Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN for X-mount announced
#1
https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/c021_18_50_28/
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#2
I sold my Fuji 16-80 f4 to finance it :-)
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#3
Remember there used to be a Sigma 18-50/2.8 back in the days. :-) It wasn't very popular though; everyone had the hots for the Tamron 17-50 instead (my best friend has that one, incidentally).
#4
(11-15-2022, 06:53 AM)Rover Wrote: Remember there used to be a Sigma 18-50/2.8 back in the days. :-) It wasn't very popular though; everyone had the hots for the Tamron 17-50 instead (my best friend has that one, incidentally).

Those were the good days of APS-C and peak camera sales, however the old 18-50 has a ferocious competition from OEM lenses by Canon and Nikon that were vastly superior. mainly the Canon offering that was stabilized.
Sigma wasn't as good as it is now or at least was still building its good reputation, which didn't help, competition didn't come from Tamron.
Besides Sigma made some popular lenses that competed well with 18-50 and sold very well, I think of Sigma 17-70f2.8-4 that had longer reach and 2.8 in its name, they  also made 18-125 and even made a cheap competitor for the kit lens....
So the old Sigma 18-50f2.8 as a high end flagship lens had severe competition from OEM offering, and more important in  house competition mainly from 17-70f2.8 rather from Tamron.
#5
Well, I know there was the Canon 17-55/2.8 IS - after all it was my first Canon lens - but it was very expensive in comparison to the STT (Sigma-Tamron-Tokina) alternatives. Not as bad considering that it had IS and the honest-to-god ultrasonic motor, but still. I bought it to use professionally, but for a hobbyist on a budget, it was surely a hard sell.
#6
Just curious - did you consider the 17-70? An 18-50mm feels a little too limiting in my book. However, I probably couldn't live without "24mm" at the wide end.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#7
The Tamron is great optically: good range, bright, very sharp. However, it's biggest flaw for me is its very large size (longer than the Fuji 16-55 for instance).
Also, its bokeh seems very busy.
On the other hand, the Sigma 18-50 is bright and very compact which is what I value the most these days.
Sure, the range is limited, but at the moment I mostly shoot with 3-4 primes: Fuji 18 f2, Viltrox 23 f1.4, Fuji 35 f1.4 and sometimes the Sigma 56 f1.4.
So the range covered by these lenses is enough for me.
I think the Sigma 18-50 along the Fuji 14 f2.8 and either 23 or 35 f1.4 would be perfect for me.
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#8
I'm a bit torn regarding Fujifilm at the moment.

The X-H2 is darn cheap here in Oz at the moment. However, it's also as big as a Sony A7R x. The Fuji 16-55mm is tempting ... but then again ... it's as big as the Sony 24-105mm G.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#891.448,898.681,ha,t

Thus while I really like the new Fujis, there's a question of where's the point.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#9
(11-15-2022, 10:59 PM)Klaus Wrote: Just curious - did you consider the 17-70? An 18-50mm feels a little too limiting in my book. However, I probably couldn't live without "24mm" at the wide end.

The 17-70 doesn't cut it anyway if you need 24mm equivalent. So you would need a second, wider lens anyway.

In my worldview, the (ugly?) truth is that no one I know actually is content with having a 24-xx zoom as their widest lens (normalizing to FF for simplicity's sake). The local AFP shooter is the most conservative - she's using a Nikon 20/2.8 lens in addition to the 24-70/2.8 (on a D5 or D6). The rest all have at least the Canon 17-40 or Nikon 17-35, but mostly lenses with the 16-35mm FL (if not the Nikon 14-24 or the Olympus 7-14). And once you add an ultrawide, the 1mm at the widest side of your actual standard zoom start to have a bit less meaning...

Answering your question "where's the point". Fuji is a good, mature system. I was seriously considering it for a while (yet ended up with Nikon Z, but that's not to say that Fuji X is not capable in any way. Most likely my decision swung this way because Nikon Z was better accommodating to my existing Canon lenses).
#10
I don't want to dispute the existence of any system - who am I to do that anyway.

However, I'm wondering about differentiation.

High-end APS-C is basically as big as mid-level FF.

An X-T5 with an 18-55mm seems to make more sense in the grand scheme of things. Or an OM-5 w/12-45mm
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)