Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 zoom anybody tried it?

spraynpray

I am considering this lens for inside church work - any of yous guys got or used one? How is it wide open?

spraynpray

Really? A ground breaking lens like this and nobody here has bought or tried it?

Elvishefer

It is strange no one is speaking up.

If there are indeed all those DX shooters out there, you'd think someone would have jumped on it by now...

Msmoto

It looks very good on the MTF charts, but being a crop sensor format lens, I cannot see purchasing this item.

What I find very interesting is the full Sigma "Art" lens philosophy….if they 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….

shawnino

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?

heartyfisher

this lens is on my list .. however its not the top priority.. the Df has distracted me :-) and so has the Nikon1 V1 which I am enjoying.. the better High ISO of the D5300 bodes well for the next DX D7xxx so I am waiting for that( or the D400) .. however if I do pick up a D610/D600/DF then the 18-35 is not needed.
Anyway I have put off the decision while I am playing with the V1 :-)

NSXTypeR

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?

I don't think it's a good replacement for the 18-55- it doesn't have the same range. But as a replacement for all the wide primes that Nikon hasn't made, it's awesome!

I've been asking for a 24mm 1.8 prime from Nikon. Well... they didn't make it. The 28mm 1.8 is $700... so why not go the extra $100 or so to get all that and more?

PB_PM

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.

KnockKnock

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.

NSXTypeR

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.

Yes, but f2.8 on DX would not equate to the same isolation as you would get with f1.8. I have no idea what the depth of field calculation is, but suffice it to say it's not the same. Every time I take my 35mm 1.8 I end up not being wide enough, especially indoors. My 18-135 is nice, but indoors f3.5 is not fast enough.

heartyfisher

I think the DOF on the 18-35 F1.8 is the same(or a tiny bit thinner) for the equivalent F2.8 FOV (ie 27-55)

So it is the DX fast normal zoom. The wider aperture also give the DX system the same High Iso IQ performance as an FX. so it does level the playing field.. Unfortunately for me I don't shoot a lot in that focal length range.. I am hoping sigma comes out with a 50-105 F1.8 ie the same DX DOF and iso performance of a FX 75-160 F2.8

spraynpray

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.

My reason for looking at getting one is - maybe I am alone in this - that 75% of my images are in that range, and I also need low light performance so it ticks all my boxes. Another plus is the extra light coming in helping the auto focus to work better, so I am pretty sure buying one is in my future - before a new body most probably.

I have seen a few images from it, and it seems to be up to the excellent recent standards of Sigma too. I find the whole USB dock thing a bit of an unwelcome distraction, but I suppose I have to get one to get the best out of the lens.

Sports

Maybe a 300mm f/2.8 "Art" lens….

I suspect they decided to label new tele stuff as "Sport" rather than "Art".

If there are indeed all those DX shooters out there, you'd think someone would have jumped on it by now...

Some stopped buying DX lenses because Nikon seems to focus the DX line on the lower end DSLRs.

Personally I fail to see the appeal of the 18-35mm.

I guess you can use it as the wide DX prime that many people want. In addition, it's a pretty good zoom, according to reviewers.

donaldejose

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 D7000. 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.

Vipmediastar_JZ

not many photos

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=sigma+18-35+1.8+nikon

spraynpray

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.

Funny thing is Donald, the D7000 needs that f1.8 more than the D400 will.

Photobug

Donaldejose, was that a typo when you said a D700 is your top DX camera? Or do you mean you use it in DX mode? Or did you mean D7000? I am confused.

donaldejose

Photobug: sorry, my typo. I fixed it.

Spraynpray: Yes, D7000 needs the f1.8 speed more than a D400 will because I expect the D400 sensor to be more than one stop better at high ISO. However, I was thinking of the increased sharpness of pro glass, not the f1.8 speed, when I commented that "pro" DX glass should be more usable when you have 24mp DX sensors with no AA filter. I must admit I am starting to believe Nikon will not produce a set of "pro" DX lenses similar to their "pro" FX lenses.

Photobug

Donaldejose...I agree with what you said... I must admit I am starting to believe Nikon will not produce a set of "pro" DX lenses similar to their "pro" FX lenses.

heartyfisher

So when are we expecting the D7200?

PB_PM

The D80, D90, D7000 and D7100 were all released two years apart, so if the line maintains that two year cycle, sometime in 2015.

spraynpray

@donaldejose: I just did that comparison and IMHO the D7100 is already a good two stops better than the D7000 in low light hi ISO. Noise-wise, I got slightly better results from the D7100 at 6400 than I did from the D7000 at 1600. :O

As we already know, if you have more light the difference in noise between lo and hi ISO images reduces, but the acid test is low light for me. The D7100 images did look strangely plastic in comparison to the D7000, and how much of that is due to the D7100 raw decoding algorithms and Adobe or even Nikon's in camera software is unknown to me. Interestingly, I found the 100 ISO performance of the D7000 to be up to the D7100 using the 50/1.4G@f4.

Photobug

I look for the D7200 in Q1 of 2015. Agree with PB-PM two year life cycle. Just think about the great prices on the D7100 in Q1 of 2015.

donaldejose

It is great to hear the D7100 sensor is two stops better at high ISO than the D7000 sensor. Imagine that. Both additional megapixels and two more stops of IQ at high ISO. Usually, I expect about a one stop improvement with each new generation. If Nikon can add one more stop improvement to a D400 sensor we will have a D400 which easily outperforms a D3.

shawnino

...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….

Main blog showing patent for new 300 f/2.8.

donaldejose

Looks really good to me.

%20%20тУЏТПТНА%20%20%20тУЏТПТНУЏТПТН%20%20%20%20щЉД%20%20%20тУЏТПТНУЏТПТН%20%20%20%20%20%20%20тУЏТПТН /Reviews/Sigma-18-35mm-F1.8-DC-HSM-A-Nikon-mount-lens-review-Unrivalled-Standard-Zoom