Sigma 18-35 for photos

[64mulford]

Hi everyone. I'm torn between getting the voightlander 25mm and the sigma 18-35/speed booster for gh4. I'm leaning more towards the Sigma but keen to hear people's experience in using this setup for stills. Is no autofocus a problem? Video is easy with peaking but a little concerned about stills. 

For I shoot hand held in video mostly and a little worried about shooting with the sigma handheld. Anyone else use handheld for video? I imagine wider would be ok.

[jase]

When I shot on MFT, i asked myself a similiar question: would I get used to the manual focus with the Voigtländer?

Short answer: yes, this lens is pure awesomeness. Of course it takes a bit of time to get used, but the Voigtländer is an awesome lens when you want to get into the manual realm for stills. In fact, i have never used an AF lens after getting the Voigtländer (stills & video) - only the 45-200 for the purposes this lens obviously serves for.

See my vimeo link in my signature - most of the clips I did with the Voigtländer, without any stabilisation. Works quite well if you are not too shaky.

[Fatalfury]

I'd get the Voigtländer or Lumix Summilux 25mm 1.4 if you need autofocus. Sigma is nice and all but it will be probably a hassle due to it's rather large size and hefty weight. If compabilty with other system is a concern id get a speedbooster and some legacy manual glass. Lens turbo plus for example Canon FD 35mm F2 (any version be it SSC or NFD) would make roughly a 25mm 1.4 and you have some spare cash to add more lenses to the speedbooster. For a single price of a Voigtländer you'd get the booster, 35mm f2, 50mm 1.4 and 135mm F2 in FD mount. If money doesn't pose a issue id suggest to get the real Metabones speedbooster, i believe there is a difference compared to the knockoffs, but it's not huge.

[Geoff CB]

Voigtländer, smaller and much better rendering. I personally don't care for the Sigma look.