NEW Sigma f1.8 Zoom lens $799 for 18-35mm

Sigma have released the price for their new lens which is a zoom 18-35mm with a constant aperture of f1.8 and it's only going for $799!

There's very little examples so far but the ones I've seen if I'm honest are not that impressive but I'm willing to see what it might turn out like. Apparently the images we see are from prototypes of the lens. What are other peoples thoughts?

http://fstoppers.com/price-finally-announced-for-highly-anticipated-sigma-18-35mm-f1-8-dc-hsm
 
Seems odd that they'd make an EF mount, but APS-C size sensor only, doesn't it? I suppose that'd mean it might still work on S35 sensors.

I loved the idea of it, but it's APS-C sensor only made me take pause for a minute. I don't expect to ever go to a full-frame sensor, but I definitely will upgrade to an S35 sensor soon, if it would work on that, it looks like an amazingly well built and functional lens for $800. As you say though, remains to be seen how it actually performs.

Keeping an eye on it...

CraigL
 
What's the big deal of a zoom 1.8 lens? I got a 1.4 50mm prime for $350.

What does this new lens have to offer? I guess if it's good enough quality you don't need to be a wider lens to go with it, but you still might not be saving hardly any money, than buying two prime lenses. Plus the zoom is not really as much, compared to 18-55 or more.
 
It's a HUGE deal. Zoom lenses that fast and that cheap are unheard of. 18-35 is effectively double the focal length so a significant picture difference. On the wide end, every mm counts. Think of the image difference between 200mm and 400mm, this is the same scale of difference.

Now, I haven't been that happy with the one sigma lens I've used (30mm 1.4) so I don't have super high hopes, but the fact someone is doing it means that others should follow.
 
Well at the store near me, they are selling 50mm 1.4s for $350, and 24mm 1.4s for $280. That's $630 in all, plus taxes, and might come out to the same price as $799. But like you said the scale is different.
 
Yes, but you have to physically take a lens off to get different focal lengths with primes. You can't always do that. Most of the time on a narrative set primes are the way to go, they 're typically higher quality and faster.

During a live event like a documentary shoot or a wedding, every second is precious. With a zoom you can change focal lengths without stopping recording.

Technology-wise, this is huge, as 2.8 is typically the fastest zoom you'll find.
 
I agree, I think this is less something for the indie filmmaker crowd and more for event shooting like weddings, etc, where the extra low light performance is just as important as the ability to quickly adjust framing on the fly without a lens change.
 
Oh okay I see. I usually don't like zooming at live events, cause the zoom lenses have what is called a 'sticky aperture'. Or that's what the guy at the store called it. Basically if you set it to f8 for example. During the zoom, you will see the aperture change, and readjust, even though it's f8 the whole time of the zoom. It goes darker, than back to where it was.

If you mount a mic on top of the camera at an event as well, you might pick up the aperture changing sound in the camera as well. So it seems zooming is bad for live events, unless you have one of those really expensive zoom lens that does not do that. But maybe I'm wrong?
 
Oh okay I see. I usually don't like zooming at live events, cause the zoom lenses have what is called a 'sticky aperture'. Or that's what the guy at the store called it. Basically if you set it to f8 for example. During the zoom, you will see the aperture change, and readjust, even though it's f8 the whole time of the zoom. It goes darker, than back to where it was.

If you mount a mic on top of the camera at an event as well, you might pick up the aperture changing sound in the camera as well. So it seems zooming is bad for live events, unless you have one of those really expensive zoom lens that does not do that. But maybe I'm wrong?

Not on a constant aperture lens. Higher end lenses stay fixed throughout and don't change.

I agree with you, I don't like the look of zooming during a take, but adjusting is a different story.
 
Yes, but you have to physically take a lens off to get different focal lengths with primes. You can't always do that. Most of the time on a narrative set primes are the way to go, they 're typically higher quality and faster.

During a live event like a documentary shoot or a wedding, every second is precious. With a zoom you can change focal lengths without stopping recording.

Yeah, I guess this true. Also, even though the f-stop is rated at 1.8, we don't really know what the t-stop rating is, it may well be 1/3 or 2/3 stops slower than the equivalent prime. Seems like such a nice range to tweak the framing though, but I guess switching and/or moving back and forth a bit is worth the extra quality.

APS-C and super 35 are functionally the same size when you're shooting a 16:9 aspect ratio.

They're much closer than the actual sizes of the sensors, but they're not quite. I just wonder when they only seem to specify APS-C.

Anyway, I think this thread has convinced me to keep focusing on my prime collection.

CraigL
 
That's why I said they're 'functionally' the same. The overall dimensions do differ slightly, but when you take the 16x9 video area from either there's almost no difference. From the standpoint of lens coverage of the sensor I wouldn't expect it to matter, because if it covers the slightly greater width of APS-C then it should easily cover super35. I suspect they only specify APS-C because this is primarily a photography lens being marketed to photographers who may or may not have any idea what super35 refers to.
 
Last edited:
Not on a constant aperture lens. Higher end lenses stay fixed throughout and don't change.

I agree with you, I don't like the look of zooming during a take, but adjusting is a different story.

I'm guessing the $799 lens he is talking about is not constant aperture though. The only ones I've seen are $2000 or higher. I would like one myself cause the zoom can look good if done right.
 
I'm guessing the $799 lens he is talking about is not constant aperture though. The only ones I've seen are $2000 or higher. I would like one myself cause the zoom can look good if done right.

Harmonica did you read the post? This is the whole reason I am sharing it. It IS a constant aperture FOR a VERY cheap price. As you just said the only ones you've seen are $2000+, this HAS that feature for less than $1000, the whole point in me sharing the link :)

In my original post:

Sigma have released the price for their new lens which is a zoom 18-35mm with a constant aperture of f1.8 and it's only going for $799!
 
From the standpoint of lens coverage of the sensor I wouldn't expect it to matter, because if it covers the slightly greater width of APS-C then it should easily cover super35.

Ugh... too late and my Googling skills are failing me. I thought S35 was almost 25mm wide while APS-C was a little over 22mm? I think it winds up being 1mm or so shorter that APS-C in 16x9, so from that respect you're right, it won't matter. Even though the 2 or 3 mm seems small, it's ~10% of a difference.

CraigL
 
On a zoom lens, if only one f stop is listed in the name it's constant aperture. Example, Canon EF 70-200 F/4 L is a constant aperture lens (at only $680 brand new), The canon 18-135mm 3.5-5.6 is not.
 
Ugh... too late and my Googling skills are failing me. I thought S35 was almost 25mm wide while APS-C was a little over 22mm? I think it winds up being 1mm or so shorter that APS-C in 16x9, so from that respect you're right, it won't matter. Even though the 2 or 3 mm seems small, it's ~10% of a difference.

CraigL

No, you know you may be right - I had 25mm in my head for APS-C, but it turns out I'm thinking back to the original film format. I didn't realize that the width varied from manufacturer to manufacturer for digital sensors. Since this is an EF-mount lens I assume it's in reference to canon's spec for APS-C which is smaller than the rest at 22.2mm, so it is about 10% smaller than full S35.
 
Top