FF'ers, No more bitching about sigma 18-35

Mag

Mag

Active member
That's right, sounds like sigma is gonna be realeasing a new fast zoom lens, 24-70 f/2 OS HSM

http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/07/sigma-24-70-f2-os-hsm-coming-cr1/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+canonrumors%2Frss+%28Canon+Rumors%29

It may not be f/1.8, but it's only a third of a stop, and you're getting a much larger zoom range(24-70 vs ~29-56) & on top of that OIS.

Can't imagine it'll be cheap, but you got what you asked for, and people are raving about the 18-35 optically, so I would imagine they'd have done something just as good for FF.

 
I can't believe companies like Tokina and Sigma are the ones making optical breakthroughs when Nikon, Canon, and the like sit completely idle...
 
The price on the 18-35 is amazing given the quality of the lens and the fast aperture. Sigma hit a home run imo.
 
very interested if it can actually perform and render a nice image (not getting my hopes up)
 
If it was an 18-50, then perhaps, but 18-35 isn't enough to really matter.

That said, giving you effectively 28, 35, and 55mm focal lengths is nice for the person who doesn't know what they want.

I'd much rather see an 18-50 f2. That would be a huge win.
 
Does that 2/3 stop of light really matter? 2.8 is pretty solid for zooms, why is everyone so ancy about f2?

i agree 18-35 f1.8 is pretty pointless, might as well buy two-three prime lenses for the same price.
 
It's obvious you have too much light, anything above f/4 is the devil to you haha, I want your view, would make things a lot cheaper.

It's the widest crop available faster than f/2.8, it's a zoom, it's relatively cheap, it's reportedly got amazing optics, in what way is it pointless? there's no substitute with prime lenses, don't say a 24mm and 50mm. The closest would be sigma 20mm f/1.8 and sigma 35mm f/1.4, but that's gonna cost you a lot more.

 
Are you speaking to photos or video?

Because for video, there are plenty of cheap 20, 24, 35 primes or cheap zooms like the tamron 17-50 f2.8 another 1.3 stops of light is NBD IMO but thats just me.
 
And for photo....most modern lenses kind of fucking suck and render terribly

except leica/zeiss/hasselblad(fujinon)/mamiya-leaf
 
Or like 10 vintage primes... like a whole damn lens system. 800 bucks can go a ridiculously long way when it comes to lenses if you don't just spend it all in one place.

and a full stop of light, you mean? as in twice as much light? f2 is pretty nice from a marketing standpoint. It's far from necessary, and I agree that f2.8 is plenty for most purposes, but if somebody was able to come out with an 18-50 f2, or 18-50 f1.8 or something, it would definitely sell.
 
I think the reason they havent is because how of much money it would cost to have that range at 1.8.

That being said, I was referrer to the difference between f2 and f2.8 which is actually 1 full stop, not a 2/3 stop.
 
Yeah, I know I corrected you.

Either way, as much money as it would cost to make a lens with that range and speed, you know there are folks with D7100's and 7D's and such who would put out over 1100 for that, easily...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top