[ploetzlich]

I pre-ordered the Nikon one. Mostly because I can use the Speedbooster Nikon -> MFT on my Blackmagic camera.

[Class A]

btw: Flare is as bad as lenstip describes. I like to shoot towards the sun...haven't decided whether this is a deal-breaker yet, the lens does everything else right. :/

The shots with the sun in them in your Flickr set look very good to me. I'd like to see another lens perform better in such circumstances.

Some great shots in your set!

This lens really seems to be an FA 31/1.8 killer. The latter for sure has the size and the nice build quality going for it. But optically, I don't think there is much of an advantage for the FA 31/1.8, if any.

[Andi Lo]

This lens really seems to be an FA 31/1.8 killer. The latter for sure has the size and the nice build quality going for it. But optically, I don't think there is much of an advantage for the FA 31/1.8, if any.

I'll believe that once I see the limited fairy dust in pictures from this lens

There's also the fact that FA lim is FF. Oh wait.

EDIT: Went to the flickr stream and I'm quite impressed. Sigma's done an amazing job with this lens.

[momotazur]

These reflect my own experiences with this lens on a Canon 7D, the AF would lock on without difficulty - exactly where the plane of focus was positioned was variable...sometimes by significant amounts, even with static subject matter. I personally think this is symptomatic of a lens with lowered contrast at wide apertures, which is one of the many reasons why AF systems are generally overly taxed by the use of fast lenses. There are also physical limitations of how heavy the lens elements in a lens can be because of the limited amount of torque AF motors can produce. The greater the weight the motors have to move the shorter the MTBF - I recall quite a few photographers complaining about the sigma 50mm f/1.4 HSM having a burnt out AF motor, there were also issues with the older version of the sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM burning out AF motors as well.

I am an amateur. I bought a sigma 35 f1.4 from amazon warehousedeals and found very similar focusing issues. I took quite a few photos of my kids. It is sharp at 1.4 and takes great photos. However, 60-70% of the times in moderate/low light/indoor situation it front focused. In good light situation it front focused about 10% of the time. If I shoot a wall (both high contrast or low contrast), it focused perfectly 100% times. These patterns were observed at aperture 1.4-2.0. I could live with this focusing issue as the IQ is great. Unfortunately, this is too big (bigger than a DA* 16-50) and I am spoiled by size of pentax primes. I decided to return it. I am also cancelling my pre-order of this lens. I have a feeling that sigma is delaying the shipment of this lens to resolve the focusing issue.

[normhead]

The shots with the sun in them in your Flickr set look very good to me. I'd like to see another lens perform better in such circumstances.

Some great shots in your set!

This lens really seems to be an FA 31/1.8 killer. The latter for sure has the size and the nice build quality going for it. But optically, I don't think there is much of an advantage for the FA 31/1.8, if any.

Recently having added the SIgma 8-16, Tamron 17-50 I'm becoming really conscious of size and weight. To be a 31 killer for me, it would have to be a smaller light weight lens. I leave the Sigma and Tammy home so often because of weight issues I'd have to say, this looks like a great studio lens. But most of us don't own a studio.

To buy this lens I'd have to completely rearrange my camera bag to fit it in. Not so with a 31 ltd. So for me, it's more of a yawn lens. If someone gave it to me, I'd find a place to use it. If someone gave me a 31, I'd sell my DA 35 2.4.There's already a place for the 31 waiting for it in my camera bag. You can only use so many big heavy lenses. The 18-35 would be fighting the 18-135 and Tammy 17-50 2.8 for bag space. Those are wider more useful zoom ranges.

If you're in the studio next to a case full of lenses you can pull out when needed, it makes a lot more sense. But I'm not sure that was ever where a 31 ltd was used. To be a 31 killer it has to do what a 31 does, which is travel nicely. And it doesn't.

[Andi Lo]

Recently having added the SIgma 8-16, Tamron 17-50 I'm becoming really conscious of size and weight. To be a 31 killer for me, it would have to be a smaller light weight lens. I leave the Sigma and Tammy home so often because of weight issues I'd have to say, this looks like a great studio lens. But most of us don't own a studio.

To buy this lens I'd have to completely rearrange my camera bag to fit it in. Not so with a 31 ltd. So for me, it's more of a yawn lens. If someone gave it to me, I'd find a place to use it. If someone gave me a 31, I'd sell my DA 35 2.4.There's already a place for the 31 waiting for it in my camera bag. You can only use so many big heavy lenses. The 18-35 would be fighting the 18-135 and Tammy 17-50 2.8 for bag space. Those are wider more useful zoom ranges.

If you're in the studio next to a case full of lenses you can pull out when needed, it makes a lot more sense. But I'm not sure that was ever where a 31 ltd was used. To be a 31 killer it has to do what a 31 does, which is travel nicely. And it doesn't.

I think the 18-35/1.8 is for people who find 17-50/2.8 and 35/2.4 kind of redundant, and dont use the 50mm end much. I can understand though if you dont find the 1.8 exciting (as we discussed in the other thread). I also never carry the FA 35 when I have Tamron 28-75 on the K-x. It's just not worth the space for the little extra 1/2 stop.

I can easily see people running two bodies setup with this lens: one with 18-35 and one DA 50/DA 50-135.

[Mock]

The shots with the sun in them in your Flickr set look very good to me. I'd like to see another lens perform better in such circumstances.

Some great shots in your set!

This lens really seems to be an FA 31/1.8 killer. The latter for sure has the size and the nice build quality going for it. But optically, I don't think there is much of an advantage for the FA 31/1.8, if any.

The DA 10-17 Fisheye is practically immune to flare, and is normally the lens I'd pull out for the types of wide shots where I put the sun in the frame. If I get this lens that would be it's weak point - every lens I've ever used has had a weak point somewhere...you learn to work around them.

You probably didn't see the big green crescent in the lower right corner of this photo: Muttart Greenhouses
The one photo by the riverside has some bodacious flare that is hidden among the rocks on the shore. Muddy Beach
Finally, I don't think I have any lens that has ever handled the night-shot with the parking lot and apartment building without flaring off that insanely bright streetlight.

I've never tried an FA 31 personally, but the rendering of this lens is similar to the DA* 55 f/1.4. I'm thinking the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, DA* 55, and (insert 85 f/1.4) will make for a fantastic, speedy kit.

----------------------------------------------------
momotazur:

I think it's premature to start talking about canceling orders based on these early reports. Sigma has built a truly high-grade lens for a bargain price - the great thing about these new lenses is the ability to update the lens firmware. If Sigma does realize there is a issue beyond simple front/back focus adjustments, then I would trust there would be a firmware upgrade to address it.

I never wanted a DA* 16-50/Tamron 17-50 for this range because they are:
a)slow (for a prime shooter)
b)bulky, and
c)poor wide open
The 18-35 f/1.8 may still be bulky, but this is the first zoom lens that can truly be called a "stack of primes" - a stack of amazing primes to boot. Most of the shots in that set were shot at f/1.8, which you can verify looking at the EXIF data.

The only thing this lens is missing is weather sealing.

---

Last edited by Mock; 09-16-2013 at 07:57 PM.

[Class A]

The 18-35 f/1.8 may still be bulky, but this is the first zoom lens that can truly be called a "stack of primes" - a stack of amazing primes to boot.

Exactly.

The toss up regarding what goes into a bag is not between one zoom (say the 18-35/1.8) and one prime (say the FA 31/1.8).
It is between one zoom and several primes. It is also between being able to just shoot or being forced to swap primes.

There are many situations in which the restriction to one (or a few) focal length(s) does not matter. There are also many situations in which you have all the time in the world to change lenses. As a matter of fact, it can be good to shoot with one or a few primes only.

However, there are many situations in which a "bag-of-primes" beats a bag of primes easily. The premiss being, of course, that you don't have to sacrifice IQ. I'm pretty sure that most pros would choose the "bag-of-primes" while many enthusiasts are happier with a bag of primes.

I'm so looking forward to comparisons between this Sigma 18-35/1.8 and the FA 31/1.8. I'm anticipating a very interesting "battle".

[Class A]

You probably didn't see the big green crescent in the lower right corner of this photo: Muttart Greenhouses

I actually didn't. It passes quite well as a garden hose, if you don't look too closely.

I noticed what appears to be a (almost rainbow coloured) flare spot at the roof edge.

But aren't almost all lenses producing artefacts like that when there is such a strong light source in (or just outside) the frame?
I think that it is important that the overall contrast remains good or very good (the Sigma seems to handle this part well) and that one simply has to live with a few artefacts. Lenses like your fisheye that can avoid these completely must be rare.

I've never tried an FA 31 personally, but the rendering of this lens is similar to the DA* 55 f/1.4.

I personally don't like the rendering of the DA* 55/1.4 in most of the shots I've seen and but so far liked everything I've seen from the Sigma 18-35/1.8.
So to my eyes, the rendering of the Sigma 18-35/1.8 appears to be close to that of the FA 31/1.8 and rather unlike that of the DA* 55/1.4.

[momotazur]

momotazur:

I think it's premature to start talking about canceling orders based on these early reports.

Okay. I will not cancel the order. I do not expect to be charged before the tax return anyway.

[Mock]

Exactly.

The toss up regarding what goes into a bag is not between one zoom (say the 18-35/1.8) and one prime (say the FA 31/1.8).
It is between one zoom and several primes. It is also between being able to just shoot or being forced to swap primes.

I concur. This lens will take the place of my 21, 28, 40, and 18-(xx) lenses. There were many times on my last vacation where I was unsure which of those 3 primes to grab for a wider shot, and the 21 was not wide enough sometimes (but 17 of the 10-17 was too wide), necessitating one of the 18mm zooms. Finally, none of those lenses were fast enough for grab shots walking around at night. Overall, I'll probably end up saving a bit of space in the bag.

I actually didn't. It passes quite well as a garden hose, if you don't look too closely.

I noticed what appears to be a (almost rainbow coloured) flare spot at the roof edge.

But aren't almost all lenses producing artefacts like that when there is such a strong light source in (or just outside) the frame?
I think that it is important that the overall contrast remains good or very good (the Sigma seems to handle this part well) and that one simply has to live with a few artefacts. Lenses like your fisheye that can avoid these completely must be rare.

Some lenses are better than others. I mentioned the 10-17 Fisheye, but the DA 15mm Limited is quite well-regarded for resisting flare as well. I have another fisheye for m4/3 (Bower 7.5mm) that also shows no flare.

In my experience with lenses covering a range similar to this (DA 18-55, DA 18-250, Sigma 18-125), usually the flare spots are small and easily removed - as if you had a few colourful bits of dust on your sensor. However with this Sigma, the flare spots are quite large in diameter, making removal rather difficult, if not impossible.

I will agree that this lens holds up in contrast very well considering the conditions. I had to sell the Sigma 18-125 because of that veiling flare you describe, which caused a massive loss of contrast, even when the sun was completely outside the frame.

I personally don't like the rendering of the DA* 55/1.4 in most of the shots I've seen and but so far liked everything I've seen from the Sigma 18-35/1.8.
So to my eyes, the rendering of the Sigma 18-35/1.8 appears to be close to that of the FA 31/1.8 and rather unlike that of the DA* 55/1.4.

This part of the discussion would be filled with subjective analysis, and to each their own.
If it means anything to the other readers, I love how the DA* 55 shoots, arguably my favourite lens, comparing the Sigma to it is meant as the most flattering commentary I can offer.

[MBT74]

The focus inconsistency is still a concern for me and is a reason why I won't preorder. Sure, Sigma could fix the issue via firmware update but they've also said that Pentx won't get the USB dock so how will our lenses be upgraded?

My priority may be different to others because missed focus for landscape can be retaken after checking the viewscreen. Missed focus in concert photography equals lost opportunity. You seldom get a 2nd chance. Especially when you only get 3 songs to get your job done. I think I'll wait til they've been out for a while and let others test the waters. Who knows, maybe Pentax will have released the Limited zoom or DA* zooms by then.

[Aristophanes]

The 18-35 f/1.8 may still be bulky, but this is the first zoom lens that can truly be called a "stack of primes" - a stack of amazing primes to boot. Most of the shots in that set were shot at f/1.8, which you can verify looking at the EXIF data.

Ah...yes. The ancient argument of primes vs. zooms.

Especially the "bulky" part (it's an SUV of a lens with a very short FL range).

DA 21/3.2 = 140g
DA 35/2.4 = 124g

Sigma = 810g

Oh, heck! ...let's throw a few more primes in just for the sake of it:

DA 40/2.8 = 90g
DA 15/4.0 = 212g
DA 70/2.4 = 130g

Nope...still not there. And one could do without either the 35 or 40.

So for a slight bit of speed and lot more flare, this "stack of primes" isn't really a stack of primes. Different philosophies of design, functional use, and market. There are always trade-offs. This Sigma is no different.

I heard this argument when shooting the Nikon 14-24 (1000g). After awhile, other arguments sound better as the marks on the shoulder accumulate.

[normhead]

I heard this argument when shooting the Nikon 14-24 (1000g). After awhile, other arguments sound better as the marks on the shoulder accumulate.

The guy with the D800 who was with me on this trip, really liked this shot....


But he didn't get it for himself... he decided his 14-24 was too heavy to carry that night. Oh well, he can always look at mine on photo bucket, taken with my half it's weight Sigma 8-16. I have trouble understanding Pentax users who don't comprehend the weight thing. Do you guys all shoot in studios? Do you guys honestly think you're going to walk around with a 2 pound lens around your neck? I do it sometimes, but it hurts. And as a general rule, I devise strategies to avoid pain.

[Andi Lo]

Ah...yes. The ancient argument of primes vs. zooms.

Especially the "bulky" part (it's an SUV of a lens with a very short FL range).

DA 21/3.2 = 140g
DA 35/2.4 = 124g

Sigma = 810g

Oh, heck! ...let's throw a few more primes in just for the sake of it:

DA 40/2.8 = 90g
DA 15/4.0 = 212g
DA 70/2.4 = 130g

Nope...still not there. And one could do without either the 35 or 40.

So for a slight bit of speed and lot more flare, this "stack of primes" isn't really a stack of primes. Different philosophies of design, functional use, and market. There are always trade-offs. This Sigma is no different.

I heard this argument when shooting the Nikon 14-24 (1000g). After awhile, other arguments sound better as the marks on the shoulder accumulate.

You have the wrong lenses on your list:

Sigma 20/1.8 (520 g)
Pentax 31/1.8 (345g)

Total (865g) - not so bad isn't it? I didnt throw in 24 and 28mm 1.8 because arguably you can just crop the 31mm.

Yes I know the they are both ff, but there's no APS versions of these lenses, probably because the savings is not worthwhile (case in point Nikon's 35mm aps is not much lighter than the FF version)

I find that on the lower FL side of things, if you need wide aperture, going prime is not really worthwhile as the zooms generally perform better, and they're not much bigger / heavier. Same case in point with the 14-24mm nikon.