Jump to content

Return 12-35 varo x for sigma 18-35?


Dearborn

Recommended Posts

I was in a budget crunch and went with the Panasonic 12-35 lens cause it was 200 off bundled with the gh4, but I'm shooting at really high isos inside. This leads me to think about returning it for the sigma f1.8 18-35 +xl metabones speedbooster. Problem with that I've considered getting a handled stabilizer which wouldn't support the weight of the sigma. So I'm hesitant to return the lens cause it was 200 off plus I could use it with a stabilizer not to mention it has ois and the sigma doesn't. That makes me think maybe I should get lighting instead. I don't know. Would it be completely redundant to have both lenses for practical use? What would you recommend? What value minded light setups are there that you'd recommend? Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I have the Sigma 18-35 and it's my besty. I can't say enough about this lens, but keep in mind that even though it's F1.8, it's more like a T2.8. Now with the Speedbooster you will get another stop of light, but you're gonna spend another couple/few hundred bucks for that. But I do love the sigma and I think in the long run that lens is more practical as you can use it on more cameras. 

Can't go wrong with lighting better though. If that's within your budget, you should do that anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonesy I think you might have a bad copy if yours is like T2.8. Mine is about T2 and slightly brighter than that at 28mm. 

Dearborn, if you want to be able to use that stabiliser then I would recommend lighting. In fact i would recommend lighting anyway. I use Aputure Amaran AL-H160. I have four of these little mothers. I use them on lighting tripods and sometimes with reflective umbrellas. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is T mean? The 12-35 is a f2.8, so is that a higher T value or the same as the sigma with speedbooster?

I looked into that video light. It says it's 270lux at 6ft. How many lux would equal a stop in iso? Right now I was just using a house lamp and shooting 10ft away with a tripod using iso3200 and I still ended up increasing the gamma, gain, and offset.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is T mean? The 12-35 is a f2.8, so is that a higher T value or the same as the sigma with speedbooster?

I looked into that video light. It says it's 270lux at 6ft. How many lux would equal a stop in iso? Right now I was just using a house lamp and shooting 10ft away with a tripod using iso3200 and I still ended up increasing the gamma, gain, and offset.

Transmission. Link: http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sigma-18-35mm-F1.8-DC-HSM-A-Canon-mount-lens-review-fixed-focal-length-quality-in-a-zoom/Sigma-18-35mm-DC-HSM-A-Canon-lens-performance

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonesy I think you might have a bad copy if yours is like T2.8. Mine is about T2 and slightly brighter than that at 28mm. 

I thought so too. So I ordered another copy only to find the same results. It may be slightly better than T2.8, barely, but not by much. Check out my post on this. http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/8536-is-the-sigma-18-35-18-really-18/?page=1

I also did more tests but was just too lazy to post the results, but they were all the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's the case there wouldn't be that much of a difference from the 12-35 f2.8, or would there? I'm asking about the sigma f1.8 with the xl speedbooster?

I suspect the 12-35 is not a T2.8. My suspicion (I've tested this a bit too) is that most zooms suffer higher light loss than primes, but I wouldn't know what it's transmission is, as I don't have that lens. However, with the Speedbooster you will DEFINITELY get a stop more light with the Sigma (probably very close to T1.8), but again, that's an additional co$t.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On a low budget would I be crazy to get the sigma f1.8 and xl speed booster and keep the f2.8 zoom to use on a stabilizer later like when the came single 2 or pilotfly h2 comes out? Or should I just shoot 3200 iso. Would it be worth it to have to switch lenses all the time to shoot at 800iso? Keep in mind the tripod I have is cheap and needs replacing plus the need for a video or ball head, I'd have to get another nd and uv filter, have to get editing software cause elements 13 doesn't work. I have no real lighting, but don't necessarily want a bunch of lighting gear. Or I could get a stabilizer now though I find issues with each of them to were I'd want them to be. Do you think the lens would be a better long term investment?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case, giving advice is easy - go with lighting. Keep your 12-35mm. It's an awesome, crisp, beautiful lens. If you are looking for bokeh, you'll want to invest in longer lenses at some point, if you haven't already done so. I've read that the old Nikkor AIS lenses and a cheap Chinese adapter from eBay are a good place to start. Good, inexpensive stabilizers are becoming more common. Came is supposed to be good, according to Cheesy Cam. I have a Nebula 4000 and haven't even used it yet because it was so difficult to balance. Maybe a tool-less stabilizer is the way to go. BTW, I don't believe what I've read here about the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 + Metabones being only T 1.8. It has got to be very close to  T 1.1, because it is very bright. But it is a very heavy, unbalanced setup and will require a rig of some sort. That is not true of the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 lens - but the Sigma is optically superior.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, I don't believe what I've read here about the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 + Metabones being only T 1.8. It has got to be very close to  T 1.1, because it is very bright.

Have you tested this next to more than 1 Prime lens? I have, with 2 different copies of the Sigma 18-35 against 2 different primes. Same results. The Sigma is more like a T2.8 or slightly better at best. With the booster its going to be close to T1.8. Again maybe slightly better. T1.4? Maybe. Definitely not T1.1. 

I would happily admit that I'm wrong though. I'd love to know that my lens is faster than I think it is. My love for this lens would only increase. If you have run any tests regarding this I'd love to see them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

so essentially 11.5-22.5mm with XL?

With the Speed Booster XL, the Sigma 18-35mm becomes a 27-52.5mm f/1.1 lens (when shooting 4K).

With a Speed Booster XL you would get 18mm x 0.64 = 11.5mm.

Brian - Don't you multiply the focal length by 1.5 when using the Speed Booster XL 0.64 when shooting 4K on the GH4?

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...