It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Well, that's the interesting thing.This may be an amazing lens but I wonder if it's aimed too precisely to sell lots. At its pricing ($800), which I don't think is unreasonable, it's aimed at what I would consider to be a fairly narrow sweet spot:--DX users who are "just done" with the 18-55 kit lens and want wide zoom coverage--DX users who nevertheless never got hardcore enough to already buy the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 for $1300.I know, I know: the 18-35 plus a nifty-fifty gets you in below $1300 at f/1.8 never mind 2.8. But how many DX users still sitting on the 18-55 kit lens are interested in that path?
Personally I fail to see the appeal of the 18-35mm. The range is somewhat odd. I wider lens, say a 16-35mm, would have been more interesting. There are plenty of much cheaper F2.8 17-50mm alternatives for those who want something better than the standard kit zoom.
I still would prefer a fixed 16-18mm f/2.8. Only reason is size. This 18-35 is on the big-heavy side. I get that it's hugely useful and unprecedented, but I'd rather carry the nifty 35 f/1.8 and a wide angle prime.
Maybe a 300mm f/2.8 "Art" lens….
If there are indeed all those DX shooters out there, you'd think someone would have jumped on it by now...
Personally I fail to see the appeal of the 18-35mm.
I have long been a champion of a series of DX "pro" lenses but few have been produced. Perhaps, as some have suggested, they are too pricey for DX shooter's tastes. My top DX, as of now, is a D700. When (or if) I get a D400 I would consider this as a 'normal" lens to use on that body. Perhaps some D7100 shooters have picked up this lens for its sharpness? Yet, no one is responding.
...if [Sigma] continue to produce lenses which are excellent performers like the 35mm f/1.4 which I have, I will be grabbing some more of these. Maybe a 300mm f/2.8 "Art" lens….