[Rover]

I'm wondering if it's acceptable on APS-H... I might sell my 16-35 II for it, and even pocket a couple hundred dollars.

[Klaus]

Markus is correct. I did not expect this lens to be significantly cheaper than the Tamron 24-70 (or even the Nikon/Canon MkI), due to the rather extreme design and unique market position. 

I think Sigma has made this lens quite attractive now. You can get a D7100 & the 18-35mm for only ~300€ more than a D600 without lens. 

 

Honestly I do not quite understand why there is so much excitement about this lens.

It is a 1.9x zoom and the equiv range (28-53mm) is hardly sexy.

But then I was also never into those fast, heavy standard lenses in the first place.

[Guest]

Honestly I do not quite understand why there is so much excitement about this lens.

It is a 1.9x zoom and the equiv range (28-53mm) is hardly sexy.

But then I was also never into those fast, heavy standard lenses in the first place.

 

It's for all those people that keep posting the question "Should I buy the 28mm f1.8, the 35mm f2.0, or the Sigma 30 f1.4". Now, no more dithering 

 

PS: a review appeared on slrgear, looks actually rather good.

[Brightcolours]

Why would anyone consider going to FF just for a standard zoom?

 

Anyhow, is a nice and impressive lens. But don't forget it only offers moderate wide angle to normal. No short telephoto like a FF 24-70mm, and no 24mm FF equivalent either.

 

Of course it is not an alternative for people looking for a standard prime. People looking for a standard prime are not looking for a big and heavy beast like this.

[felix]

Why would anyone consider going to FF just for a standard zoom?

 

Anyhow, is a nice and impressive lens. But don't forget it only offers moderate wide angle to normal. No short telephoto like a FF 24-70mm, and no 24mm FF equivalent either.

 

Of course it is not an alternative for people looking for a standard prime. People looking for a standard prime are not looking for a big and heavy beast like this.

 

I don't think anyone does.

 

However, one has to remember that there is currently nothing remotely like a 24-70/2.8 on APS-C (or 28-50/2.8, for that matter). 

And it may replace not only a standard prime, but actually three primes: 18/1.8, 24/1.8, 35/1.8 (good look finding a 18/1.8  ).

 

I think the combination 18-35 + 85/1.8 could be quite useful. It comes close to the classic 28/2.8, 50/1.8, 135/2.8 setup, but adds a 35/2.8 and only uses two lenses (not sure that's an argument, due to the Sigma's size and weight, but well..).

 

Just out of curiosity, I am wondering how big this thing would have been if it were designed for mirrorless APS-C cameras. Should have been quite a bit shorter, shouldn't it? Equally "fat" though...

[Brightcolours]

I don't think anyone does.

 

However, one has to remember that there is currently nothing remotely like a 24-70/2.8 on APS-C (or 28-50/2.8, for that matter). 

And it may replace not only a standard prime, but actually three primes: 18/1.8, 24/1.8, 35/1.8 (good look finding a 18/1.8  ).

 

I think the combination 18-35 + 85/1.8 could be quite useful. It comes close to the classic 28/2.8, 50/1.8, 135/2.8 setup, but adds a 35/2.8 and only uses two lenses (not sure that's an argument, due to the Sigma's size and weight, but well..).

 

Just out of curiosity, I am wondering how big this thing would have been if it were designed for mirrorless APS-C cameras. Should have been quite a bit shorter, shouldn't it? Equally "fat" though...

Well, it would still have to be a retro focus design (which camera has a flange distance of less than 18mm??)... So it probably would not be a whole lot shorter (see the 18-55 kit zooms on mirrorless lenses). 

 

Of course, I agree with you that some will find it very nice, especially in combination with that 85mm f1.8 (either Canon or Nikon). I even am sure that if someone were to give me that lens, I would enjoy using it.

[felix]

If Wikipedia is correct then EF-M is 18mm and Fuji X is 17.7mm.

[Brightcolours]

If Wikipedia is correct then EF-M is 18mm and Fuji X is 17.7mm.

Then they would need retro focus designs too..

[felix]

Ok... I guess you need some "headroom" for focussing ;-)

Maybe a 24-50 would be a simpler/smaller design then, but that's getting way off topic now..

[balacau]

After sending a number of emails and making a plea for information on Sigma's facebook page, a reply was finally issued and the Sigma UK site updated to show that the lens was to be made available in Sony (and Pentax) mount although date was yet to be announced.

 

I have to say I am interested in getting my hands on this lens.  The 18-35mm focal length does appeal to me as I do have a liking for wider than standard lenses and hopefully the F1.8 will do a decent job in low light conditions as well.  If it has less of a tendency to flare horribly like the Tamron 14mm F2.8 (a great bit of glass otherwise), I'll be most happy indeed.

 

Yes it will be a bit of a heavy lens to cart around (almost the weight of the legendary Minolta 70-210/4 BeerCan) but at F1.8 I would expect none different, infact before I read up on the statistics, I thought it'd be heavier.

 

Seems like it may be about £700 over here in the UK.