Jump to content
Stab

Why is the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 still not surpassed?

Recommended Posts

After all these years, it is still the best lens to get for filmmakers who don't shoot full frame. Why do all the other camera manufacturers let this happen? And why isn't there still not anything better?

I mean, it is a great lens but it is not really wide and too short on the tele-end. The only thing which it has going for it is sharpness and the f1.8 aperture.

Why did Canon not make a similar lens? Why doesn't Nikon make a 16-40 f1.8 or f2? Why doesn't Tamron or Sigma themselves make a 18-50 f1.8?

Yes, most of them might be a bit heavier and more expensive, but for many of us I think a f1.8 zoom with a slightly longer range would be an instabuy. I just find it interesting that a 7-year old lens is still not surpassed.

What is your take on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

Lightning in a bottle is my guess. Sigma released it very early on into their new Art line - maybe the first or second lens. I wouldn't be surprised if they priced it barely above cost in order to attract a ton of people. Then, they were able to keep their margins due to the massive scale. Everyone that wants this lens has one, so I don't know if it would be wise for another manufacturer to even try their own version. They probably wouldn't be able to match the price:quality value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

Because no one cares about APSC except for Fuji.

I would be ready to pay a grand for a 18-35 follow-up with IS and possibly a little more range. But I fear you‘re right. None of the manufacturers seem to care about APSC in this time. 
While I have no intention to switch to fullframe anytime soon, many seem to do just that. So the market might just be to small...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that the market is too small. And like I said, the lens is great, but could be improved upon with a slightly wider and longer reach. 

But, I agree that recently a lot of manufacturers seem to switch to or offer more full frame camera's. But why are we still sticking to f2.8 zooms?

Canon has made a brilliant 28-70 f2, but that's about it. Yes, it is big and heavy. Sigma had a 24-35 f2 which was awesome but a little limited in range. 

I would be all over a sharp zoom with a constant f1.8 aperture in the let's say 22-45mm (full frame) range. Which should be doable without becoming too large and heavy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stab said:

After all these years, it is still the best lens to get for filmmakers who don't shoot full frame.

"Best"

Only true depending on how you define "best"
 

2 hours ago, Stab said:

Why did Canon not make a similar lens? Why doesn't Nikon make a 16-40 f1.8 or f2?

ha, Nikon still needs to complete their trior of f2.8 DX lenses! (which will now NEVER happen)

They've only got their Nikon 17-55m f2.8G

This is an issue Thom Hogan hammers away at. 

A few of MANY times has commentated on this:

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-2016-news/february-2016-nikon-news/buzz-buzz-dx-lenses-.html
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-2018-news/august-2018-nikon-news/whats-up-with-dx.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IronFilm said:

"Best"

Only true depending on how you define "best"
 

Ok agreed, I got carried away. Maybe 'affordable, high image quality and constant f1.8' are less subjective and explain why the lens is so succesful. I mean, it must be. I'm on several camera forums / groups and have seen so many video's shot with it and it always gets recommended for people with an aps-c or mft camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Stab said:

I doubt that the market is too small. And like I said, the lens is great, but could be improved upon with a slightly wider and longer reach. 

But, I agree that recently a lot of manufacturers seem to switch to or offer more full frame camera's. But why are we still sticking to f2.8 zooms?

Canon has made a brilliant 28-70 f2, but that's about it. Yes, it is big and heavy. Sigma had a 24-35 f2 which was awesome but a little limited in range. 

I would be all over a sharp zoom with a constant f1.8 aperture in the let's say 22-45mm (full frame) range. Which should be doable without becoming too large and heavy.

I‘m with you, such a lens would be great! But look how big, heavy and expensive the 28-70 F2 and the 24-35 F2 are already. So for fullframe a 22-45 F1.8 would probably be gigantic.
Now for apsc it’d probably be doable. But who other than video shooters would pay a premium price for such a lens? Not the casual hobby photographer that paid 300-600 for a slr/milc and is happy with a kit-zoom...

Look at the cameras canon and sony offer for apsc: nothing there gives hope for a high quality lens such as the sigma 18-35 or canons now very old but still great 17-55 F2.8 IS... 

But still the sigma 1.8-zooms are the two lenses i love most. Great IQ, very easy to pull manual focus without a follow focus but also with good working AF (on canon cameras). Only downside for me is the lack of IS and the heavy breathing of the 50-100. 

My hope is for falling prices on S35 cine lenses when everybody moves to fullframe...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Michi said:

I‘m with you, such a lens would be great! But look how big, heavy and expensive the 28-70 F2 and the 24-35 F2 are already. So for fullframe a 22-45 F1.8 would probably be gigantic.
Now for apsc it’d probably be doable. But who other than video shooters would pay a premium price for such a lens? Not the casual hobby photographer that paid 300-600 for a slr/milc and is happy with a kit-zoom...

Look at the cameras canon and sony offer for apsc: nothing there gives hope for a high quality lens such as the sigma 18-35 or canons now very old but still great 17-55 F2.8 IS... 

But still the sigma 1.8-zooms are the two lenses i love most. Great IQ, very easy to pull manual focus without a follow focus but also with good working AF (on canon cameras). Only downside for me is the lack of IS and the heavy breathing of the 50-100. 

My hope is for falling prices on S35 cine lenses when everybody moves to fullframe...

Yea that last thing you said could be great.

And I guess size and weight are relative. I mean, a Sigma 18-35 isn't heavy or big by any means if you compare it to really big and heavy lenses. The Sigma 24-35 is about the same size and weight, maybe 10% heavier. 

The Canon 28-70 f2 is indeed pretty big but still easily managable. It's about 1.5 kg. A constant f2 zoom of about 22-45 shouldn't be bigger than that, I think. I'm not sure what makes that lens so big. Is it the the wide range or the long reach which is responsible for that?

Anyway, I just find it interesting that '3rd party' manufacturers come up with stuff which the big ones don't. And they don't even try to compete. Like Sirui now with the anamorphic 50mm f1.8. Supposedly it is very sharp. So, apparently, it was possible all this time to produce a sharp and affordable anamorphic lens. Why didn't anyone bother? I'm sure it will sell like hot cakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Stab said:

I just find it interesting that '3rd party' manufacturers come up with stuff which the big ones don't.

Very true. Maybe lazyness of canon/sony/nikon? Or other priorities like reducing size, weight... 

21 minutes ago, Stab said:

I'm not sure what makes that lens so big. Is it the the wide range or the long reach which is responsible for that?

I have no actual knowledge about this things but considering how rare and/or big fast wide angle lenses are I‘d assume the wider part of such zooms is the challenge (anything from 11-18mm)? 
Maybe someone with mor knowledge can chime in...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Michi said:

Very true. Maybe lazyness of canon/sony/nikon? Or other priorities like reducing size, weight... 

I have no actual knowledge about this things but considering how rare and/or big fast wide angle lenses are I‘d assume the wider part of such zooms is the challenge (anything from 11-18mm)? 
Maybe someone with mor knowledge can chime in...

I would think so too. But then, the Sigma 50-100 f1.8 is pretty big as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Stab said:

the Sigma 50-100 f1.8 is pretty big as well.

True that. Maybe it‘s the wide aputure combined with the zoom-factor that affects size exponentially?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shooting with it yesterday on a C300 II and I had the same thought - really wanted it to be longer. It's just too limiting, but the f1.8 aperture is too good to pass up. 16-55 f2 would be amazing, but I'd take an 18-50mm f2 in a heartbeat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ricardo Constantino said:

I just wish they make an E-Mount soon :(

At least with Sony You could buy something like a Sigma 16mm 1.4 and use clear image zoom and you have a 16-32 1.4 zoom in effect with little loss of image quality for video and jpeg stills.      I have it set with the down button on my Sony A7s and then use the left/right buttons to zoom in and out (on the little NEX-3N it works from the zoom switch like a P&S camera) Works great with all lenses but with things like the 55 1.8 and FD 24 1.4 it is fun.       On really fast lenses like an 85 1.2 at 1.2 it is too shallow to use while filming (for me anyway) and even 1.8 FF would be something i would zoom first then use rather than zoom while shooting.

I wish all manufacturers would allow something like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michi said:

I have no actual knowledge about this things but considering how rare and/or big fast wide angle lenses are I‘d assume the wider part of such zooms is the challenge (anything from 11-18mm)? 
Maybe someone with mor knowledge can chime in...

I have only surface level knowledge, but any time your lens is longer than your FFD, you'll need extra lens elements to provide a "reverse telephoto." For example, an 18mm lens on an EF mount 44mm from the sensor. The extra elements introduce aberrations, which require more elements to correct, and so on. Add to that the complexity of making a zoom lens in the first place, and you quickly rack up size and cost.

That's one reason there are smaller wide angle lenses made exclusively for mirrorless mounts, such as the SLR Magic MicroPrimes.

On the telephoto end, it's simply the sheer size of the lens elements required. As focal length increases, the physical size of the aperture also increases to achieve the same f-stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a lens that heavy, I'd expect some stabilization so that really hurts it.

  

1 hour ago, nathlas said:

Ι had same thoughts so many times.

 

Then I have a look on this comparison and forget everything.

Cool comparison, thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...