[IchabodCrane]

A weighty lens with no VR or IS for Canikon is going to have.......issues.

If anything it will perform better on a Pentax or Sony.

It's a lens for big people.

Yeah but those Canikon people are used to not having stabilized lenses. Hunch... if this lens gets any traction we'll see a Version 2 with OS.

[Class A]

If a new APS-C mount was forged then there's no way the Sigma would be as large as it is....no need.

Is that so?

Can you support this statement in any technical way?

I believe what you are forgetting is that the size of a lens is not dominated by the size of the image circle it has to produce but rather by its light gathering abilities. A 24-70/2.8 lens on FF is not small either. And the Sigma 18-35/1.8 can produce roughly equivalent images. That's why it is big not because they share the same mount size.

The primary reason for the Pentax 01 Standard Prime 8.5mm f/1.9 for the Q being small is not because the Q's sensor is small. It is small because it only gathers the light equivalent to a f/10.5 lens on FF. An F10.5 lens on FF can be made rather small as well. Of course you'll always be constrained by the mount diameter but this isn't what makes the Sigma 18-35/1.8 a big lens. The necessary size for the front element and aperture makes it big. This and the number of lens elements also dominates its weight.

If you decided you wanted to have less optical performance, you could drop a number of lens elements and thus gain weight. But just using a special APS-C dedicated mount wouldn't work the wonders you believe it would.

[Cannikin]

A weighty lens with no VR or IS for Canikon is going to have.......issues.

If anything it will perform better on a Pentax or Sony.

It's a lens for big people.

I'm not sure what you consider a "big person", but I'm a little 5'4" Asian guy whose hands are small enough to fit all fingers on the K-5's grip with room to spare. I don't lift weights either (or at least not until very recently). I have no problem swinging around a 70-200 f/2.8 handheld at an airshow for over an hour, and even shooting a few minutes of video holding it at arms length.

If people have difficulty getting handheld shots with a lens that weighs less than a liter of water, with a wide angle and 1.3+ stops extra speed over the nearest competitor zooms (which are hardly featherweights themselves), then chances are they're doing something wrong with their technique.

As for the total weight, the lenses this would replace in my pack (standard zoom + fast primes) means the net change in weight would be negligible.

[Aristophanes]

I'm not sure what you consider a "big person", but I'm a little 5'4" Asian guy whose hands are small enough to fit all fingers on the K-5's grip with room to spare. I don't lift weights either (or at least not until very recently). I have no problem swinging around a 70-200 f/2.8 handheld at an airshow for over an hour, and even shooting a few minutes of video holding it at arms length.

If people have difficulty getting handheld shots with a lens that weighs less than a liter of water, with a wide angle and 1.3+ stops extra speed over the nearest competitor zooms (which are hardly featherweights themselves), then chances are they're doing something wrong with their technique.

As for the total weight, the lenses this would replace in my pack (standard zoom + fast primes) means the net change in weight would be negligible.

People are buying smaller cameras at the expense of bigger ones save FF. That's what the market data shows.

DSLR's have some capacity to get smaller, but not with lenses like this. Goes strongly against the market trend because most people don't want to do what you do and if they did, they'd buy a smaller kit to get the same thing (like an OM-D).

It's not technique...it's why bother?

The era of APS-C big glass is looking more and more problematic. My point is Pentax is better primed (sic) than others to go there, but their bodies are not really there yet. The Sigma doesn't increase the market.

[Aristophanes]

Is that so?

Can you support this statement in any technical way?

I believe what you are forgetting is that the size of a lens is not dominated by the size of the image circle it has to produce but rather by its light gathering abilities. A 24-70/2.8 lens on FF is not small either. And the Sigma 18-35/1.8 can produce roughly equivalent images. That's why it is big not because they share the same mount size.

The primary reason for the Pentax 01 Standard Prime 8.5mm f/1.9 for the Q being small is not because the Q's sensor is small. It is small because it only gathers the light equivalent to a f/10.5 lens on FF. An F10.5 lens on FF can be made rather small as well. Of course you'll always be constrained by the mount diameter but this isn't what makes the Sigma 18-35/1.8 a big lens. The necessary size for the front element and aperture makes it big. This and the number of lens elements also dominates its weight.

If you decided you wanted to have less optical performance, you could drop a number of lens elements and thus gain weight. But just using a special APS-C dedicated mount wouldn't work the wonders you believe it would.

I was mostly referring to a mirrorless and comparisons with fast wides such as we see in M-mount.

The K-mount iris contributes to oversize APS-C lenses. We know this because APS was originally a film format designed to allow for smaller, less costly, cameras and glass. Nothing has changed.

The quest for DOF equivalence in APS-C to FF is what creates a 900g lens. And it pretty much boils down to DOF in the age of TAv. Yay! More shallow DOF shots. Like Flickr isn't already full of them as the meme of now.

[Digitalis]

Soccer mom cameras. Big glass cameras..? Not so much.

My sister takes photos of my nephews and their classmates at sporting events with a Nikon D7100 and a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 S lens with a Manfrotto Carbon fibre monopod (the lens and monopod are mine) - while the other soccer mums fiddle with slow as hell consumer level 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 IS/VR lenses on entry level Canon and Nikon cameras and you know what ..Parents pay my sister for her photographs, because she has the right gear to get the job done. Many of her friends always comment on the quality of her images and are willing to pay her for photographs of their kids. With professional level gear there is always an opportunity to recoup the cost of purchasing it - this opportunity doesn't really exist with entry level equipment. Professional gear when used by skilled hands commands respect, there is no substitute for quality.

If we all used gutless optical wonders the standards of photography will fall - there are things that are possible now that no one could do 30 years ago, you want usable images at ISO 6400? you can't do that with film. You want GPS assisted tracking of celestial bodies? try doing that with a Rollei 6008 and a Gitzo tripod. You want chromatic abberation corrections when you develop your images?...well you can do that with colour film images, if you use the dye transfer printing process - which is sadly, an extinct process.

A weighty lens with no VR or IS for Canikon is going to have.......issues.

Rubbish, If photographers use correct technique there won't be any...issues. And if they have issues, then they have no-one but themselves to blame.


Pentax K5IIs - Sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX DG - ISO 80 1/8th f/11 - Handheld @ 180mm

[Jean Poitiers]

...Parents pay my sister for her photographs, because she has the right gear to get the job done. Many of her friends always comment on the quality of her images and are willing to pay her for photographs of their kids. With professional level gear there is always an opportunity to recoup the cost of purchasing it - this opportunity doesn't really exist with entry level equipment. Professional gear when used by skilled hands commands respect, there is no substitute for quality. ...

Good point and good story ... J

[thibs]

Good point and good story ... J

And good shot

[Aristophanes]

My sister takes photos of my nephews and their classmates at sporting events with a Nikon D7100 and a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 S lens with a Manfrotto Carbon fibre monopod (the lens and monopod are mine) - while the other soccer mums fiddle with slow as hell consumer level 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 IS/VR lenses on entry level Canon and Nikon cameras and you know what ..Parents pay my sister for her photographs, because she has the right gear to get the job done. Many of her friends always comment on the quality of her images and are willing to pay her for photographs of their kids. With professional level gear there is always an opportunity to recoup the cost of purchasing it - this opportunity doesn't really exist with entry level equipment. Professional gear when used by skilled hands commands respect, there is no substitute for quality.

And the average US "pro" photographer makes less that $14,000 per year. And the number of people making money taking photos is shrinking. These "fiddlers" have been routinely putting the pros out of biz for a decade now in the age of super-accurate and fast AF and other technical advancements. The largest photo studio system in the world (ever), Sears, shut down its entire line of portrait studios earlier this year because consumers were getting excellent (and less stagey) product on their own.

I see plenty of soccer moms doing just fine with their consumer grade products taking excellent shots of their kids at soccer. I know, I'm a coach and one of the league organizers. I see a LOT of excellent Facebook shits from older Rebel XS's with kit glass.

This was taken with a K200D and a 55-200 kit zoom by a total rookie. I see hundreds of shots like this and some much better with kit stuff every year. People used to have local games covered by a pro, usually from a local newspaper. The newspaper made some money off paid photos parents purchased. That paper is still there but all photos now submitted are from free submissions:

[thibs]

This was taken with a K200D and a 55-200 kit zoom by a total rookie. I see hundreds of shots like this and some much better with kit stuff every year.

Ouch, even I would do better
C'mon, they do better than pros right ? Pros really do s**t, man.

[Aristophanes]

Ouch, even I would do better
C'mon, they do better than pros right ? Pros really do s**t, man.

That was just the first one pulled off an older brochure. It's also about 25% downrezzed (or more). Our league page has hundreds, some outstanding, all taken by non-pros. 10 years ago a photo like that would have had to come from a stock shot for a print-ready brochure. Now we get 2 dozen a day!

I know it was a controversial statement by the Yahoo! CEO, but she's not all wrong. Pro photographers are an endangered species. I know 2 and they make less money than before and both have had to take up teaching to make ends meet because the per image prices have plummeted and their publishers routinely source from non-paid sectors.

As many photos on the forum attest, the amateurs have caught up to the pros. Many, as can be seen on Flickr, have surpassed them.

[Pål Jensen]

People are buying smaller cameras at the expense of bigger ones save FF. That's what the market data shows.

Maybe because there aren't any small FF DSLR's?
While it is true that smaller size is one of the areas APS can excel in, it isn't its only or even primary reason for selling. And in spite of large APS lenses they are still 50% shorter than FF lenses for the magnification so even if APS lenses are the same size and weight as FF lenses you save in size and weight for this reason alone.

[Pål Jensen]

The quest for DOF equivalence in APS-C to FF is what creates a 900g lens. .

Stricly speaking it is speed. You may want to shoot in lower light with your APS camera. In such circumstances it often a plus to have more DOF at the same exposure. As APS have more noise at higher ISO than comparable FF sensors, you can shoot at one stop lower ISO with APS than with FF for the same DOF. Hence, such a lens may reduce FF's high ISO advantage for low light shooting.

[IchabodCrane]

And the average US "pro" photographer makes less that $14,000 per year. And the number of people making money taking photos is shrinking. These "fiddlers" have been routinely putting the pros out of biz for a decade now in the age of super-accurate and fast AF and other technical advancements. The largest photo studio system in the world (ever), Sears, shut down its entire line of portrait studios earlier this year because consumers were getting excellent (and less stagey) product on their own.

I see plenty of soccer moms doing just fine with their consumer grade products taking excellent shots of their kids at soccer. I know, I'm a coach and one of the league organizers. I see a LOT of excellent Facebook shots from older Rebel XS's with kit glass.

This was taken with a K200D and a 55-200 kit zoom by a total rookie. I see hundreds of shots like this and some much better with kit stuff every year. People used to have local games covered by a pro, usually from a local newspaper. The newspaper made some money off paid photos parents purchased. That paper is still there but all photos now submitted are from free submissions:

I guess that questions why anyone would buy an expensive camera.

[Digitalis]

As many photos on the forum attest, the amateurs have caught up to the pros

If that was true then why do I spend a few days out of my week teaching photography students advanced photographic techniques? there are some techniques that can only be gained through instructors - and in the classes that my colleagues and I run, failure isn't as damaging as it is in the cut-throat world of commercial photography.

This was taken with a K200D and a 55-200 kit zoom by a total rookie

This was taken at a university soccer match with a 645D, which doesn't have the High FPS and speedy AF capabilities of typical sports cameras:


Pentax 645D + Pentax 645 FA*300mm f/4 ED[IF] -1/125th f/7.1 @ ISO 800 -cropped image-

See the difference you get when some one with a bit of skill is behind the camera?