[Cambo]

It is often that people don't know that they want a thing until somebody offers it....

Very, very true, Pål. I watched Steve Jobs announce the iPad...I went, "who'd want a stupid thing like that? It's just a giant iPhone with no phone in it..." And then I tried one, and HAD to have one, and in the two years since, I couldn't live WITHOUT my iPad, it has changed my life as a musician.

So yes, sometime we don't know what we want till we're told by someone with a vision, like Steve Jobs.

Sorry, didn't mean to sound like an Apple commercial here, but reinforcing what Pål has said.

Cheers,
Cameron

[Aristophanes]

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.

Unless the FF also uses a faster lens. And FF also has other advantages.

It's all relative.

The real issue is ISOless sensors and in-scene ISO manipulation. If sensors continue to improve on the ISO front most of the fast glass advantage will be nixed in favour of DOF shallowness. And that will have its limitations, mostly economic.

Imagine the tech where you would need no lens less than f/5.6 in low candlelight and the exact same DOF aesthetic can be achieved solely through instantaneous in-camera pixel manipulation and each section of the frame mapped differently for ISO read-out. And there will be no way to tell the difference pixel peeping. None.

And the FF version of that same camera can do it at f/8. On a CDAF system with almost perfect AF alignment on the pixels you want in sharpness. You'll get f/8 sharpness across the frame with software, not optics, controlling the bokeh, OOF, and aesthetics.

And once all data runs through the ADC and subsequent RAW processor, no one will be able to tell what was optically derived from software derived. You're f/8 lens will simply read your f/0.85 dial setting as a DOF attribute and blur/bokeh accordingly.

That's where we are headed, and why very fast glass like the Sigma is perhaps not a long-term investment. In the interim that's why primes at f/2.4 and 3.2 don't bother me as investments because as the sensor tech curve continues small,, not so fast lenses, stopped down only slightly, will have all the same attributes as a much costlier, more expensive, and much heavier lens.

In the meantime buy the Sigma and work on your "pro" technique until algorithms put the pro technical stuff out of biz, just as most pros in photography have seen their business evaporate. It's sad but a simple economic function of the technology.

[TimKierath]

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:

That's garbage - even the photo you supplied to "prove" it proves the other way. That is a perfectly good photo for a soccer mum, but it's absolute garbage otherwise.
If you PAID someone (i,e, a professional) to come and take photos of your kids soccer, you would want a LOT better than this or your money back.

I don't even know if it was also you who said it, but someone here said that the photo contests on here suggest that the amateurs have caught up with the pros - ummm, yeah 1 in 15 photos in the contests supports that. The other 14 prove that pros are pros for a reason. Look at the "food" contest - the winning shot was OK (no disrespect to the maker of it) but it wasn't like INSANELY good, the second and third place were OK as well. The rest were just... nice shots. They weren't pro.
And who is to say there are no pros on here anyway? They are allowed to submit and probably do occasionally - so you can't say that "because the photos in the contests are good, amateurs are catching up to pros" - because A: you don't know that the winning shots aren't by pros and B: many of the shots that don't win are not great, and certainly not of pro standard.

[VoiceOfReason]

I do laugh at the arguments that boil down to, "I don't like the xxxxxx because it isn't what I like, therefore you shouldn't like it and it is doomed to failure." Fine, you don't like it and will not use it, but that's not going to stop me and many others from getting it and enjoying the heck out of it. I have my Tamron 17-50 off being calibrated to my K-01 which is getting a full spectrum conversion, so I was stuck using my 18-135 inside the dealer room here at the convention. Ick. Now I remember why I like faster glass. I don't care that I can bump the ISO, and all that. I want the faster glass that will work great for me with the camera that is in the format which I have. Why must it turn into an argument about why this lens is so bad? If you don't like it then don't get it!

[Digitalis]

"I don't like the xxxxxx because it isn't what I like, therefore you shouldn't like it and it is doomed to failure." Fine, you don't like it and will not use it, but that's not going to stop me and many others from getting it and enjoying the heck out of it.

I agree, I have my own prejudices too - but at least i'm willing to admit to them: I hate the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 - I think it is a disaster of a lens, but i'm certainly not going to stop people from using it and enjoying the results they get from the lens.

the sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is an attractive lens - there is no other option if someone wants a 18mm f/1.8 lens in the market, no other manufacturer makes anything like it. Though I have to admit i'm very curious as to how this lens will compare to the upcoming 20~40mm Limited Zoom lens.

[VoiceOfReason]

the sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is an attractive lens - there is no other option if someone wants a 18mm f/1.8 lens in the market, no other manufacturer makes anything like it. Though I have to admit i'm very curious as to how this lens will compare to the upcoming 20~40mm Limited Zoom lens.

I would like to see the specs and performance comparison too, but I imagine the limited zoom will be slower, smaller, and much more expensive. It will have a certain market it is going to be aimed at, and I imagine that market will be singing its praises. I would love to see it before I get the cash together to get the Sigma though so I can have another lens to compare. Who knows, Pentax may change my mond and have me looking for the new one from them!

[Digitalis]

I imagine the limited zoom will be slower, smaller, and much more expensive

Pentax could really shake things up and make it a constant f/2 - add a built in lens hood with a polarizing window, and 67mm filter thread. Because the main criticisms I hold against sigma lenses is their AF accuracy and sub-standard flare tolerance. On all my Canon,Nikon Pentax camera bodies I have had to adjust the AF calibrations for the sigma lenses quite drastically when the brand name lenses themselves need little (if any*) adjustment.

*On my Pentax K5IIs all my pentax AF lenses are perfectly calibrated - right out of the box.

[jsherman999]

.

Funny that this turned into a 'show your soccer shots' thread for a while there, because I was just shooting a relative playing
in a soccer tournament today.

I decided to forgo the FPS method I usually employ in this genre and try to anticipate/snipe some shots like the pro sports
shooters do... and was reminded again how this isn't my genre. It's tough to get a really good shot, even when there are
really good shots to be had.

Anyway, allow me to play late at the Soccer party with the D800 + Sigma 100-300 f4. (I'm not close to being able to get results
like this with a kit 55-200 or the equiv - kudos to those who are.)

.
f/5


f/4 crop


f/4 crop






Crop of above:

[Edgar_in_Indy]

Anyway, allow me to play late at the Soccer party with the D800 + Sigma 100-300 f4. (I'm not close to being able to get results
like this with a kit 55-200 or the equiv - kudos to those who are.)

Some nice shots there, even if we are hopelessly off-topic.

I'll be testing out my own Sigma 100-300mm f4 for soccer duty on my K-30 soon. My wife and her family is from Brazil, so for Father's Day this year we bought her father tickets to the "Guinness International Champions Cup" match here in Indianapolis on August 1st between Chelsea and Inter Milan. Hopefully they allow big lenses into the stands. Now I just need to start doing my homework to learn who the big name players are that I should be focusing on...

[Class A]

Anyway, allow me to play late at the Soccer party with the D800 + Sigma 100-300 f4.

Whoa, that lens shines on FF!

[zapp]

Whoa, that lens shines on FF!

Nice lens. What I do not like about it: It is useless on FF cameras - the thing many of us are waiting for. It weighs 810g which is heavy. I would be much happier with a f/2.8 version for the same price. It would be smaller and lighter and may be corrected better in bright light conditions as well as distortion/vignetting.

Soccerwise I would like to mention that I made even better images with Nikon F-801 and 2.8/180 15 years ago. Don't blame your equipment if thing are not in focus, practice, practice, practice....

[TimKierath]

Nice lens. What I do not like about it: It is useless on FF cameras - the thing many of us are waiting for. It weighs 810g which is heavy. I would be much happier with a f/2.8 version for the same price. It would be smaller and lighter and may be corrected better in bright light conditions as well as distortion/vignetting.

Dude, you just quoted someone saying "Nice lens" referring to the Sigma 100-300 f4 on a D800... and then you say "What I don't like about the lens is it's useless on FF cameras..."

??!! What? This guy just showed us some nice shots taken on a D800 - which is a FF.
I think what you have done is changed topics without informing us so, and that you are now talking about the 18-35 f1.8 - but the person saying "Nice lens" is talking about the 100-300 f4, which is a full frame lens.

[RonHendriks1966]

Funny that this turned into a 'show your soccer shots' thread for a while there, because I was just shooting a relative playing
in a soccer tournament today.

I'm in on this game.

So I had a photo exhibition about womens soccer earlier this year:
Photo Exhibition BeNe League womens soccer




With this Sigma lens you can make some images around the field"

[Franc]

not again :-(
;-)

[VladimirYo]

Stop posting useless pictures.