The end of wide angle primes?

**interested_observer** · 08-18-2013, 08:57 PM

For me, 24, 28 and 31 are my most interesting and used focal lengths. Over the last year I have found myself shooting scenes that I always said I could just slow down the shutter for. Well when the tide is coming in and the breeze is rattling the rigging on a boat, I do admit that a faster lens does help a lot. That said, I don't see this as a replacement for my 12-24, perhaps my 16-45, but the extra stops do come at a price.

I really do like my 8-16, but within 2 days of receiving it, I had to send it to CRIS (along with my body) to get it adjusted, as it was 45+ units front focusing, I do wish Sigma would do a bit better in the QC department.

Oh well, my primes are not going anywhere.....

EarlVonTapia · 08-18-2013, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by Primes4ever

I would buy the new Sigma 18-35 if I was doing a lot of low light events in tight spaces, I just don't see it a desirable, carry all day around my neck first choice given my shooting preferences.

This is my thought too. It's going to be an absolute BOMBSHELL lens for the right purpose. I can't imagine a better lens for any sort of event photography, be it weddings or concerts or what have you. The people who need a lens like this for their photography and that know why this lens is amazing will definitely appreciate it.

But I can't imagine moms and dads and casual photographers buying this for their Canon Rebels to shoot soccer games or to take to Disneyland or to go backpacking with. Size and weight are still a thing to be considered.

I'm going travelling soon, and in considering what to bring, I went light. If I had the Sigma 18-35, I'm not sure it would have made the cut.

All that being said, I can't wait to read reviews of extended real-world performance from users of the 18-35 once enough of them are out in the field. Because who knows? One day if I come across one for a good deal, I might just pick it up.

normhead · 08-19-2013, 05:48 AM

Originally posted by EarlVonTapia

This is my thought too. It's going to be an absolute BOMBSHELL lens for the right purpose. I can't imagine a better lens for any sort of event photography, be it weddings or concerts or what have you. The people who need a lens like this for their photography and that know why this lens is amazing will definitely appreciate it.

But I can't imagine moms and dads and casual photographers buying this for their Canon Rebels to shoot soccer games or to take to Disneyland or to go backpacking with. Size and weight are still a thing to be considered.

I'm going travelling soon, and in considering what to bring, I went light. If I had the Sigma 18-35, I'm not sure it would have made the cut.

All that being said, I can't wait to read reviews of extended real-world performance from users of the 18-35 once enough of them are out in the field. Because who knows? One day if I come across one for a good deal, I might just pick it up.

In my walk around kit I always take the DA 18-135, the DA*60-250 and either the Sigma 70 macro or SIgma 8-16. SO if I had the 18-35, it would have to replace one of those two. Based on my experience with the Tamron 17-50, I'm guessing that wouldn't happen very often. We love the lens... but there's s comfortable weight limit. I wear a harness, and most of the lenses are attached to a belt with a shoulder strap. But still, once you reach your limit, with whatever system, something has to go to make way for what's going to come. So it's not even a matter of "is it a good lens" it's a matter of, "what would I leave home so I could take it."

redrockcoulee · 08-19-2013, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by normhead

Or the time and bother of lens changes. Maybe I work in different places than you guys, but just don't always have time to be switching lenses back and forth.

That is the reason that in my previous job I got the 18-200 for my Nikon, some times it is not possible to change lenses. But now for my personal shooting I prefer small primes over zooms and do have time to change lenses. A place for both so I do not think that this lens means the end of primes but I certainly can see very good reasons for people wanting to by the new Sigma.

Much of the time I "see" with what focal length I have on my camera or what I have available to me, perhaps in part from shooting MF and LF where there is no zoom and I have only 3 focal lengths to choose from.

**Kerrowdown** · 08-19-2013, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by slip

The end of wide angle primes?

You can't be serious about me dumping both my "Good Lady" and my "Mistress".

That's my SMC Pentax-A 20mm F2.8 and SMC Pentax-A 15mm F3.5, for folk who don't know me.

brelip · 08-19-2013, 08:49 PM

For the pros out there shooting only with APS-C and need the convenience, get this lens. But to some, photography is not about large maximum aperture and not about offering of convenience. And for me, it's certainly not about having both at +800g. I do have a Tamron 24-70 2.8 for Nikon. While I find no fault of the lens, but I simply don't use it due to its weight and it makes me too lazy.

Don't get me wrong. I love this lens and I love Sigma. I have 35A for Nikon, 17-70C for Canon 7D. Both are amazing and I believe this 1.8 zoom lens will not disappoint. But it's not for me.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Why are wide angle primes so expensive?	bullitt_60	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	01-26-2013 04:13 PM
Foiled again by the lack of wide primes.	fuent104	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	07-23-2012 12:01 PM
Wide Angle Primes?	iht	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	8	06-23-2009 04:57 AM
Ultra Wide Angle Primes, DA15mm best choice?	David	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	06-17-2009 06:06 AM
I want Pentax FAST wide angle primes.	konraDarnok	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	36	05-08-2009 06:21 PM

08-18-2013, 08:57 PM	#31
interested_observer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,707	For me, 24, 28 and 31 are my most interesting and used focal lengths. Over the last year I have found myself shooting scenes that I always said I could just slow down the shutter for. Well when the tide is coming in and the breeze is rattling the rigging on a boat, I do admit that a faster lens does help a lot. That said, I don't see this as a replacement for my 12-24, perhaps my 16-45, but the extra stops do come at a price. I really do like my 8-16, but within 2 days of receiving it, I had to send it to CRIS (along with my body) to get it adjusted, as it was 45+ units front focusing, I do wish Sigma would do a bit better in the QC department. Oh well, my primes are not going anywhere.....

08-18-2013, 09:44 PM	#32
EarlVonTapia Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Vancouver Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,207	Originally posted by Primes4ever I would buy the new Sigma 18-35 if I was doing a lot of low light events in tight spaces, I just don't see it a desirable, carry all day around my neck first choice given my shooting preferences. This is my thought too. It's going to be an absolute BOMBSHELL lens for the right purpose. I can't imagine a better lens for any sort of event photography, be it weddings or concerts or what have you. The people who need a lens like this for their photography and that know why this lens is amazing will definitely appreciate it. But I can't imagine moms and dads and casual photographers buying this for their Canon Rebels to shoot soccer games or to take to Disneyland or to go backpacking with. Size and weight are still a thing to be considered. I'm going travelling soon, and in considering what to bring, I went light. If I had the Sigma 18-35, I'm not sure it would have made the cut. All that being said, I can't wait to read reviews of extended real-world performance from users of the 18-35 once enough of them are out in the field. Because who knows? One day if I come across one for a good deal, I might just pick it up.

08-19-2013, 05:48 AM	#33
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by EarlVonTapia This is my thought too. It's going to be an absolute BOMBSHELL lens for the right purpose. I can't imagine a better lens for any sort of event photography, be it weddings or concerts or what have you. The people who need a lens like this for their photography and that know why this lens is amazing will definitely appreciate it. But I can't imagine moms and dads and casual photographers buying this for their Canon Rebels to shoot soccer games or to take to Disneyland or to go backpacking with. Size and weight are still a thing to be considered. I'm going travelling soon, and in considering what to bring, I went light. If I had the Sigma 18-35, I'm not sure it would have made the cut. All that being said, I can't wait to read reviews of extended real-world performance from users of the 18-35 once enough of them are out in the field. Because who knows? One day if I come across one for a good deal, I might just pick it up. In my walk around kit I always take the DA 18-135, the DA*60-250 and either the Sigma 70 macro or SIgma 8-16. SO if I had the 18-35, it would have to replace one of those two. Based on my experience with the Tamron 17-50, I'm guessing that wouldn't happen very often. We love the lens... but there's s comfortable weight limit. I wear a harness, and most of the lenses are attached to a belt with a shoulder strap. But still, once you reach your limit, with whatever system, something has to go to make way for what's going to come. So it's not even a matter of "is it a good lens" it's a matter of, "what would I leave home so I could take it."

08-19-2013, 09:35 AM	#34
redrockcoulee Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Medicine Hat Posts: 2,306	Originally posted by normhead Or the time and bother of lens changes. Maybe I work in different places than you guys, but just don't always have time to be switching lenses back and forth. That is the reason that in my previous job I got the 18-200 for my Nikon, some times it is not possible to change lenses. But now for my personal shooting I prefer small primes over zooms and do have time to change lenses. A place for both so I do not think that this lens means the end of primes but I certainly can see very good reasons for people wanting to by the new Sigma. Much of the time I "see" with what focal length I have on my camera or what I have available to me, perhaps in part from shooting MF and LF where there is no zoom and I have only 3 focal lengths to choose from.

08-19-2013, 02:00 PM	#35
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,833	Originally posted by slip The end of wide angle primes? You can't be serious about me dumping both my "Good Lady" and my "Mistress". That's my SMC Pentax-A 20mm F2.8 and SMC Pentax-A 15mm F3.5, for folk who don't know me.

08-19-2013, 08:49 PM	#36
brelip Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Dallas, TX Photos: Albums Posts: 71	For the pros out there shooting only with APS-C and need the convenience, get this lens. But to some, photography is not about large maximum aperture and not about offering of convenience. And for me, it's certainly not about having both at +800g. I do have a Tamron 24-70 2.8 for Nikon. While I find no fault of the lens, but I simply don't use it due to its weight and it makes me too lazy. Don't get me wrong. I love this lens and I love Sigma. I have 35A for Nikon, 17-70C for Canon 7D. Both are amazing and I believe this 1.8 zoom lens will not disappoint. But it's not for me.