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

BrucePhotography

Sorry for the side bar: With this forum, how do you easily post images? I have eight 1.8 images that I converted from raw on the Sigma 18-35mm after I did -4 AF on the D7100 and also used the sigma dock to use -4 at 35mm and -2 at 18mm. What I found was that you need to shoot more than one shot because the first shot was not sharp but the second and beyond were sharp. Is that my camera or this lens? I'd love to just upload the shots but I don't see an upload button. Thanks for your help.

rbrylawski

I must admit that for a camera forum, posting pictures is not the most user friendly. Please read the first post in this attached thread. It will walk you through how to post on NRF. I use Flickr to host my pics, then upload from there.

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/46/how-to-post-a-photo-on-photo-a-day/p1

BrucePhotography

Thank you rbrylawski for the link. I was going to post some photos but I don't wish to post anything on Flickr. I can follow the instructions but this is too much like work. This should be easier. Sorry.

ChasCS

Depending where the pics are located, just click the tiny framed picture icon above where you type.
See it there with green grass and blue sky? Third icon from the right.
This should appear, < img src = " address here " / >
Now just insert the address of the picture between the quotation marks, where the blinking pointer is...

heartyfisher

Thank you rbrylawski for the link. I was going to post some photos but I don't wish to post anything on Flickr. I can follow the instructions but this is too much like work. This should be easier. Sorry.

Just post your images where you normally put them on the web and in your message here paste the link.

ThomasHorton

I don't wish to post anything on Flickr.

You can upload a picture to your Flikr account and mark it as a private image. That way no one on Flikr can see your picture. Does that help you?

Msmoto

OK, one may past a URL from Nikon Image Space

http://img.gg/HZ9e75m

And, then folks can see the image if settings are correct on NIS.

donaldejose

Is anyone shooting with this lens yet? With one of the new 24mp DX sensors? If so, tell us your experience.

To me it looks like the best moderate zoom you can put on a D7100, D5300 or D3300 for the best IQ in its zoom range. I have not purchased one of those new 24mp DX bodies yet but they are on my list and this lens is the first one I would want to use with such a sensor. I am surprised if no one else here feels the same.

Hval

I have recently purchased this lens and have tried it a couple of times in low light levels with my Nikon D300. I love it. It is a great lens.

When I get a chance I shall post some unedited images.

spraynpray

I feel the same Donald - that's why I started this thread! I'm trying out astro at the moment and it would sure come in handy for that. My main ask was for low light work in church but I got put off by the reports of poor focusing accuracy so I got the 17-55 2.8.

Would still like to get one if these focusing problems don't turn out to be a problem in the real world but I hear they are in low light which makes it useless to me.

Hval

If you look at the set on Flickr (link to a few photos below) you will see additional examples of photos from the Sigma 18-35mm lens. Any apparent faults with the lens are down to me and not the lens. No flash used.

Tried putting photos here. Unfortunately it didn't work. My apologies. Any way, link to set is: -

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hval01/sets/72157639667900145/

Hval

spraynpray,

I can't say that I noticed any focussing issues with my lens. With additional use I might do.

spraynpray

@Hval: Thanks for the link, the lens looks very good indeed. Shame there is no Exif data to examine!

donaldejose

Thanks Hval.

donaldejose

Here is an example shot on a D7100.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/50987467@N00/10740669996/in/photolist-hn7JZs-hn7Tgh-hn7VCE-hn96mK-hn7xAV-hn8WhH-hn7Z5G-hn95FM-hn7jmP-hn7fPi-hn7zsG-hn7mnT-hn7bft-hn7GrS-hn8VBz-hn7XcG-hn7KLs-hn84Pj-hn7W4E-hn8YNz-hn8KEv-hn7xeo-hn7wX1-hn94va-hn8MpH-hn7uxG-hn7DPN-hn79Nk-hn8DmP-hn8GRV-hn99gn-hn7G2o-hn7vWH-hn91FH-hn7aD8-hn7okF-hn7Lao-hn8R7c-hn7YkA-hn85nJ-hn7wjh-hn7CJ9-hn7cxt-hn8Kn6-hn78eZ-hn97jg-hn7XjY-hn94QD-hn8DLB-hn74y2-h

donaldejose

Another example on a D7100:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/50987467@N00/10740595705/in/photolist-hn7mUz-hn7JZs-hn7Tgh-hn7VCE-hn96mK-hn7xAV-hn8WhH-hn95FM-hn7jmP-hn7fPi-hn75Fc-hn7zsG-hn7mnT-hn7bft-hn7GrS-hn8VBz-hn7XcG-hn7KLs-hn84Pj-hn7W4E-hn8YNz-hn8KEv-hn7xeo-hn7wX1-hn94va-hn8MpH-hn7uxG-hn7DPN-hn79Nk-hn8DmP-hn8GRV-hn7G2o-hn7vWH-hn99gn-

Hval

spraynpray,

Apologies for not having exif data available. I suspect this must have something to do with the fact that I uploaded the photographs to Flickr from my iPad. I shall try again tonight.

spraynpray

@Donaldejose: Thanks for posting those two shots off Flickr - I'm unimpressed by them though. The knights in armour at f3.2 shot I struggle to find anything sharp and has quite a lot of CA, and the other - well, nothing is clear about that at all! I reckon any of my lenses could have beaten those results, the 17-55 would do so easily.

WestEndBoy

This is a very strange zoom range, wide to mid-normal and only two times. It seems to me that the new 35mm 1.8G (FX, so right in the middle of this DX zoom range - 23mm in DX) would give superior optical performance and it is $200 cheaper on B&H.

That seems like a lot to give up and pay for the privilege of zooming from 23 to 18 (27%) or 23 to 35 (52%).

spraynpray

Say whaaaat?

18-35 on DX is wide to normal (27-52) on FX. High quality zooms are ALWAYS restricted range. Not as much as this, but then it gets waaay better marks than other decent lenses.

As for "It seems to me that the new 35mm 1.8G (FX, so right in the middle of this DX zoom range - 23mm in DX) would give superior optical performance and it is $200 cheaper on B&H." You are going to have to explain that again? Whaaat? Who's talking about FX here? :-/

WestEndBoy

The objective is to obtain the best lens based on a variety of factors and I assume image quality is one factor that is important to people.

I am merely pointing out that there is a very serious alternative to this lens right in Nikon's own line that is an option for DX shooters.

Last I recall, FX lenses work on DX cameras....

donaldejose

Jshickele: sure but putting an FX 35mm lens on a DX body results in a 52.5 mm prime which is not "right down the middle" of the Sigma zoom's range we are talking about. Sure, you should get sharp results, but you will also get sharp results using Nikon's own 35mm f1.8 DX lens for about $200.

clskelton

If Nikon made a 24mm 1.8G for $600 or less I would probably get that for my DX camera. But the 24mm 1.4G is $2,000 (too expensive for my use) and the 28mm 1.8G is not quite wide enough from 35mm to make much difference (for a DX camera). If others I read about have good experiences with this Sigma lens and Nikon doesn't make something comparable, then I'll probably pick one up.

WestEndBoy

Jshickele: sure but putting an FX 35mm lens on a DX body results in a 52.5 mm prime which is not "right down the middle" of the Sigma zoom's range we are talking about. Sure, you should get sharp results, but you will also get sharp results using Nikon's own 35mm f1.8 DX lens for about $200.

Whups Donaldejose!! You are right. Where did I go wrong? I was thinking about what the 18-35 would look like on FX (about 27-52). I forgot to consider that it does not work going the other way. User experience is valuable, as the fact that I have never owned a DX camera with interchangeable lens shows (my Coolpix A is DX, but that does not count).

The closest you can get with this strategy is the 20mm 2.8 (30 mm on DX) for a little less than $700.

So we save around $150 and 30mm is in the middle of 18 and 35, but closer to 35.

So I will make my original argument, but with the right numbers this time. The counter argument that 30 is too far from 18 is certainly more valid, however. And Sigma's choice of this "limited" focal range that they are doing at 1.8 makes a little more sense than it did before.

NSXTypeR

Jshickele: sure but putting an FX 35mm lens on a DX body results in a 52.5 mm prime which is not "right down the middle" of the Sigma zoom's range we are talking about. Sure, you should get sharp results, but you will also get sharp results using Nikon's own 35mm f1.8 DX lens for about $200.

Whups Donaldejose!! You are right. Where did I go wrong? I was thinking about what the 18-35 would look like on FX (about 27-52). I forgot to consider that it does not work going the other way. User experience is valuable, as the fact that I have never owned a DX camera with interchangeable lens shows (my Coolpix A is DX, but that does not count).

The closest you can get with this strategy is the 20mm 2.8 (30 mm on DX) for a little less than $700.

So we save around $150 and 30mm is in the middle of 18 and 35, but closer to 35.

So I will make my original argument, but with the right numbers this time. The counter argument that 30 is too far from 18 is certainly more valid, however. And Sigma's choice of this "limited" focal range that they are doing at 1.8 makes a little more sense than it did before.

Sigma basically gave us all the wide angle DX primes Nikon is either unwilling to make or too incompetent to make (probably the latter) in one glorious zoom that ends up cheaper for us in the long run.

I think Sigma hit a home run with this one. I always find myself running out of room to back up with the 35mm 1.8.

I'm not holding my breath any longer. Besides, in my kit I already have everything I need to shoot in my style. It's just slightly inconvenient for me if I need something wide and fast.