Sigma Announces 18-35 f/1.8 DC HSM Art for APS-C
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
infared said:
I'm actually tremendously interested in a new version of their 24-70/2.8 and who knows, maybe something like a 24-90/4. The Tamron is quite good, but Sigma looks like they don't want to be a "second choice" anymore. I love when 3rd-party manufacturers deliver such quality; they set you free from this or that system.
qwerty said:
Depending on the price point, the difference between a FF + 24-70 and DX + 18-35 might be what is truly impressive. This lens is not going to reach anything tremendous from an absolute perspective, but it's going to narrow the gap between crop and FF. Actually, I think it would make for an amazing travel lens since it would eliminate the need of a fast prime. If you want to travel light and bring only a crop body and one lens, you either go for a usual standard zoom and live with the slow aperture or you go with something like this.
Upvote
0
I know what you mean. It seems like future optics have to get better and better and it's pretty exciting to see unfold before you.TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
Even if it doesn't live up to all the hype and press, if it does manage f/1.8 across the entire focal/zoom range that's pretty exciting in and of itself. It makes you a bit excited about that possibly happening in FF lenses, but I seem to think that it's far quicker to happen with the APS-C lenses than the FF, due to the APS-C sensors design and size compared with the FF...
Upvote
0
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
+1 Though this might not be the most appealing range for most, it's a game changer that will influence really good stuff in the near future. I'd be happy with something like a 24-50mm f/2 for full frame actually, seeing stuff like this being released makes me confidently look forward to more developments.
Upvote
0
If I'm not mistaken, this has to do with technical & feasibility issues. Actual lens diameter for crop can be smaller than for ff bodies, thus making it easier to produce f/1.8. Or am I completely wrong right now?ahsanford said:
Upvote
0
DzPhotography said:
You're not wrong, but for those saying this is no big deal, I disagree. This is something that has not been done before for either crop or FF (an f/1.8 zoom), so to dismiss it outright is absurd. Yes, developing for full frame is more challenging, but this is clearly a step in the right direction and will put more pressure on Canon. As a consumer, I see that as a good thing
Upvote
0
infared said:
Me too, me too!!
And a few more thoughts:
1. Haven't seen a single complaint yet about no IS.
2. This is another brick in the foundation I've been building for APS-C as a viable, long term sensor format -- and the coming of an extraordinary 7D2 that just about everyone will want!
3. What are the video implications of this lens? Surely there must be some (don't know since I don't video).
4. Talking about "wiggle room," this seems to go right at Canon's 17-55mm f/2.8, a great lens but one that seems overpriced. (Although the Canon lens does have IS.) If the Sigma is priced under $1K, it may give Canon some pain. And if it's really sharp at f/1.8 it will provide better subject isolation than the Canon at f/2.8 (let the bokeh wars begin!).
Upvote
0
I'm pretty sure aperture is a fixed definition, doesn't matter if it's a compact P&S or medium format, the same numbers will give the same size lens (focal length divided by lens diameter = aperture) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number
Compact cameras usually have a flange distance of close to nothing, a 3mm f2 would still be tiny, but with the extreme crop factor of compacts they make it seem like a normal camera.
I just realized that it's probably the form factor of the camera that dictates the size of the sensor on those (the larger the sensor the larger the lenses, and thus the larger the camera would need to be).
Compact cameras usually have a flange distance of close to nothing, a 3mm f2 would still be tiny, but with the extreme crop factor of compacts they make it seem like a normal camera.
I just realized that it's probably the form factor of the camera that dictates the size of the sensor on those (the larger the sensor the larger the lenses, and thus the larger the camera would need to be).
Upvote
0
Stewbyyy said:
But it's the equivalent of a 28-70 f/4. A pretty mundane lens, wouldn't you say? The Sigma is the equivalent of a FF f/2.8 lens. That's a full stop extra in light gathering power.
Stewbyyy said:
APS format cameras are still the top-selling cameras in C and N's lineups. They really, really need to start making some professional grade lenses for these cameras.
Upvote
0
I seem to disagree with you there, Sigma has a lot of FF frames in their line-up. And I doubt their own cameras are their main focus when designing lenses...jcollett said:
Upvote
0
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
That was kind of my thought: Wow lenses are starting to get really good! THey will most likely be getting a lot better here shortly!
Finally, a zoom better than f2.8. This is actually very exciting. I can see a 50-135 f1.8 coming down the pipeline one day.... And, my hands are now sweating for this and the fabled 7D MK II!!!
Upvote
0
For video this does look nice. 15-40mm is the zoom everyone wants (while 18-85mm is the normal "prime" kit) so this fits in ok. A little wider would be nice. The speed is great, in fact about as fast as the fastest cinema zooms for super35.
REALLY nice to see an affordable WA/UWA for video, even ignoring the zoom. The fastest 16mm-18mm options were previously a stop and a half slower. That's big. Let's see how the image quality is. I compared the 17-55mm f2.8 IS (which I quite like) against the Angenieux Optimo 15-40mm t2.6 yesterday and the Canon doesn't even compare.
REALLY nice to see an affordable WA/UWA for video, even ignoring the zoom. The fastest 16mm-18mm options were previously a stop and a half slower. That's big. Let's see how the image quality is. I compared the 17-55mm f2.8 IS (which I quite like) against the Angenieux Optimo 15-40mm t2.6 yesterday and the Canon doesn't even compare.
Upvote
0
distant.star said:
Well 1. has a huge impact on 3. No IS means that it wont be as useful for video as the 17-55 f2.8 IS.
- in order to get a stable and sharp single frame (from a rig/handheld) you really want Focal length x crop > shutter speed... So for stills IS isn't going to be much of an issue on a fast standard zoom. For video though, you're stuck with a shutter speed of 1/50th (1/60th in NTSC countries), And for video any movement between frames is also visible - hence why for video (if you aren't on a tripod/dolly/slider/crane) having IS is extremely useful.
Upvote
0
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
Agreed that it's a big deal, as it's not been done before. But I don't think it makes it any more likely for full frame equivalent lens to be made, as that one would have to be larger.
Value is in closing the gap between APS-C and full frame, and if you're Nikon shooter, you have 27-52.5 f2.7 FF equivalent, for serious, but not FF money.
And as to why Sigma did this - I think they were looking for a gap where they can play by themselves for awhile. Crop sensor shooters looking for best/fastest glass they can get (in normal range) is probably not a huge market segment, but they own it now. And then there is a 'hallo' effect of 1.8, increasing value of their lineup. Smart play...
Upvote
0
Lee Jay said:
There was also a time when the cheap kit lens was 55mm f/1.8, whereas the better one was a 50mm f/1.4 lens.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
