Sigma 18-35 f1.8

Why wouldn't it be good handheld?

I know a couple of pro's who use it and get great results btw.
 
I have it and find it sharp on my d7200. Although for landscapes I use a tripod..
 
Very valid opinions, thank you. So let's say at f8 at 22mm, ISO100, 1/6000 sutter speed (random numbers, just an example) - how do you think this would perform handheld vs the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS? Thanks
 
Tom Green said:
Very valid opinions, thank you. So let's say at f8 at 22mm, ISO100, 1/6000 sutter speed (random numbers, just an example) - how do you think this would perform handheld vs the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS? Thanks
Click to expand...
Shouldn't be a problem, with a shutter speed that fast then OS is pretty redundant.
 
Tom Green said:
Very valid opinions, thank you. So let's say at f8 at 22mm, ISO100, 1/6000 sutter speed (random numbers, just an example) - how do you think this would perform handheld vs the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS? Thanks
Click to expand...

I think if you're using those numbers you're in a desert during the hottest part of the day :)

Wide angle lenses don't need IS. As a rule you'll get good results with shutter speeds reciprocal of focal length
 
But you don't buy an f1.8 lens to use it at f8, you buy this sort of lens to use wide open, if you're only after apertures above f4 then you buy a good cheaper lens instead

And unless you're on a trampoline bouncing around like a nutter then nothing with blur at 1/6000th and you defo don't need IS

Dave
 
minnnt said:
Why not?
Click to expand...
Because even an average WA lens is excellent at f8. Why pay the premium?
When a <£200 lens will do, why pay £600 for an indistinguishable image?
 
minnnt said:
Why not?
Click to expand...

I already said didn't I ???

Of course you can use it at any aperture you like, but the point of this lens is that its fast, its designed to be used wide open. If you generally shoot at higher f-stops then you're wasting your money buying it when you can buy something just as good cheaper, and smaller, and lighter

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
But you don't buy an f1.8 lens to use it at f8, you buy this sort of lens to use wide open, if you're only after apertures above f4 then you buy a good cheaper lens instead

And unless you're on a trampoline bouncing around like a nutter then nothing with blur at 1/6000th and you defo don't need IS

Dave
Click to expand...

I will be using at f1.8 but would also like to use for landscapes.
 
Ridiculous. The idea of the brilliant 18-35 is that it can act as both a 'prime lens' and a general purpose lens. It's a one lens solution (all be it with a small focal range) for many people. For someone who doesn't predominantly shoot landscapes as their main interest, it's a good buy.

Why is 'f8 or greater' a trap?
 
DG Phototraining said:
I looked long and hard at buying this lens but in the end chose not to as I prefer primes

Dave
Click to expand...
I think Sigmas aim with this lens was for us to see it as an 18, 24 and 35 in the Leica tradition, rather than a zoom. (24,35 and 50 equivalents)

I'm sure someone smarter than me can tell us what Leica call these products.
 
I think it's a pretty groundbreaking lens and the reports seem to be saying it's good although there'll possibly always be a question mark for some over focus performance. As a one lens solution and as an alternative to a couple of primes I'm sure the lens will make a lot of sense to a lot of people.

I've thought for some time that a standard range zoom and a fast 35/50mm prime would cover much of what I use a camera for and maybe all if the lenses were able to focus closely and anyone thinking along the minimal kit lines might see an advantage in this Sigma lens, if they can live with the zoom range.
 
Back on track, just how good is the lens, performance wise, compared to something like the Nikon 18-35?
I've not seen any reviews yet but then didn't know it existed until now..
Any owners able to help?
 
minnnt said:
Ridiculous. The idea of the brilliant 18-35 is that it can act as both a 'prime lens' and a general purpose lens. It's a one lens solution (all be it with a small focal range) for many people. For someone who doesn't predominantly shoot landscapes as their main interest, it's a good buy.

Why is 'f8 or greater' a trap?
Click to expand...

Totally agree.

BTW, I think it's fair to say that this guy knows his stuff. David (minnnt) has demonstrated time and time again on this forum that he takes an excellent landscape, at whatever is the most appropriate aperture for the shot. Despite the fact that he uses a Nikon. And is a ginger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top