[ajaya]

Hi,

i am confused between Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 and 35mm f1.8 ART series lens. Both are almost having the same price so will it make sens to go for 18-35? or 35mm is the best lens for Portraits ? please help me.

Thanks
AJ

[Paul the Sunman]

Neither is really a traditional portrait focal length. Around 50mm+ on APS-C is more usual (~75mm FF). However, both will give very shallow depth of field, which can be very pleasing with portraits if used well.

By the way, the 35mm is f1.4, not f1.8 (half a stop faster). It is also FF whilst the 18-35 is APS-C only. You'll have to weigh up the respective benefits yourself: faster and FF compatible against flexible range of focal lengths. It seems the image quality is exceptional either way.

[sterretje]

Define portraits

Comparison Of Tele To Wide Portraits | Orms Connect gives you an idea what the effect is of focal length on the subject when it comes to portraits. Images where taken with FF camera, but the same theory applies to APSc.

[Digitalis]

the 35mm is f1.4, not f1.8 (half a stop faster)

hold it right there, f/1.4 to f/1.8 is only 2/3rds of a stop. Let us all not forget that many f/1.4 lenses have a T-stop that is frequently slower than what is stated. The sigma 35mm f/1.4 T=1.47* Vs FA31 T=1.84

*DxO state the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 has a transmission closer to T=1.5 - but I have strong objections with their testing methodology.

---

Last edited by Digitalis; 01-24-2014 at 07:26 AM.

[Deedee]

Hi

Everyone above has added great value to the thread already.

18-35 is versatile and the fastest wide angle 18mm @ 1.8. There is nothing else close to that.

I actually would go for 18-35 lens because it is versatile.

In the end it is your wallet.

I had more money, I would have both I suppose.

Cheers!

[ajaya]

Hi

Everyone above has added great value to the thread already.

18-35 is versatile and the fastest wide angle 18mm @ 1.8. There is nothing else close to that.

I actually would go for 18-35 lens because it is versatile.

In the end it is your wallet.

I had more money, I would have both I suppose.

Cheers!

I love to have both But i think 18-35mm is some what i am excited about. I just want to hear from the gear owners about their experience on any of these lens.

[yusuf]

I would pickup 35/1.4 - slightly lighter (not much though) and FF.

[scratchpaddy]

I'd wait for the 18-35. The prime is slightly faster and 20% lighter, but it's slightly more expensive, and it doesn't do 18mm. I used to be a prime guy, but this lens has converted me. I've taken the 18-35 to two car shows so far, and the ability to use 18 and 35 and everything in between at f/1.8, all without changing lenses, has been invaluable in all the dimly-lit tents.

This is at 24mm and f/1.8:


I'm using it on the Sigma SD1 Merrill, which falls somewhere between a K-3 and D800 in resolution.

[maxfield_photo]

There are a couple differences in the lenses. The Sigma 35 if an f/1.4 lens, not a 1.8, so it's slightly faster than the zoom. Perhaps more important than the lens' speed is it's shallower DoF and ease of focusing, particularly if you use a matte focusing screen. The other main difference in specs is the 35mm is a full frame lens where as the 18-35mm is for APS-C only, so if you plan on shooting film, or if a Pentax full frame ever emerges, the 18-35mm won't cover the image circle, and you'll have to crop the image 50% anyway, of course you can chose your aspect ratio that way. The other obvious difference is one is a zoom and one is a prime. Primes traditionally have better sharpness, contrast, and flare resistance than zooms, plus they're smaller and lighter, while zooms often times have better bokeh because they use more elements. I don't own either of these lenses, so I can't comment on whether that holds true for either.

[ajaya]

I'd wait for the 18-35. The prime is slightly faster and 20% lighter, but it's slightly more expensive, and it doesn't do 18mm. I used to be a prime guy, but this lens has converted me. I've taken the 18-35 to two car shows so far, and the ability to use 18 and 35 and everything in between at f/1.8, all without changing lenses, has been invaluable in all the dimly-lit tents.

This is at 24mm and f/1.8:


I'm using it on the Sigma SD1 Merrill, which falls somewhere between a K-3 and D800 in resolution.

Wow just stunning sharpness for f1.8 ! thanks for sharing.

[yusuf]

I'd wait for the 18-35. The prime is slightly faster and 20% lighter, but it's slightly more expensive, and it doesn't do 18mm. I used to be a prime guy, but this lens has converted me. I've taken the 18-35 to two car shows so far, and the ability to use 18 and 35 and everything in between at f/1.8, all without changing lenses, has been invaluable in all the dimly-lit tents.

This is at 24mm and f/1.8:


I'm using it on the Sigma SD1 Merrill, which falls somewhere between a K-3 and D800 in resolution.

Looks pretty good.

[Adam]

Hi,

i am confused between Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 and 35mm f1.8 ART series lens. Both are almost having the same price so will it make sens to go for 18-35? or 35mm is the best lens for Portraits ? please help me.

Thanks
AJ

I think the key difference is that the 35mm F1.4 is available right now while the other one is not

And the 35mm F1.4 is fantastic for portraits, it's got killer bokeh:
Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM "Art" - Introduction - PentaxForums.com

[Outlaw]

I think the key difference is that the 35mm F1.4 is available right now while the other one is not

And the 35mm F1.4 is fantastic for portraits, it's got killer bokeh:
Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM "Art" - Introduction - PentaxForums.com

Couldn't agree more Adam. The 35mm has exceeded all my expectations for sharpness and bokeh. Just shot a family wedding and the clarity of the images is amazing. teamed with a K3 Silver, it's an awesome combination.

[ajaya]

Couldn't agree more Adam. The 35mm has exceeded all my expectations for sharpness and bokeh. Just shot a family wedding and the clarity of the images is amazing. teamed with a K3 Silver, it's an awesome combination.

is it possible to share some sample pictures ?

Thanks