Sigma 50-100mm f1.8 Art

[scyrene]

Can these lenses be mounted on full frame? Just out of interest. Like, you probably wouldn't want to, but is there a physical impediment?

 

[slclick]

Can these lenses be mounted on full frame? Just out of interest. Like, you probably wouldn't want to, but is there a physical impediment?

It might but you'll vignette like a mutha.

 

[Mark D5 TEAM II]

Personally I think the zoom range on Sigma 18-35 and 50-100 is too small, and I don't see a strong reason for my own shooting, to chose them over a prime lens. I don't think the 18-35 go wide enough either. Further, both lenses are a bit to heavy, I think.

You complain that it's already too heavy and yet you also complain that the zoom range is too small??? You do understand if Sigma increases the range while maintaining constant f/1.8 it would make the lens heavier (unless they use exotic materials/design); and then we're back to the usual refrain of "it's too expensive, I'd rather get an L lens instead so I won't have any AF issues..." :

 

[Mark D5 TEAM II]

Where can I buy that Canon full-frame 80-160mm f/2.8 for $750 I keep reading about?

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

Gosh guys, this is only like a 100-200mm f/4 equivalent...on medium format. So it's not really impressive and I don't see why anyone would want it...because I only judge a lens based on a format that it wasn't even designed for and seem to forget that converted values are meaningless in terms of exposure. Don't even get me started on the 8x10 equivalent! :

 

[Mark D5 TEAM II]

Lighter weight, bigger zoom range, reasonably priced, better optical quality--> Pick any 3.

 

[slclick]

Ugh, typical... someone releases an item no one else makes and there's nothing but bitching. As if you'll be forced to buy it and use nothing else. Next time maybe Sigma will knock on your door and spend 3 hours without discussing your photographic gear needs.

 

[9VIII]

Can these lenses be mounted on full frame? Just out of interest. Like, you probably wouldn't want to, but is there a physical impediment?

It might but you'll vignette like a mutha.

The 18-35A looks best at 1:1 on Full Frame, and 4:3 gives you some nice "artsitic" looking dark corners. At full 35mm width the vegnetting is black across the entire side of the frame.

 

[scyrene]

Can these lenses be mounted on full frame? Just out of interest. Like, you probably wouldn't want to, but is there a physical impediment?

It might but you'll vignette like a mutha.

The 18-35A looks best at 1:1 on Full Frame, and 4:3 gives you some nice "artsitic" looking dark corners. At full 35mm width the vegnetting is black across the entire side of the frame.

Thanks! I guess it could be mounted on a very high res FF sensor and the centre crop would still be useable. Not that it's a very practical setup

 

[Larsskv]

Personally I think the zoom range on Sigma 18-35 and 50-100 is too small, and I don't see a strong reason for my own shooting, to chose them over a prime lens. I don't think the 18-35 go wide enough either. Further, both lenses are a bit to heavy, I think.

You complain that it's already too heavy and yet you also complain that the zoom range is too small??? You do understand if Sigma increases the range while maintaining constant f/1.8 it would make the lens heavier (unless they use exotic materials/design); and then we're back to the usual refrain of "it's too expensive, I'd rather get an L lens instead so I won't have any AF issues..." :

Weight is a compriomise for sure, but sometimes lenses in the same focal lenghts and apertures actually have different weigth.

I do think that choosing f/2 instead, and thereby save some weight could be a better compromise. Point is, I would be put off by the weight if I were to buy one, and therfore I'm not sure the marketing strategy behind this lens is the best.

 

[hubie]

Yes a Canon APS 50-100mm f1.8 has a Full Frame equivalence of a 80-160mm f2.88. So less range and less dof, factor in the greater than one stop of noise advantage a ff camera has for the apparent EV difference of the aperture to get a faster shutter speed and it seems like a strange lens.

But there are a lot of APS users out there and Canon are not making compelling lenses specifically for them, so good luck to Sigma.

Excuse me, but this lens still has 1.8 aperture. So only because you have to rearrange your framing and therefore lose a bit of DOF because you have to step back, there is still more cd/cm² available on the sensor at f/1.8 than at f/2.8. That's the danger with all this unscientific calculations (as tony northrup is famous for to throw in here and then) in order to make a comparison between FF and APS-C... people get confused. You will have more than a stop of brighter illumination, so the noise performance of a smaller sensor can be compensated quite a bit.

 

[veng]

You know it's something special when all the FF fan-boys are so threatened that they come out of the work to say why their FF is just as good.

 

[veng]

Oh, and this with an SL1 is 3lbs lighter than a 6D and 70-200

 

[9VIII]

Can these lenses be mounted on full frame? Just out of interest. Like, you probably wouldn't want to, but is there a physical impediment?

It might but you'll vignette like a mutha.

The 18-35A looks best at 1:1 on Full Frame, and 4:3 gives you some nice "artsitic" looking dark corners. At full 35mm width the vegnetting is black across the entire side of the frame.

Thanks! I guess it could be mounted on a very high res FF sensor and the centre crop would still be useable. Not that it's a very practical setup

That was my plan until I found out that the 5DS costs $1,000 more than a 5D3. The 5DS has 1:1 and 4:3 crop modes that sound like it would be perfect, but for a $1,000 premium, no thanks.

 

[9VIII]

Yes a Canon APS 50-100mm f1.8 has a Full Frame equivalence of a 80-160mm f2.88. So less range and less dof, factor in the greater than one stop of noise advantage a ff camera has for the apparent EV difference of the aperture to get a faster shutter speed and it seems like a strange lens.

But there are a lot of APS users out there and Canon are not making compelling lenses specifically for them, so good luck to Sigma.

Excuse me, but this lens still has 1.8 aperture. So only because you have to rearrange your framing and therefore lose a bit of DOF because you have to step back, there is still more cd/cm² available on the sensor at f/1.8 than at f/2.8. That's the danger with all this unscientific calculations (as tony northrup is famous for to throw in here and then) in order to make a comparison between FF and APS-C... people get confused. You will have more than a stop of brighter illumination, so the noise performance of a smaller sensor can be compensated quite a bit.

I'm not sure that you actually disagreed with anything.
The point is crop sensors have an extra stop worth of noise, actually it's 1.39 stops worth on Canon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

And you can see the results for yourself:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Noise.aspx?Camera=819&Test=0&ISO=12800&CameraComp=963&TestComp=0&ISOComp=12800

Even at ISO 6400 the 7D2 isn't quite comparable with the 6D at 12800.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Noise.aspx?Camera=819&Test=0&ISO=12800&CameraComp=963&TestComp=0&ISOComp=6400

Which makes me very, very glad that Sigma is actually making these f1.8 (1.33 stops faster than f2.8 ) and not just f2.0.


There is one other little thing that people don't often talk about in regard to Full Frame lenses though, the T-stops are rarely anything close to the f-stops, and if DXO is to be believed, the Sigma 18-35A actually has a T-stop of 1.8.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sigma/Sigma-18-35mm-F18-DC-HSM-A-Canon

Where the Canon 16-35f2.8LII has a T-stop of 3.4.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/EF16-35mm-F2.8L-II-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R__1009

Even the Sigma 50A has a T-stop of 1.8.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sigma/Sigma-50mm-F14-DG-HSM-A-Canon-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R__1009

I've never verified this myself, and it's hard to say what the 50mm Art would be rated at if they treated it like a crop sensor since I'm guessing that the T-stop is primarily affected by vignetting, but potentially the high transmission value of the Sigma 18-35A, and the 50-100A if it follows suit, could be something that gives it an even bigger advantage than the numbers on the box would suggest.

 

[scyrene]

Can these lenses be mounted on full frame? Just out of interest. Like, you probably wouldn't want to, but is there a physical impediment?

It might but you'll vignette like a mutha.

The 18-35A looks best at 1:1 on Full Frame, and 4:3 gives you some nice "artsitic" looking dark corners. At full 35mm width the vegnetting is black across the entire side of the frame.

Thanks! I guess it could be mounted on a very high res FF sensor and the centre crop would still be useable. Not that it's a very practical setup

That was my plan until I found out that the 5DS costs $1,000 more than a 5D3. The 5DS has 1:1 and 4:3 crop modes that sound like it would be perfect, but for a $1,000 premium, no thanks.

Oh right? Here relative prices are a little different. The 5DS isn't much more than the 5D3 even now, just over £300 different at the cheapest retailer I know of and only ~£500 at a standard retailer.

 

[Lee Jay]

Yes a Canon APS 50-100mm f1.8 has a Full Frame equivalence of a 80-160mm f2.88. So less range and less dof, factor in the greater than one stop of noise advantage a ff camera has for the apparent EV difference of the aperture to get a faster shutter speed and it seems like a strange lens.

But there are a lot of APS users out there and Canon are not making compelling lenses specifically for them, so good luck to Sigma.

Excuse me, but this lens still has 1.8 aperture. So only because you have to rearrange your framing and therefore lose a bit of DOF because you have to step back, there is still more cd/cm² available on the sensor at f/1.8 than at f/2.8. That's the danger with all this unscientific calculations (as tony northrup is famous for to throw in here and then) in order to make a comparison between FF and APS-C... people get confused. You will have more than a stop of brighter illumination, so the noise performance of a smaller sensor can be compensated quite a bit.

Total light captured is what matters for image quality, not light per unit area. That's why f/2.8 on full-frame is about the same as f/1.8 on 1.6-crop ( 1.8*1.6~=2.8 ).

Overall, this lens will likely produce similar IQ to the 70-200/2.8 on full-frame, but the 70-200+FF combo is wider, longer and has IS.

 

[Lee Jay]

So, less range is less useful.
...

The 16-35/f4L has less range than the 17-40/f4L but you will be hard pressed to find anyone that says the 17-40 is better.

The 50-100/1.8 on crop is not faster than the 70-200/2.8 on full-frame. So that was an irrelevant comparison.

Neither is the 16-35 faster than the 17-40.

The 16-35/2.8 isn't faster than the 17-40/4?

Most of the reason the 16-35 is preferred is that it's a whole stop faster.

You'll note that I was referring to the 16-35/f4L, I dropped off the "f/4L" because it had been mentioned earlier and discussion was in relation to the 17-40, which is also f/4.

I noted that now, but it's still not a relevant comparison because the 16-35/4L has IS, and the 17-40L doesn't. It's also newer and better optically. It's highly unlikely the 50-100 on crop either has IS or is better optically than the 70-200/2.8L IS II is on full-frame.

 

[deleteme]

Total light captured is what matters for image quality, not light per unit area. That's why f/2.8 on full-frame is about the same as f/1.8 on 1.6-crop ( 1.8*1.6~=2.8 ).

Overall, this lens will likely produce similar IQ to the 70-200/2.8 on full-frame, but the 70-200+FF combo is wider, longer and has IS.

Unless that extra stop results in motion blur on the FF camera.
IMO the IQ difference is hardly detectable but motion blur really is.

 

[deleteme]

This is a remarkable feat of optical engineering. One that Sigma is becoming well known and regarded for.

The carping about effective aperture and the FL range is a bit churlish as no other manufacturer has created such remarkable products. In addition, it is an APS-C lens and as such competes against other APS-C lenses.

Complaining that it is not like this FF lens or that FF lens is like complaining that any FF lens is not like this or that MF lens. They are for different formats and make their format more valuable to their respective users.