I'm thinking that the 18-35mm is really more of a dslr videographers dream lens? Due to the constant aperture. Range isn't offering much but at 1.8... 35mm 1.4.. Hmm. They both sound really good. You could break it down by what you shoot and if you have aps-c sensor? They're both highly regarded for the overall quality and bang for the buck.
August 20, 2014, 02:50:30 AM
Topic: Sigma 35 1.4 vs Sigma 18-35 1.8 (Read 5580 times)
That is a great deal on the 35.
I took the rented 18-35 on a trip to Chicago and shot roughly 500 pictures, 300 of which were keepers. I haven't processed any of them yet, as I'm waiting for Lightroom to release a lens correction profile.
My copy seemed to hunt a little, especially in low light. Keep in mind I shoot on a 60d, so not the greatest autofocus to begin with. I did like the range a lot; I have a 17-40L so this was pretty close in terms of focal lengths.
I've been thinking a lot about switching to full frame, and thought maybe this lens would convince me to stay with crop. No conclusion so far. I wanted to love this lens, and I still could, but I won't know for sure until I get a chance to process all my shots.
You know Bryan mentioned that it CAN be mounted on full frame, just has a ton of vignetting at the wide end. Curious how well it would do but it's still an interesting lens if the outer quality isn't too bad. Heck the 35 2.0 canon is aweful on the outside on full frame and if it was for the focusing on it it wouldn't be too bad
Canon 5D Mark II, 50D, XSi, 24-105L IS, Sigma 35 1.4, Canon 40 2.8, Canon 35 2.0, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 17-50, Canon 50 1.8, 580 EXII, 430 EXII