interesting-looking optic. And the tests I've seen so far give it great grades. And the price, while not cheap, looks pretty aggressive for the spec.

All told, very interesting indeed.

Personally, I don't really have a need for it, and I might be more tempted by the 17-70mm 2.8-4.0, if I didn't already have the lens Bobster has problems with, that being the Tamron 17-50 2.8. The difference is probably that mine stills works beautifully. And while the 1.8 might be nice, I personally don't really need it. And also, after the chipping issues a few years back, I'm still not a huge fan of Sigma.

But I'll be VERY interested, Bob, too see what you think of this once you've used it in anger, 'cos it sure is an interesting optic.

[Bobster]

took these guys out for a spin - when i have time will compile the photos (i was mostly interested in seeing how the 28 1.8 performed against the 18-35)

[TheAnimus]

Wow-ee.

In the 'boy-did-I-call-this-one-wrong' tradition, wow did I!

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Pub...lity-in-a-zoom

DxO basically want to make love to it.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

So this is around 28-56MM roughly in 35MM terms?? Meh.

[Saracen]

On a crop body.

But it's damn fast too and if it's as optically good as reports suggest, it's quite imoressive, espe ialky at that price. "Meh" seems a bit overdone, to me.

[kalniel]

So this is around 28-56MM roughly in 35MM terms?? Meh.

Only probably the most commonly used range then

This thing is a prime killer, that's what's so exciting about it, and the zoom acts as your legs replacement for composition.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

On a crop body.

But it's damn fast too and if it's as optically good as reports suggest, it's quite imoressive, espe ialky at that price. "Meh" seems a bit overdone, to me.

Only probably the most commonly used range then

This thing is a prime killer, that's what's so exciting about it, and the zoom acts as your legs replacement for composition.

Its just not a useful range to ME. 28 to 56MM is neither here nor there at all,so it is meh to ME. If people think its the best thing since sliced bread,then good for them,but thats their opinion,but just don't expect me to agree with them in this case!

24-50MM(or even starting at 20MM) would be far more interesting to ME. If it was a 24-50MM it would exite me somewhat,not the current range. I find 28MM neither here nor there as a wide angle and 53 to 56MM(around 55MM the same as the old Micro Nikkor which I had) is neither here nor there as the other end. It annoys me as I prefer 24MM as my standard wide angle.

After decades and decades after the invention of zooms you would think these companies would get on their backsides, and put more effort into making better wider,wide aperture standard zooms. Instead they are really putting more effort into the consumer side,and still feel its necesary to charge a premium for any zoom which starts at 24MM.

[Saracen]

Its just a useful range to ME. 28 to 56MM is neither here nor there at all,so it is meh to ME. If people think its the best thing since sliced bread,then good for them,but thats their opinion,but just don't expect me to agree with them in this case!

24-50MM(or even starting at 20MM) would be far more interesting. If it was a 24-50MM it would exite me somewhat,not 28-50MM. I find 28MM neither here nor there as a wide angle and 56MM(nearly 60MM) is neither here nor there as the other end. It annoys me as I prefer 24MM as my standard wide angle.

After decades and decades after the invention of zooms you would think these companies would get on their backsides, and put more effort into making better wider,wide aperture standard zooms. Instead they are really putting more effort into the consumer side.

As I said earlier, it's of little interest to me either, personally, but that doesn't stop me agreeing that 1.8 across that range is an achievement, even if it's on that doesn't appeal to me. I suspected that it'd either be very expensive, or optically challenged, to get that 1.8, but if reports are accurate, it's surprisingly good optically and, while not cheap, nothing fast in lenses is.

If "meh" means you're not interested, then fine, me neither. Or not very interested anyway. But if "meh" means not impressed with the achievement implied by the spec itself, I don't agree.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

As I said earlier, it's of little interest to me either, personally, but that doesn't stop me agreeing that 1.8 across that range is an achievement, even if it's on that doesn't appeal to me. I suspected that it'd either be very expensive, or optically challenged, to get that 1.8, but if reports are accurate, it's surprisingly good optically and, while not cheap, nothing fast in lenses is.

If "meh" means you're not interested, then fine, me neither. Or not very interested anyway. But if "meh" means not impressed with the achievement implied by the spec itself, I don't agree.

The meh was more a lack of interest in the range,not the technical aspects of the lens itself. I can appreciate that the fact its a wide aperture reasonably wide zoom lens which is optically decent.

[Saracen]

The meh was more a lack of interest in the range,not the technical aspects of the lens itself.

On that, I agree. There's a lof of camera tech I admire for the cleverness but wouldn't pay 50p for personally .... like video recording in my DSLR. Personally, I wouldn't give a thankyou for that, let alone 50p ... but I'd bet a lot of people use it. And there's other camera accessories, including lenses, I wish I could justify buying, but can't ... like wide aperture long telephotos. Canon's 1200mm was one hell of a beast .... if you've a budget the size of the MoD, and a crane to lug it about for you.

[Bobster]

well from my perspective, its perfect!

i was looking at getting the 35 prime, and a 24 - but now i have it all in the same lens, don't have to swap lenses and still get killer DoF and Bokeh

i'm currently selling my 28 1.8 (amazing lens though it is - the 18-35 1.8 competes with it in terms of sharpness, has slightly better bokeh and a better AF hit rate) - the 28 does have closer focusing, but zooming to 35mm sorts that anyway..

20, 24, 28, 30, 35mm primes all taken care of in 1 lens

looking though my photos taken with my 17-50 majority of shots were at the wider range - if i need 50, ill chuck the Sigmalux on..

so now my bag has the following in it

18-35
50
70-200

perfect for my needs

[Bobster]

Sigma 28 1.8
28 f/1.8


Sigma 18-35 1.8
28 f/1.8


Tamron 28-75 2.8
28 f/2.8


Tamron 17-50 2.8
28 f/2.8