Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
  

Sigma 18-35 f/1.8
  
 
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · Sigma 18-35 f/1.8


BlueBomberTurbo wrote:
If it's under $1K, I'm in! Can't wait to see sample shots.



I think I read somewhere it's coming in at $999 ... I need to confirm that ...



Apr 18, 2013 at 05:04 PM
curious80
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · Sigma 18-35 f/1.8


brunobarolo wrote:
...
OTOH, for those who also use an FX camera, it doesn't give you anything more than a 24-70 f2.8 on FX. With some loss regarding focal length range that is.
...


True but you could now use a much cheaper APS-C body to get capabilities similar to a FF + 24-70mm and that is a huge factor. A high-end APS-C body costs much less than a high-end FF body or even an entry level FF body.




Apr 18, 2013 at 05:08 PM
Thorsten
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · Sigma 18-35 f/1.8


curious80 wrote:
True but you could now use a much cheaper APS-C body to get capabilities similar to a FF + 24-70mm and that is a huge factor. A high-end APS-C body costs much less than a high-end FF body or even an entry level FF body.



The way I read brunobarolo's post, for those who already have the 24-70 on FX, buying this Sigma for a DX body would not give anything extra. Of course those who start out and try to decide between the formats, or those have DX and consider going full frame, might pick up this Sigma instead and have a less expensive system.



Apr 18, 2013 at 05:52 PM
DavidWEGS
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · Sigma 18-35 f/1.8


I'm in if the thing is decent and lighter than a 24-70. Sub $1k would be a bonus too.

As for the comparison to FX. Well for its intended purpose of taking a DX spot, where the 24-70/2.8 sits in the FX spot I think it levels the playing field significantly.

Keep it up Sigma.



Apr 18, 2013 at 06:54 PM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · Sigma 18-35 f/1.8


Still no price though ... what I had read was speculation ...


Apr 18, 2013 at 07:03 PM
brunobarolo
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · Sigma 18-35 f/1.8


DavidWEGS wrote:
I'm in if the thing is decent and lighter than a 24-70. Sub $1k would be a bonus too.

As for the comparison to FX. Well for its intended purpose of taking a DX spot, where the 24-70/2.8 sits in the FX spot I think it levels the playing field significantly.

Keep it up Sigma.


Weight is 810g. The Nikon 24-70 is 900g.
Diameter is 78mm while the Nikkor is 83mm.
Length is 121mm while the Nikkor is 133mm.

So it's just a bit smaller and lighter.



Apr 18, 2013 at 07:27 PM
brunobarolo
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · Sigma 18-35 f/1.8


curious80 wrote:
True but you could now use a much cheaper APS-C body to get capabilities similar to a FF + 24-70mm and that is a huge factor. A high-end APS-C body costs much less than a high-end FF body or even an entry level FF body.



I don't know about American prices, but in Germany the D600 is just 500 costlier than a D7100.



Apr 18, 2013 at 07:36 PM
Mishu01
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · Sigma 18-35 f/1.8


I know that it is not the most important aspect but the external finish looks on par with that from the excellent 35/1.4. Good job of Sigma's designers!... they did a huge step forward in comparison with the ugly old finish of their lenses.


Apr 18, 2013 at 07:40 PM
Albi86
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · Sigma 18-35 f/1.8


brunobarolo wrote:
I don't know about American prices, but in Germany the D600 is just 500 costlier than a D7100.


Just...?

It's a whopping +50%



Apr 18, 2013 at 08:05 PM
Jorgen Udvang
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · Sigma 18-35 f/1.8


brunobarolo wrote:
Weight is 810g. The Nikon 24-70 is 900g.
Diameter is 78mm while the Nikkor is 83mm.
Length is 121mm while the Nikkor is 133mm.

So it's just a bit smaller and lighter.


The savings, in money and weight, don't reach substantial levels until the systems as a whole are compared. For somebody needing long telephoto lenses, the savings using the DX format are enormous. It's nice then that Sigma understand that people using the smaller format also have a need for high quality lenses at the wider end.

Some people don't even need a D7100 and will be more than satisfied with a D5200 or D3200, saving even more money and weight. This new lens will obviously work just as well on those cameras... or on my ancient Fuji S3



Apr 19, 2013 at 12:59 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Chestnut
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · Sigma 18-35 f/1.8


I say GO SIGMA!

Definitely a good day for photographers... innovation and ingenuity drives the industry forward... it can only be good.

I have been saving up for a good DX body since I sold my D90... The only DX lens I own is the 16-85VR which I pair with the 70-300VR as my travel kit... the 18-35/1.8 would be a super welcomed addition (as long as the price is right), especially since I've been thinking about adding a 35/1.8 to my kit....

Happy days!



Apr 19, 2013 at 01:53 AM
NathanHamler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · Sigma 18-35 f/1.8


what some people are missing when they say this is "basically" the same as an f/2.8 lens on FX, is that f/1.8 is STILL f/1.8 when it comes to light transmission...which means, if you have a 2.8 lens on your FX camera, and at a given ISO, you can only get 1/125s, on the DX camera at 1.8 you'll get 1/320s.......which, you kinda need anyway b/c of the crop factor and the fact that you need AT LEAST 1.5x the focal length in shutter speed to minimize motion blur, instead of 1x the focal length in SS with FX...so basically it's a wash when it comes to minimum shutter speed to fight camera shake, but it's a WIN in the fact that you can stop more action on DX at 1.8 than you could before on FX at 2.8....

OR, you can keep the shutter speeds the same, and drop your ISO.......which you kinda need on DX anyway....


And YES, i realize the T-Stop of this lens is prob going to be around T/2 or so, but for all intents and purposes, that's still 1 stop more light than an f/2.8 lens transmits, which prob has a T-stop of about T/3.0.....so still more light coming through......

Edited on Apr 19, 2013 at 02:51 AM · View previous versions



Apr 19, 2013 at 02:02 AM
Jorgen Udvang
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · Sigma 18-35 f/1.8


... so I ordered a new battery charger for the S3. I see a new spring coming for this ancient, rather quirky camera that produces such beautiful files


Apr 19, 2013 at 02:15 AM
brunobarolo
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · Sigma 18-35 f/1.8


NathanHamler wrote:
what some people are missing when they say this is "basically" the same as an f/2.8 lens on FX, is that f/1.8 is STILL f/1.8 when it comes to light transmission...which means, if you have a 2.8 lens on your FX camera, and at a given ISO, you can only get 1/125s, on the DX camera at 1.8 you'll get 1/320s.......which, you kinda need anyway b/c of the crop factor and the fact that you need AT LEAST 1.5x the focal length in shutter speed to minimize motion blur, instead of 1x the focal length in SS with FX...so basically
...Show more

Why would there ever be "a given ISO" with a digital camera? The point is, with FX you can always use an ISO value that is 1.3 stops higher if necessary and still have the same noise as with the DX camera (with sensors of the same generation).

In which case you have the same noise, the same depth of field, and the same shutter speed with f2.8 on FX as compared to f1.8 on DX. But a better focal length range with a 24-70 f2.8 on FX, as compared to the 18-35 f1.8 on DX.

DX has its merits when you're focal length limited. (There simply is no FX equivalent to a 80-400 zoom on a D7100.) In the standard and wide angle range, no.

DX may also have some cost advantage, though it remains to be seen whether e.g. a D7100 with this Sigma 18-35 f1.8 will be any cheaper than a D600 with the (stabilised!) Tamron 24-70 f2.8.



Apr 19, 2013 at 07:12 AM
Albi86
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · Sigma 18-35 f/1.8


brunobarolo wrote:
DX may also have some cost advantage, though it remains to be seen whether e.g. a D7100 with this Sigma 18-35 f1.8 will be any cheaper than a D600 with the (stabilised!) Tamron 24-70 f2.8.


I agree with you but what you say implies the purchase of a FF camera.

I think this lens is more targeted at crop shooters who want good, fast glass on the wide-normal range. The range and aperture of this lens would be great for indoor shooting, low-light shooting, and imho also a good travel lens. The lack of stabilization is the only bad thing about this lens - but then again f/1.8 primes are also not stablized.

It's not bringing you anything if you already own a FF camera. But if you only own a crop, then this lens is offering you some interesting possibilities. If the price will be around or below 900 EUR/USD it will be an alternative to the 17-55/2.8 stabilized zooms already available.



Apr 19, 2013 at 07:46 AM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · Sigma 18-35 f/1.8


I think that at times people miss the point that DX is a value position. It is not meant to perform as well as FX in the extremes, but will capture 95+% of FX performance for significantly less money, weight and bulk.

Again, I'm talking about a system here and maintaining that system over time.

Edited on Apr 19, 2013 at 11:51 PM · View previous versions



Apr 19, 2013 at 08:58 PM
jonrock
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · Sigma 18-35 f/1.8


Here's some image samples
http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-ART-18-35mm-f18-Preview



Apr 19, 2013 at 11:30 PM
trenchmonkey
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #18 · Sigma 18-35 f/1.8


jonrock wrote:
Here's some image samples
http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-ART-18-35mm-f18-Preview

Too bad it's on a Canon...slap that on the D7.1K and REALLY see wassup
or even the D7K



Apr 19, 2013 at 11:47 PM
ChipThome
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · Sigma 18-35 f/1.8


Not being a lens geek, the range of this lens has me scratching my head. With the 24-70 so popular among photogs, this lens seems to be an odd configuration. My guess it has to do with the engineering. But I see 18-35 as taking a single lens (24-70) and now splitting it between two. Maybe I'm the odd man out here, but I'm trying to minimize my collection, nnot drag around a whole camera store.

Any ideas on why 18-35 and not something else



Apr 20, 2013 at 12:45 AM
trenchmonkey
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #20 · Sigma 18-35 f/1.8


Maybe because many think the 24-70 is a stupid range for DX. Not wide enough OR long enough,
expensive and heavy to boot. This new offering could be a game changer for PJ and event shooters.
I use DX for spec., an f1.8 zoom I sure could figure out a way to make some money with one...just sayin'



Apr 20, 2013 at 12:57 AM
1      
2
       3       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password