BEST CANON LENS for APS-C!! Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 Lens Review
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 06. 2024
- Buy it for $599 at SDP.io/S1850
Tony Northrup reviews the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 contemporary lens for Canon RF-S cameras including the Canon R100, R50, R10 and R7. He tests the sharpness (which isn't noteworthy; it's similar to the kit lens) the autofocusing capabilities, the stabilization (which it lacks but is important to understand). The biggest benefit of this lens is the faster bokeh; it's a constant f/2.8 lens, compared to the Canon kit lens which is f/4.5-f/6.3. That means it gathers more than 5X more light at the long end, producing significantly more bokeh and cleaner images in low light.
0:00 Introduction
2:18 f/2.8 Aperture: Low-light & Bokeh
3:17 Sharpness
4:00 Stabilization
5:49 Summary - Věda a technologie
Hope they do another 18-35mm f1.8!
I was hoping it would be one of the first. Maybe an updated one with a little better range, or maybe OS. Great lens!
$600 for a higher end APS-C lens isn't bad. I couldn't really tell how sharp it was; neither of the lenses seemed all that sharp, but I do know that the kit lens is surprisingly sharp, even on the R7. I'd be tempted to get this if I didn't have faster primes already, including the incredibly sharp Sigma EF 30MM f/1.4. But if I wasn't aiming for a very specific shot in Disneyland, i.e., the interior of the lines at Star Tours, I'd be picking up this lens right now! I have the 50MM f/1.2 to get those shots and the R5 to attach to it. BUT! This would be an AWESOME lens to take around, especially since that 50MM is a BEAST! Sigma hits a home run the first time up at bat! Good job, Sigma!
Yep. I spent about that much on the Sony Zeiss 16-70 F/4 APSC lens back in the day so this seems like a nice value.
I have a sigma 18-35mm on my canon r50..pretty versatile.
Im waiting for the sigma 10-18 2.8 that lens will be the gamechanger on canon aps-c and a must have
I hope it doesn't have the same issue with AF being lost while zooming. I never really looked into these lenses for the other mounts, does anyone know if that is the case?
Content Suggestion - a segment on the pros and cons of shooting on film vs shooting on digital.
Your opinions, at this point in photo history, would be very interesting.
Thank you.
I used to use Canon (XS, T2i, 7D, 5DIII) with mixed of "L" and 3rd party lenses because the vast options of Canon & 3rd party choices. I switched to Fuji for mirrorless due to Canon did not have anything good back than and the DSLR kit was getting too heavy to carry around all the time. Though of Sony but their "Trinity" GM v1 lenses was still heavy with so so optical IQ vs Canon "L" lenses. Fast forward to 3 years ago I wanted to return back to full frame and Canon was the first one I was hoping to go back to; however, once I found out they don't have any 3rd party lenses and Sony has the most 3rd party lens support... Sony became my new system of choice. As an event photographer who also was working in a camera store for years I knew the importance of having more options on lenses is more important than the constant deprecating value of a pre-released new camera model and thanks to inflation rate I got all my Fuji lenses investment back when selling them because lenses losses value much less than camera bodies. Thanks to Canon's decision my first Sony lens was the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-f/2.8 (with APS-C crop mode it's 35-225mm) and this lens breaks the tradition need of purchasing "Trinity" lenses and live on my camera 99% of the time during event photography except indoor sports photography events which I ended up purchased 70-200mm GM II & 135 f/1.8 GM for extra reach and shutter speed with great IQ.
Regarding this lens, thank you for the review and I believe it's matter of time that manufacture will have to put f/2.8 kit lenses to compete with the smartphone market who are using computational photography with f1.8 & f/1.2 lenses and 40+ MP sensors with electronic shutter that eventually all will be stacked if they want to get the new generations to build interest on the interchangeable lens cameras systems in the future.
Is there anyway you can upload a video clip using this lens + R7? I want to see how good the IBIS works in video mode with this lens. The reason I ask is because the R7's IBIS is notoriously bad in video mode with third party EF lenses. I'm hoping that isn't the case with this lens.
Hope to hear back ! whats your thoughts on trading in the ef 18-35mm art lens and rf 50mm lens for this lens? the art lens is lovely but pretty heavy and big big
They need to do an APS-C F1.8 or F2 version of this.
I feel like that wouldn't happen in this specific focal range. I could see them (and secretly hope they do) doing their 18-35mm F1.8 for RF and others. I could also see something happening from them or Tamron like the 35-150mm F2-2.8, but in a more APS-C-esque range, like 18-70mm or something. All of it would be welcome!
How will firmware be updated? Does the Canon/Sigma truce mean that will come along with camera firmware updates?
I’d like to add another request for a serious comparison between this lens and the old sigma 17-50 2.8. Like others, I use this lens adapted, and could use sober advice on whether it’s worth switching. Thanks!
I have this lens in a E mount for my Sony A6600 and it is a great little lens. I also own a Canon R7 and want a decent walk around lens, so I will be buying this lens. I just hoe this lens is not to expensive !
The only other 3rd Party RF with AF is the forbidden 85 f/1.8 from Viltrox. It's actually really good.
Pretty sure there was a 50mm as well that also got shut down. And I think a 24mm pancake? But I don't recall if it had AF. But there is def one other lenses for RF with AF from a 3rd party. Just no where near as sought after as that 85mm. And I think it was an F1.4.
@@kevindiaz3459 Have it on the desk here 1.8 RF, wish I got my hands on those other 2 lenses though.
Send me some of your old lenses I promise to use and love them
Already switched to Fujifilm for APS-C
Hi Tony. Could you do me favour? Can you verify this: attach your Sigma 18-50/2.8 on a fullframe RP or R5 R8 R6 ... and tell me, does it FORCE the 1.6 crop automatically like it would with Canon EF-S, RF-S ? Or can you choose to shoot FF with vignetting ? Thanks.
It would be interesting if it cropped in, but I think that means losing resolution as well. And on an R6 you don't have much to play with.
Of course, shooting with a strong vignette has its drawbacks as well. I think either way you're losing resolution.
Are you hoping to find a budget alternative to a 24-70 to use on your full frame camera?
@@swistedfilms I HOPE that it does NOT crop in by force but let us users choose... I have been shooting crop-sensor lenses on fullframe bodies for several years... by choice ... e.g. the Sigma 16mm 1.4 in Sony E-mount on A7S2 ... or I also shoot Sigma EF 20mm 1.4 with a speedbooster 0.71 at 14mm 1.0 with vignetting, no problem, there's lots of ways to deal with vignetting... And it dooesn't bother me to start with. But Canon's firmware does not allow me to use EF-S ( adapted ) on fullframe in FF mode or other aspect ratios, it is forced to 1.6 with no other choice, and on top of that you loose certain video functions. On RP with EF-S you loose all 1080p FHD video. On R6, R8 you loose highspeed 120fps slowmotion video , only because the 1.6 crop is enforced. ... Note that I have found a cheap easy way to hack that Canon enforced 1.6 crop, so I DO shoot fullframe with my Canon EF-S 10-18mm and I DO shoot 1080p video on RP with EF-S ... loosing half the MP is not important for me. Resolution is not important ( I have R5, R5C , too, but not only for resolution ). There is still way more than enough for web publishing and 4K video. I just want to freedom to choose creatively. e.g. if you shoot a photo with strong vignette , edit in 1:1 ratio for Instagram. ... so I am curious to see if Sigma's lenses will also force the 1.6 crop without freedom to choose or will we be free to choose and shoot more creatively . I am perticularly looking forward to the Sigma 16mm 1.4 which I already use on Sony E fullframe. Also looking forward to Sigma's 10-18mm 2.8 .
P.S. there are lots of 3rd party lenses that do NOT force the crop... there are also lots of 3rd party RF lenses out there , just without autofocus, but very affordable and ultrafast, f/0.95
@@OlivierStaiger I don't think I've ever seen someone do intentional EF-S lenses on FF, so that's a unique style.
If you've got a camera shop near you then they might have a demo that you can try out. And you can try calling Adorama and seeing what they have to say. They'll definitely have an open box for testing.
I'm guessing it will force crop mode. I know in the past Sigma lenses did not do that, but that was before Canon FF cameras could use crop lenses and had no crop mode. You could use third party lenses on a Canon FF because they didn't do anything different than just a normal EF mount. That is no longer the case, and while I am sorry I can't say for sure but I would not hold my breath on it.
Another reviewer tested this, it automatically sets the crop factor
please make an Nikon zf vs xt5 video please. Adapt some vintage lenses on the both of them, which one would you choose? I have a canon 5dmiii, and since canon doesnt have a retro camera like even Panasonic has is a shame. I think this would be a fun video idea
I can answer that as someone who has used both. Those are a completely different class of camera. The X-T5 is technically a better camera with better features, but is also significantly more expensive. The nikon has the advantage of nikon's excellent wildlife glass, especially the PF series lenses that Fuji does not have in their lineup. Fuji has a more complete lineup of regular APSC glass, particularly their own 1st-party glass, although Nikon is slowly catching up through third party lenses.
My main question about the APS-C RF mount lenses I have seen thus far is, if the manufacturers gave these lenses barrels that covered the actual mount, could they pack in things like better image stabilization, brighter apertures, or even sharper optical formulas? As most look now, they all have these barrels that taper from the mount opening, which makes me wonder if we could have seen an 18-50 f/2 if there were no manufacturing limitations from Canon. As I currently understand it, Sigma has to have every lens design approved by Canon for support of the RF mount.
In theory, yes, but practically, no. The only reason these lenses taper inward is because Sigma is not going to redesign their existing lenses for Sony E and Fuji X from scratch when they can reuse the same optical design and parts, and reduce R&D costs. And when other 3rd party lens manufacturers follow suit, I don’t expect them to make larger lenses just for the sake of filling out the RF mount.
@@cranemon, I am sure Sigma are recycling designs, but I am not sure that is the reason. If you look at Canon's native RF-S lenses, they also do this, as do Nikon's. Canon and Nikon have given themselves an advantage with choosing larger mount diameters than Sony and Fuji, so why are they constraining their APS-C lenses to these small diameters that force them to go to variable apertures of, say, 6.3? At that point, you have an equivalence of f/9ish on full frame, which is in Micro 4/3's territory for aperture but with 3/4's as much reach. Canon knows how to make 3.5-5.6 18-55's, but now they take away 10mm of reach and darken the aperture by 1/3 stop+ as the tax to break into the mirrorless system! I think the manufacturers are doing this for ultimate size and weight consideration, but I think Canon and Nikon should really leverage their mount size superiority in this arena.
@@tylerdoestech I wish Canon had just stayed with the M mount for APS-C, and continued that line of cameras. Why not? The lenses, and 3rd party compatibility, were already there.
@@tylerdoestech The mount isn’t really constraining anything. Fuji and Sony have f/2.8 telephoto zooms. Sigma even make f/1.8 zooms for the E mount. The diameter of the mount has never actually constrained the diameter of the lens because they’ll just taper the lens body outward to make it all fit.
He forgot to mention the crop factor and equivalence.
The Sigma 18-50mm F2.8. surely is an OK lens, though I still prefer the Tamron 17-70mm, alongside the Tamron 11-20, BOTH F2.8, which are amazing lenses giving me an amazing range at top quality
Can this be used on Rf mounts with an Ef Adapter?
This is an RF mount lens. You dont need an EF adapter.
Based on the singularly rave reviews this lens has received on Sony, Fujifilm bodies, there's no reason to doubt that it will be an excellent performer on Canon RF system apsc bodies.
Wonder if Sigma will be able to release any additional apsc glass for the Canon RF system ?
Not at all clear why this lens received "permission' from Canon to launch on the RF system- this appears to be the only 3rd party lens to be available, yes, appreciate it is an apsc lens- what about ff?
More Sigma and Tamron RF-S lenses coming in fall 2024 and onwards, like the Sigma 10-18mm f2.8 and the 16mm, 23mm, 30mm, 56mm f1.4
The news of Sigma and Tamron releasing RF lenses has been around a bit; I found it on their site but I had to search for it. Sigma has plans for at least 6 lenses, most of which are just carry overs from lenses they made for other mounts. You can find them on the Sigma site. Here is a list....
-18-50mm F2.8
-10-18mm F2.8 (kinda interested)
-16mm F1.4 (the one I am most excited for)
-23mm F1.4
-30mm F1.4
-56mm F1.4
Site says some will release later this year and others to follow next year.
@@kevindiaz3459 They are all not so recent releases and have been highly reviewed. Would make excellent additions to the (?) Canon apsc line.
personally, I think bokeh is overhyped - all it says is "hey, I can afford this more expensive lens", while I appreciate this may be a better lens than the kit lens, I would use an aperture that also has the background in focus, especially for video - I hate blurry backgrounds - except for when you can totally obliterate the background and it is just color, like in some bird and wildlife photography
Seeing the sharpness of the Canon kit lens matching the Sigma honestly surprised me.
Same here. I’m getting the impression the IQ is on par with but not better than the Ef-s 17-50 2.8. This new lens seems lighter but not better. And it’s probably not nearly as sharp as the 18-35 1.8.
How is it different from canon 17-55 2.8 Is Usm? If I have the canon, is it worth the change to the sigma for the R7? Is a comparison between these two possible?
If you already have the canon 17-55mm f2.8, it's not worth switching, IMHO. I have the sony version and ive had tbe canon 17-55 on dlsrs in the past. The IQ on the sigma is slightly better and snaller/lighter, but the canon has IS and slightly wider focal range.
I think that will be a common comparison, at least initially. One thing for sure this lens is smaller and has a much better min focus. It does not have OS though, but on the R7 you have IBIS, which we won't know how well that works until more people have them in hand. The Canon lens has a better overall focal range, not sure if that will be a big difference or not, likely not in this class of lens. Honestly, I think Canon has plans for a similar lens, you can probably hold out until then. If a need arises to replace your lens before that happens, the Sigma will probably be ok. Oh, I did see in one of the other reviews that it does not continue to focus as you zoom, which will be a deal breaker for video shooters and possibly some photo shooters. You have to stop focusing and start again if you zoom. Maybe firmware can fix that? I think the lens has the same issue on the Sony and Fuji mount versions, and since it almost certainly is the same lens with an RF mount/firmware, I'd think anything about it that is true for those mounts is probably going to be true about this one. Optically, I would hope the newer lens will outperform the Canon, but again, until more people have them we won't know.
I would think if you are getting what you need from your Canon lens then there probably is no reason to "trade up" so to say. At least not immediately.
I sold my ef-s 17-55 to buy this sigma lens because of the size and weight difference of them. The ef-s is thiccc! that made me leaving it at home most of the time and use the rfs 18-150 instead.
@@christof4105 Because of the weight difference and IS, the Canon ef-s 17-55mm f/2.8 will be a better choice for handheld video. Canon still selling the ef-s 17-55mm f/2.8 for $879
@@LatinPerspective. As far as i know, the IS of the ef-s lens doesn´t work together with the R7´s IBIS, so you only get IS from the lens. (The IS hand symbol on the display doesn´t have the + symbol). The weight might be favorable for videographers, but to be honest, who buys a 20 years old ef-s lens for video? The focus and zoom rings are horrible! The image quality is still quite good, even on the 32mpix of the R7 but still not as good as the Sigma.
Would you say that dedicated cameras, even with a kit lens, has way nicer colours than phones?
Yes but you can and should shoot raw with smartphones
@@TonyAndChelseaRaw or proraw with iPhones?
Does Sigma still make the 18-35 f1.8 lens for apc-s cameras?
They do
i have it - ef canon 18-35 - thinking of trading it in for this lens - not to sure yet. the 18-35 is so big and heavy since i have to use the ef adaptor
@@joemike_8725 I have the lens for my 70 D Have not moved over to mirrorless.
@@joemike_8725That 18-35 is a gem…sometimes referred to as the sharpest zoom lens ever made. I’ll never get rid of it!
Sup Tony! It’s 2:06 only with auto focus. They only blocked it with AF.
I can’t imagine anyone buying canon kit lenses anymore after this unless they really have zero budget or only going to do street photography only in day light or they’re only looking for something slight better than their phones.
Statistics are big jargon. U can put up the way u like it
I noticed that you are making HDR videos now!
I noticed it too and I can’t stand it 😂
if you know of a good place to go to for tips and tricks and process HDR video, please let me know.
Tony and Chelsea - if you were to compare Canon to a tech company would you say they were an Apple or a Mircosoft?
I think they've alluded to Canon being more similar to Apple before. I feel bad because I'm so anti Apple but I'm an avid Canon user myself. Once you get into their ecosystem it's hard to get out, plus, idc what anyone says, Canon has a far wider variety in their products and more options. More lenses. Sure they were slow on mirrorless but look how long they had the most options for the DSLR market and now they're quickly catching up.
As an IT person I should mention, Microsoft is really more a tech company. I'd be comparing Canon to Apple or Samsung and then Adobe to Microsoft, except Adobe is a lot harsher with their subscriptions and is now doing some really anti consumer crap, so. But yeah personally Canon is very much like Apple with their marketing and how they try to convince everyone they're the first/the best etc. While I think Canon does have more a claim to that than Apple, I can't lie and say I don't see it.
Sorry for the longwinded response! Thought it was an interesting question :)
Apple...
@@phoenix7289 It was an interesting question, and that is a great answer to it. I agree, Canon became a lot like Apple. I also don't care for Apple but love my Canon stuff LOL!
Why people using canon?
Because it is beautiful, beautiful colours, beautiful lcd, great UI and touchscreen, better ibis
The best sharp light weight options. I’ve got 10-800 mm covered with light lenses.
Incredible auto focus and solidly built! Sorry to burst your bubble.
@@mbismbismb+1
And Canon Made in Japan
I'm glad I stopped shooting Canon APS-C
Yeah pls dont come back... stay with m4/3 and 1 inch
They were not great in DSLR era and I was mistakable with ISO above 1600 on a 7D but now canon's APS-C sensor is just less than 1 stop of the old full frame 5DIII.
@@mbismbismb I WISH Sony would release a new 1" sensor, and camera companies were using it to put out new 1" sensor fixed lens compacts, I'd snap one up. Big upgrade from a smartphone, much smaller and lighter body to travel or go hiking with.
You should stop shooting altogether.
The rest of us Canon APS-C shooters are also glad you stop shooting with them
No image stabilization... OUCH. Not any sharper than the kit lens... DOUBLE OUCH! And all of that can be had for the low, low price of 600 bucks? Yeah, no thanks.
Not any sharper than what is considered to be one of the worst kit lenses currently available, which is salt in those ouchies. Granted, I don't think that it's rep is because it is bad optically, it has more to do with everything else, especially the massive focus breathing and a mediocre FL range. Even so, optically it's a kit lens, so this probably should have been an easy win.
Yeah, but it’s constant aperture and f/2.8. That is a considerable upgrade to the kit lens if you know anything about photography
Wake me up when Canon gives a shit about the RF line
It's not the best. it's the only one
Just _one_ available third-party lens is not nearly reason enough to buy into the Canon RF APS-C system!
There will be several by year's end.
They have 5 more on the way…
waay worst than 17-55 2.8 canon... i was hoping for something better
The best Canon APS-C lens isn't made by Canon.
Looks a bit big for a non stabilized 29-80mm f4.5 lens, but IQ is good for a crop lens.
In fact, this isn't a big lens, is good form factor for my Fujifilm S10.
@@robertcudlipp3426 nobody said the lens is big in general. But for what it is, it’s not small.
I didn't think it was very big, just myself. But I also don't think adding OS would have made it much bigger; lots of plasticky lenses in this FL range have it and are not bigger than this. Granted they are not F2.8 lenses, but I feel like in cases where a version with and without it exist the non-stabilized version isn't really any smaller, not by enough to matter.
Canon? Too late. Switched to Sony. This lens doesn't need stabe.
And still no better as a photographer! Hmmm...
@@jonesphotography5257 Somewhere a tree is working overtime to keep you alive. Such a waste.
@@bradl2636Hey, I agree! But at least I'm not blaming my camera system for my shortcomings 😅😅
There's a reason it's cheap, it's a pile of crap. Lots of chromatic aberration and poor sunstars.
Ah yes, another terrible product from Sigma