Sigma 18-35 f1.8 review
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 08. 2024
- Order the Sigma 18-35 on Amazon at help.tc/18art
SUBSCRIBE and like Northrup...
Buy the #1 book with 14+ HOURS of video on Amazon: help.tc/s
Worldwide use 10% off coupon 'CZcams': sdp.io/sdpbook
Lightroom video book $10 on Amazon: help.tc/l
Photoshop video book $10 on Amazon: help.tc/p
Photography Buying Guide on Amazon: help.tc/b
Worldwide use 10% off coupon 'CZcams': sdp.io/buybg
STARTER CAMERAS:
Basic Starter Camera ($280 used at Amazon): Canon T3 help.tc/t3
Better Starter Camera ($500 at Amazon): Nikon D5300 help.tc/d5300
Better Travel Camera ($500 at Amazon): Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II help.tc/em10ii
LANDSCAPE CAMERAS:
Good ($550 at Amazon): Sony a6000 help.tc/a6000
Better ($1,400) at Amazon: Nikon D5500 help.tc/D5500 & Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 help.tc/s35
Best ($3,150) at Amazon: Pentax K-1 help.tc/K1 & Pentax 24-70 f/2.8 help.tc/p24
PORTRAIT CAMERAS:
Beginner ($950 at Amazon): Canon T6i help.tc/t6i & Canon 50mm f/1.8 help.tc/c50
Better ($3,000 at Amazon): Nikon D610 help.tc/d610 & Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 help.tc/t200
Best ($5,300) at Amazon: Nikon D810 help.tc/d810 & Nikon 70-200 f/2.8E help.tc/n200e
WILDLIFE CAMERAS:
Starter ($1,100 at Amazon): Canon 7D help.tc/7D & Canon 400mm f/5.6 help.tc/c400
Great ($3,200 at Amazon): Nikon D500 help.tc/d500 & Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 help.tc/n500
VIDEO CAMERAS:
Beginner ($500 at Amazon): Panasonic G7 help.tc/g7 & Panasonic 14-42mm help.tc/p42
Better ($1,400 at Amazon): Panasonic GH4 amzn.to/2p5dAmD & Panasonic 14-140 f/3.5-5.6 help.tc/p140
Best ($4,300 at Amazon): Panasonic GH5 help.tc/gh5 & Metabones Speed Booster XL help.tc/mbxl & Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 help.tc/s35 & Sigma 50-100 f/1.8 help.tc/s100
DRONES:
Beginner ($400 at Amazon): DJI Phantom 3 help.tc/p3
Travel ($1,000 at Amazon): DJI Mavic Pro help.tc/Mavic
Better Image Quality ($1,500 at Amazon): DJI Phantom 4 Pro help.tc/p4p
I thought I was watching Dr. Strange reviewing a lens in 2019.
After End Game, he really doesn't have that much to do anymore
I was just thinking Tony looks like an evil magician here.
Lol, sound pretty damn right
Same here
It is.
Redzo79 Your misunderstanding is a common one, though your attitude could be nicer. I'll have a video out tomorrow that will clarify it for you.
Obviously the light per square inch is the same, but smaller sensors have fewer square inches... so the light per pixel (given the same number of pixels) is lower, and light per pixel is the biggest factor in image noise.
Tony Northrup do full frames generally have less noise?
Yes, at a given ISO, because the larger sensor is gathering more total light and more light per pixel.
Think about a photo cell like a well, where electrons are floating. An electron can get out of the well by photon, or by itself due to its energy. The former is a useful signal, the latter is a noise. The less photo cell is, the less the well is, and it requires less energy for an electron to escape. Thus, small photo cell are noisy by their nature. Hope this analogy helps
does this noise also translate into photos in full light as opposed to in the dark?
Yes, when there's no photons, the only current is caused by electrons escaped from the well. Another notice, the large temperature there is, more electrons will be able to escape the energy well. This explains, why the signal becomes noisy with very long exposure times; the matrix is getting hotter. The same applies to video shooting, the matrix may become hot, and the image noisy.
I generally learn something from your videos, but this time, I REALLY learned something important I did not know before. That is that you also have to multiply the Aperture as well as the focal length. I've watched many, many instructional videos, and you are the first one who has pointed this out.
Thank you; for the tips, and the hard work you and Chelsea and crew put into these.
That definitely was an eye opener
@@MPD90 that makes no sense whatsoever
@@MPD90 ?
You don't need to multiply neither focal lenght or aperture. Lens is lens, those numbers are their physical properties, that does not change if you put them in front of different sized sensor in any way. What does change is field of view of resulting image, that is narrower on crop sensor than on full frame. This narrowing of FOV, in order to keep same subject framing, require photographer to physically move further back, that is, to take shot from larger distance. When image is taken from larger distance, in order to keep same subject framing, you get deeper depth of field on subject distance and that resulting DOF looks like DOF taken from shorter camera-to-sobject distance using smaller aperture...
@@IvanToman If you’re using a full frame lens on a APS-C sensor, then you have to divide the aperture of the lens by the crop-factor, since the smaller sensor is not able to utilize the full image circle of the lens. Like you said, the FOV is narrower, but the effective aperture of the lens is also lower.
Tony, many thanks for this excellent review of the Sigma 18-35mm. Last weekend I purchased a Nikon D7200, I am visually impaired (aka blind) though I still have useful vision. I have been ruminating over what lens to pair with the D7200 and your review makes it clear a marriage between the D7200 and the Sigma 18-35 would be a perfect match.
If your wondering why a visually impair person would buy a camera as expencive as the D7200, the answer if WiFi. Using live view and Dashboard my focusing and framing view become the size of my monitor 23" ! So as crazy as it seems, that a white cane user would be behind a camera, the brilliant tech that's feeding through photography make "blind photography" possible!
Again many thanks for your review and this coming weekend I will be purchasing a Sigma 18-35.
Cheers
David
david duffy have any problem with AF on ur nikon d7200 with sigma 18-35?
I got this lens at a really good price and I love it. I mainly got it for astrophotography. At 18mm (29mm Equivalent) it is just wide enough to get decent landscape shots of the milky way. At 35mm (56mm Equivalent) it works really great in portrait mode for shooting panoramas of the night sky. The main thing is the f1.8. It lets in a ton of light so I can speed up my shutter a bit and avoid star trails or I can lower my ISO for less noise. I have taken a few normal landscape shots and it is quite sharp. It is quite heavy for a crop sensor camera use and there is a tiny bit of focus noise, but I do not shoot video and if I did, I would probably use off-camera audio. The lack of IS is not an issue, since I usually shoot wide and since the lens is so heavy, it tends to be a bit more stable and the wide aperture lets you use faster shutter speeds. Build quality is brilliant. The short focal range could be an issue for some but if it works for you then this is a great lens.
Your wish came true I think, Sigma just introduced the 50-100 F1.8, not quite 70-200 but omg look at that aperture. Do look forward to see your review on that lens
One of the reason I always come back to your reviews Tony is that you are not bias and not pro selling in favour for the camera & lens industry . Too many reviews done by photographers on CZcams to promote their products for promotions. I love your vids . You are both beautiful . Thank you for all the info . I learned a lot from you both !! :)
Great fully professional review, thanks! The only review of this lens that acknowledges that you are actually getting an aperture of around 2.8, rather than 1.8 at fully open. Crazy that none of the dozens of other reviews on youtube talk about this.
I completely agree with you, Sigma should come out with a f/1.8 50-150 Sport lens so APS-C cameras can shoot pro level portraits. I am hoping that Sigma's discontinuing of the 50-150mm f/2.8 earlier this year means they are going to make a new one in their S sports lens lineup. Hopefully we will see it in photokina in a few weeks.
Am I the only one who thinks vignetting can look pleasing?
Lasse Anton i actually put vignette in ps in some of my fav pics 😂
MrTacticalinuit not at all, I've actually got this lens and have taken a couple of pics that I find very pleasing, it was on a full frame camera too so the vignetting was very heavy
Yes. But it should be a choice. Not imposed on you. For example it sucks for Astro
No, but it is easier to add vignetting in post than remove it. Less vignetting provides greater flexibility without sacrificing quality,.
I know what you mean. Had the same thought.
I can't believe it is a true f/1.8 for APS-C, this lens is like a dream. I saw this video years ago, but I couldn't appreciate at the time how good this lens is.
Watching the video after 7 years, still makes sense though. Going to buy this lens. Thanks Tony for such a detailed review 😊
I understand this isn't a portrait lens but I'm sure at 35mm (x1.6) 56mm wouldn't be that bad as some people use 50mm for portraits. I just bought this lens more for video but just every day shooting as well.
David Morris I was Thinking the same. How is the lens for portraits at 35mm(x1.6)? Comparable quality/bokeh to a full frame w/50mm lens?
@@danielpalma3804 Good point and the answer is it isn't. There is no getting around the fact that the larger sensor is going to deliver superior resolution, less noise and greater dynamic range. DX shooters thinking their going to get a free lunch are just kidding themselves, especially if the want to blow up gallery size selling landscape prints.
@@jamesr6497 Not so. Try the Nikon D500. It will give you excellent resolution, low noise, and wide dynamic range comparable to a full frame body.
It's the first time I've heard that there is a 1.6/1.5 multiplier also for apertures. Sure , I knew that the DOF was narrower on FF but never knew this multiplier ! Thanks
I dont think there is a multiplier for apertures, its only for the DOF. I was searching the comments if anyone noticed what he said lol.
Kirk Corrie you absolutely have to multiply aperture as well! F/1.8 will always be F/1.8, but the overall performance of a 1.8 lens on a crop body will give the same image quality as 2.8.
Tony FYI - the aperture of a lens does not change with sensor size. So if you have a 2.8 lens on a FF body you still have a 2.8 lens on a DX body. Only the effective focal length and FOV changes. Please make a note of this.
I have an upcoming video that will explain it further. As I mention in this video, it doesn't impact the exposure settings, but applying the crop factor to the aperture will allow you to more easily compare the depth-of-field, total light gathered, and light gathered per pixel (and thus noise levels).
I love how excited you look when you talk about cameras. Thanks again for all your work!
Definitely saved me from selling my kidney for that 24-70 lens I'd been eyeballing. Thanks for the tips!
OK. Just got this lens today. Been using it for about an hour. Would it be ridiculous for me to say I'll never pay for another Cannon lens again? This is my first "non kit" lens purchase so maybe my point of reference is weak. Love this thing! Thanks Tony!
Yeah, the new Sigma Art lenses are far better quality than most Canon and Nikon lenses... but many of the standard Sigma lenses aren't nearly as good.
Yeah, that's a very nice lens. I sporadicly shoot with it on my 70D on family events and I love it. It's just so fast at dim light I don't need no flash. Great development by Sigma!
A lot of people are getting really confused about the crop factor affecting the depth of field. This adjustment only comes into play when you use crop (DX) equivalent focal lengths to their full frame (FX) focal lengths. For example, in order to match the angle of view of a 50mm FX lens, crop users usually use approximately a 35mm lens (33.3mm would be more accurate for Nikon). But because these lenses have different focal lengths the compression of both the background and the foreground has also changed. Therefore, the DX lens has to have an aperture 1.5x (for Nikon) faster than the FX lens to have equal depth of field (enter the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8).
What was poorly explained in the video, is that when using lenses like the common pro 24-70mm f/2.8, depth of field remains the same no matter the sensor size IF aperture and focal length are identical. So, setting the lens to 24mm at 2.8 on FX has the same depth of field as shooting at 24mm at 2.8 on DX. The image is simply cropped so the angle of view has changed (you can simulate this with the crop tool in any photo editing program).
Finally, Tony's comparison of the Sigma at 35mm f/1.8 and the Tamron at 70mm f/2.8 was poorly done. The focal lengths are not equivalent given the crop factor of 1.6x for Canon. The Tamron should have been set closer to 56mm and the depth of field (as well as the angle of view) between the two images would have been much closer (near identical). The Sigma mounted on a Canon crop body is equivalent to a full frame 28.8-56mm f/2.88 lens not the 24-70mm f/2.8 lens Tony used.
All that said, great view and review Tony, loved it from beginning to end! Keep up the great work!
Thanks, and I'll record a video this week to better explain crop factors.
Until today 2019, this lens is a killer.
Lens still kicking butt in 2020.
2021 still trucking
@@jdam28k I agree
Many many thanks for your excellent review！！！But I believe that the aperture of aps-c is equal to the full frame, which has been confirmed from your comparison.
Yeah exactly not sure about that part being true either
Tony, glad I found your You Tube link. I have been watching your video's for two days now and have shared several with several on-line photo-clubs that I belong too. To support this sight I also purchased the Kindle version of your DSLR Book and your Buying Guide. Been into photography for years but always enjoy reading new books and to see how different people approach the subject of photography. Heading to my favorite National Park, Yellowstone tomorrow and plan to read them on the way out there, (21 hour drive) when I am not driving. Your subject knowledge is excellent and you have excellent presentation skills. Easy to follow along. Enjoy Tony and Chelsea Live, you two are a hoot. Beautiful people. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
Thanks, John!!
An excellent review from a photographic perspective. I want to add that as a filmmaker, this is a superb lens, especially when used with the Metabones Speedbooster on a Panasonic GH2/3 or BlackMagic camera. The crop in MFT is 2:1 (or smaller with the Pocket), but this is somewhat offset by the 0.71 reverse crop of the Speedbooster.
I am now accepting donations for me to purchase this lens:)
Victor Shcherbina Lol I have this lens and it’s my fav, now I want the 1.4
GREAT review!
I'm just wandering how this lens compare to the Sigma 35 f/1.4 A in terms of image quality and sharpness> ?
Man you are the the most amazing photography person on CZcams. I learn from you in every video. I love love love your content. Thanks Guys!
Just ordered it. Thanks so much. It's my first "non kit lens" for my new 70D.
This lens is still the best option for APS-C in 2019?
Why do you have a question mark after your own opinion
@@parkiel54ParkieL probably means he's asking a question?
@@parkiel54 why do you not have one after your question? 😐
Marco Carpinella Yes. most definitely as sharp as when it came out.
The only lens in Sigma’s range that are sharper are their prime lens when compared to this.
The down side of this lens is that it is NOT a full frame lens and it is heavy!
But then, nothing is perfect but this is close to as possible paired with the canon 70d and 80d and even the 7d mark ii.
No questions nor interrogation marks needed here! ( opps...I went for an exclamation mark instead ..! )
@@richmck007 can confirm its a great lens just picked it up a couple weeks ago. if its zoom range was maybe a little longer to say 50mm and if it had stabilization it would be the ultimate lens, but I'd say its definitely worth it for film making.
Well 35mm times 1.6 also does not equate to 70mm... Of course the DOF is shallower on the Full frame... You guys should have compared it at equivalent focal lengths (35mm APS-C and 56mm FF)... this is not an accurate test!!!
+STEHH87 We compared it against the closest comparable gear. This is a lens comparison to help buyers make decisions, not a discussion of sensor size.
Tony & Chelsea Northrup could you elaborate on this, please? This is exactly the first thing I noticed when I started watching this video. Thanks!
@Rolando Bettancourt +@STEHH87. He noted it right on the video. The tamron suffers from focus breathing, means that zoomed into 70mm, you're not actually getting the full 70mm. Focus breathing occurs because the focusing elements are moving inside the lens. If the lens isn't designed well enough, when focusing on very close subjects the focusing element needs to move so much that it actually shortens the focal length of the lens. So with this tamron lens, 70mm focused on a very close subject means it only gets about 56mm of effective zoom. That's directly comparable with the 35mm sigma with 1.6x crop factor.
Wow! Definitely worth considering. Thank you for explaining the technical aspects of cropped and full framed cameras as well as lens aspects. I learned so much!
I had the same problem with my Sigma, different lens. If you angle it and pinch it just right, it locks in, but other than that, Sigma may need to redesign where the lens cap attaches, in my opinion. It's nice to hear that someone else experienced a similar issue.
If you use an apsc lens on an apsc body do you still have to use a 1.5x crop factor for field of view & do the math for aperture as well??..
Yes, you can change the aperture settings manually in your camera on this or any other electronically controlled lens. On the other hand I've been told by some that apsc lenses are already engineered to show accurate field of view & aperture on apsc bodies but some, like Tony, say you still need to factor in a crop & aperture difference.. I'M CONFUSED!! lol
For aperture: yes if you want to obtain light gathering equivalence (a FF f/1.8 hole is simply bigger than a crop f/1.8 hole ) , no if you want to obtain depth of field equivalence( the depth of field depends on the lens no matter what's your sensor size, the bigger the projection circle, the swallowed the depth of field at the same distance) .
The type of the lens does not matter, only the body. But if you do not have a FF camera as well as a crop you really do not need to use the crop factor. You can just learn what your system can do. Only when you hear or read from others who use FF you need to adjust.
Jason Fields. Yeah, you are confused, what you said is nonsense. The accurate ins are 18-35 mm f/1.8 for this lens and so on. These are the real, true and only focal lengths the lens has. Now if you want to compare results to an FF body you can use the equivalences. Lets say you have a Canon crop and you see a photo that has been shot at 40 mm f/2.8 and ISO 400 on an FF camera, you need to calculate different values for your camera. You need to divide the first two by 1.6 and the second by it twice. You get 25 mm f/1.8 (1.75) and ISO 160 (156.25). You can produce that same result with this lens. If any of the results fall outside the range your lenses or body can produce then you cannot produce exactly the same results and you have to do the best effort by using for example the widest available aperture or lowest ISO (of course there can be also other differences, a pro system just can be better in ways that are not always obvious by calculating).Note I said decide and Tony talks about multiplication. It is a matter of perspective. He uses normally FF. He is familiar what it produces. You use crop and are familiar on it.Only in compact (fixed lens) cameras can the equivalences be actually be printed on the camera. Fortunately at least Canon seldom does that. On Interchangeable lenses the figures are always real. Otherwise it would be very confusing to mix FF and crop lenses.
Okaro X What the hell do you mean??.. & why do you keep responding to me weeks later? I guess I should have tagged Tony in the question because I wasn't asking you anyway! In my original question and my first response to the other guy who asked a question, I intended to say FIELD OF VIEW instead of focal range. Sorry for being human!! Does that make sense to you??? I've often heard that lenses that are engineered for aps-c sized sensors are already engineer to show the correct FIELD OF VIEW. On the other hand, I understand that if you use a full frame lens on an aps-c body that you have to do the math to figure out your correct FIELD OF VIEW and aperture . I was just trying to get an understanding on whether manufacturers actually make aps-c lenses to show the correct "FIELD OF VIEW" & aperture settings as full frame lenses show on full frame bodies or whether a conversion still needed to be made. For example, I own a Sony a6000 and a6300. both of these are aps-c bodies that came with a 16 - 50 millimeter f3.5-5.6 kit lens. my question for the last time! is... do I still have to do the 1.5x crop conversion even though this lens is engineered for an aps-c sized sensor. I.e., is the 16-50mm FIELD OF VIEW really 24-75 with this lens, or is it the same 16-50mm field of view that I would see on a full frame camera with a 16 - 50 millimeter lens engineer for full-frame sensors?? I think that's pretty simple! I couldn't go back and edit my comment on my phone. I didn't mean to say focal range but FIELD OF VIEW! I apologize for my stupidity LOL! I'm not sure how you got nonsense out of all of what I said but since you couldn't comprehend, just let someone else answer the question who can. Have a nice day Okara X!
Tony, thank for your Reviews.... But...... You look like an asian kung fu grand Master in this Video ;D. Greetz!
Picked this lens up a couple months and been so happy with it.
Tony, I must say I think you was at your prime while reviewing and doing this video. I like your presentation and the whole review delivery of the this lens. You was analytically detailed about the lens. I am looking to purchase this lens and enjoyed the whole video. Thank you.
Please, would you recommend this lense on entry-level cameras like a Nikon D3300 or it would be better use this lense only on APS-C high-end models like D7200 ? Thank You.
this lens is for dx/aps-c, so why not?
M Martini I just bought it...for D3300 Nikon
They're not available on E mount?
No. You have options, though. You can buy an a6300/a6500 and get the cheap LAEA3 adapter and buy the A mount version of the lens. You can buy an older e mount camera and buy the more expensive LAEA4 adapter and get the lens in A mount. You can buy an A6300/A6500 in Canon EF-S mount and get the Sigmaa MC-11 adapter.
it is now
You have just earned a new subscriber because of your words of wisdom at the beginning!
Thanks!
It nice to finally see someone able to do the math about crop facto and f-stop, nice job Tony.
PS: In a way you should use a crop factor in ISO as well, if you want to compare noise that is, it's all about gathering light.
hehe.. just bought this lens yesterday :)
Much jealous, I'm saving.
How are you finding it after a month?
I think this ist the best lens you can get for aps-c sensors :) love it
I am looking to buy a lens for my Canon 7d and this lens seems to be a great option based on your review and others I have seen thus far. However, you mentioned this lens is not great for portraits as it might make "a nose look large or forehead bigger". I am by no means a professional photographer, however I do take photos of my little and also for friends and family from time to time. I wanted to get the Canon 24-70 but felt like that would be a waste as I have a crop sensor (Im glad you also mentioned this in your video). Long story short, I would want to use this lens for portraits, are you saying this would be a bad buy for this type of photography? Would you be willing to show me what you meant by the portrait distortions?
Thank you!
melahodges he's talking more specifically about real close up headshots where it's pretty much just the head in frame where this would be bad. You could still do non headshot Portaits. Just zoom to 35mm and get a shot with a 1.5x - 2x crop in editing in mind. The facial features/ field if view should turn out just like a 85mm or longer portrait lens does on Full Frame, and it will still be quite sharp.
A standard portrait lens is usually 85mm. That means, on a crop censor camera, you'll need about a 50mm lens. That will give you almost 85mm. Now, if you're looking for a good zoom (and portrait) for a canon, look at the EF-S 55-250mm STM lens. 55mm gives you an actual focal length of 88mm, which is perfect for portraits. And this lens is amazing. Just make sure it's the STM version. The older version was awful. Now match this up with this Sigma 18-35mm and you won't need any other lenses. Unless, of course, you're looking for both a fast zoom. But then you're looking at glass that will run you in the thousands. I picked up my 55-250 for 125 bucks. And as far as quality for price, it can't be beat.
You can go with the 50mm f1.8 STM lens which is quite nice for the money.
Sigma actually has a 50-150 2.8 for crop sensors. However, it would be a 80-240 4.5 in full frame terms, and they just discontinued the Canon mount, which I find very disappointing (you can still buy it for $950-1100 though). I really hope they make something like a Art 50-150 1.8! That would really make my life a lot easier! The only other brand I know that makes similar APSC telephoto lenses is Pentax (50-135 2.8 and 60-250 4).
I am convinced you are entirely correct. I took two Canons - 7D M2 APS-C and a 5D M3 full frame and attached the same Canon 24-105 L at f/4.0, ISO 800 @1/160 sec and RAW configuration for both bodies. Snapped a photo of a small plant 3 feet away, and guess what? Only difference was that on the 7DII the image was 1.6X larger than the image taken on the full frame, and both images had the same patterns on the exposure histograms. The aperture setting determines the amount of light that will pass striking the sensor regardless of the sensor size. However, the depth of field does expand greater on the crop sensor, but more noticeable when the subject is farther from the lens. This I will agree with you. While I do have a one Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 lens made for APS-C, all my other lenses are full frame. For all readers, get lenses for full frame-anything else is a "kit" lens, but more affordable if just starting out.
Not true, een APS-C camera has the same DOF as an FF. It is the lens and distance that determines your DOF, it does not matter what kind of sensor is behind it. It is the same wrong way of thinking as saying that your APS-C camera makes you lens to have a greater zoom. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that a lens does not change behavior if there is a smaller sensor behind it or that a smaller sensor gives you the exact amount of DOF as a FF sensor does. The only thing that happens with a smaller sensor is cropping, the rest is confusing and a wrong way off thinking.
Leo Jonkers OK, but "only cropping" completely changes the picture. Obviously you're trying to get the same images regardless of your sensor size. I have a series of videos on this topic, but this might be a good place to start: czcams.com/video/0OtIiwbAZi8/video.html&lc=z13bfloj1k2ejxjch22nu1jyasrryeg0 (the other videos are linked in the description)
Tony Northrup Thank you for your link, interesting. Cropping may "change" your picture by making it smaller FOV, the part that is cropped is exactly the same as the non cropped picture. If you want the same FOV with a cropped sensor as with a FF you get a different picture all together. It i impossible to make the same picture with the same FOV with a FF or an cropped size. In fact it is simple as can be. A cropped sensor crops, that is it. You can make it unnecessarily complicated and that is in fact what you do with using "equivalent" and comparing different lenses with the same result, witch can never be true. I understand the need to predict what the result will be on a cropped sensor in comparison with a FF. But in my eyes it is a wrong approach. Cropping is cropping, that is all there is to it.
Leo Jonkers Tony's approach is more practical and useful
Zaza Uruszadze It is not useful if you think a little further. It is wrong and it is much more confusing. But Tony is not the only one, this wrong way of thinking is wide spread.
Leo Jonkers It's not a wrong way of thinking. It's a way of approximating all of the image qualities, rather than just angle of view. It is a very effective way of comparing different formats and their capabilities. For example, I have a 45mm f/1.8 on my Olympus, and my FF lenses that cover 90mm are all f/4. I can approximate that in light limited situations, I will acheive possibly slightly better quality from my m4/3 prime lens than I will from my FF f/4 zoom, because I will be able to use an ISO that is more than 4x lower to acheive the same minimum shutter speed to make the shot - and it will do so with a hair less depth of field than my FF setup.
An example of a situation where you might be able to compare the two would be inside an average living room at night, roughly ~ev12.
FF:
90mm @ f/4, ISO 1600 1/100
4/3:
45mm @ f/1.8, ISO 320 1/100
That will give you a very similar quality level between the two images - possibly giving the 4/3 camera the edge.
If you accept that a smaller sensor "just crops" the image, then follow this:
If you crop an image, you are:
1) Decreasing the amount of light captured on the sensor
2) Decreasing the angle of view - aka a smaller focal length will achieve the same field of view
3) The depth of field is not changing. A 50mm lens at f/8 will have the same depth of field when focused 10' away, regardless of the sensor format.
4) f/2.8 is still f/2.8, is it not? It still achieves the same exposure time at the same ISO, right? Yes.
So how do we get "there" from "here"?
1) If you want the same image, you need the same field of view. This is more important than anything. So with a crop sensor that "just crops", to achieve the wider field of view that the larger format camera is using, you need to use a lens with a shorter focal length. In the case of 4/3 vs FF (Because math is easy), a 25mm lens will be necessary to achieve the same field of view as a 50mm lens does on 35mm format.
2) So now we have the same perspective again, with different focal lengths to get there given the different sensor sizes. But now, a 25mm lens has more depth of field than a 50mm lens does when set to the same aperture and focusing distance. You will find that the 4/3 format will have a hair more depth of field, but not by much... if the aperture is 2 stops larger.
3) So now we have established an image that has the same qualities - angle of view and depth of field. How does ISO come in to play? In light limited situations, you're limited by shutter speed. Let's just ignore image stabilization and focus on the basics here. So now, we're 2 f/stops faster on the small format compared to the large one and have comparable depth of field and viewing angle. So now we need to match the shutter speed. Now you can do some simple algebra:
4/3:
25mm f/2 @ 1/100, ISO 800
35mm
50mm f/4 @ 100, ISO ????
f/2 @ 800 = f/4 @ 3200
In reality, it's a little bit more complicated than that. Smaller formats have higher pixel density in general, so you will get more detail per sensor size, but the sensor size itself will dictate how much light is collected, so image noise should be pretty comparable when the ratio of sensor sizes is considered, given that it has been proven that smaller sensors do not have significantly different noise levels from larger sensors.
+bash5995, you only need to use the crop factor for the focal length and aperture when comparing it to lenses designed for other sensor sizes, such as full-frame lenses.
@Tony Northrup Why not buy an EF/Full frame lens and use it on an EF-S/APS-C body?
+Geert Boer because it fucking costs allot and not everyone can buy it.
+Said Matar umm the Sigma is the price of Full frame lenses. you could easily buy a Tamron 24-70 F2.8 with VC for the price.
Rami Bahrani why would you buy a full frame lens on an apsc camera ?
Because a full frame lens is compatible with both and allows me to upgrade in the future without having to reinvest in lenses however I own the sigma I was just pointing out that it is as expensive as full frame lenses of not more (eg canon 24-105L is cheaper)
Your model looked angel in that Red Dress. Boss Mode ON
You are so right about the Tamron 24-70 focus breathing. I noticed when going back and forth between the Canon 50 1.8.
I have the Canon 750d and use the 18-135 Kit Lense plus the 50mm 1.8 STM ...
This would be A LOT of money for me, is it worth the improvement? Can someone tell me his opinion? :)
TGLP depends, if you shoot indoors or in low light often then definitely yes. The Sigma is also just about as sharp as any prime available for apsc as well (way sharper than either of your stated lenses). if super portability is a main requirement of yours then maybe not. You can pick it up for $600 or less on Ebay though so if you sell any current lenses it wouldn't take to much money. All in all though this lens is absolute magic. It hits a sweet spot on size price sharpness etc. Just not that big of a zoom range, but the fact that it is class leading in almost every way, it's a miracle it zooms at all to be honest.
Also if you zoomed the sigma to 35mm and then cropped to have the same field of view as your 50 1.8 it would be way sharper and better in almost every way.
750D is APSC, actually it is 80mm on his EF 50mm f1.8
Would you need to apply crop factor to the aperture of this lens if it's made for apsc?
I've just bought this, after using the cork sized panasonic kit lens for a few weeks... this thing makes me smile every time I look through it
Bought this lens for about half a year ago. Never regret the decision other than its hefty weight.
Tony for Nikon there is the 17 - 55mm F2.8 which has been available from 2003 & is a Pro lens.
Andrew Hollis the f/2.8 aperture on an APS-C lens converts to f/4.2, though. The Sigma is f/1.8, so it converts to f/2.7--truly equivalent to those pro lenses on a full-frame body.
I have a Canon t3i and have been saving for the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8. You just convinced me to buy this lens. Amazing work, Tony!
As I shoot mostly in live view, the focusing issues are not a problem. I'm going for total sharpness, and this lens delivers. Same as 50-100. When you shoot in live view, you focus directly on the main sensor, so no focus issues can emerge.
Crop factor doesn’t effects the aperture. The aperture is given by the physical construction of the lens.
Hi tony, interesting observation: sigma 18-35 on nikon 7100, its behave as 27-53 f 2.7 and when u use crop 1.3 it field of view actually reach to 68mm with f 3.6. Which is actually almost equivalent to nikkor 24-70 f 2.8 at less than half price
I rented this lens for a wedding and it was AMAZING. Shooting with a 50mm1.4 on a crop t3i (obviously a low end crop, but I've gotten SO much use out of it), I've always been used to an especially tight image. I loved this lens and it was like a miracle to be able to turn my camera around, get a lot of my own face in the frame and still maintain a clear image. It was pretty life changing, haha.
However, my problem now, being a broke working college kid paying for school out of pocket, I'm dying to upgrade my gear still but I don't know what's worth the investment more. Getting something like a 70D+this Sigma lens plus my current 50mm1.4, OR a 5Dmk2 with my 50mm. Technically, I could probably just upgrade my body with this, experiment for a while as I don't necessarily have all the creative time in the world right now, and have that little bit of improvement for whatever I can create, and then when I can afford it, decide what to upgrade with from there.
I can read as many reviews etc as I do, but I still can't decide what is better. I don't know how I feel about autofocusing if I don't want it to autofocus in certain situations, but I LOVE the flipout screens from Canon's crops (i do a lot of/want to do more self portraiture/video work) so it sucks a full frame doesn't have that (that i know of) but. I just can't decide! These reviews are helping narrow it down though, the differences seem incredibly minimal and I could always sell the 70D+Sigma whenever I could afford to upgrade to full frame if I decided to....For an indecisive person like me, there's too many options to pick from haha! >.
Well done Mr. Norton,
Chromatic Aberration is a vast subject and special branch of Optical Physics. You have explained it so simply with practical demonstration.
Thanks a lot and Warm Regards.
4:21 to 4:28
You went from a pleasant "Haha this lens will definitely help make your life easier" to a blank expression of dread and lifeless realization almost to say.... there is no god.....
10/10 XD
Tony, Great review of the Sigma 18-35mm. I also learned a lot from your video. Thanks, Jimmy
Great video, I'm planning purchasing.
Man, I LOVE this lens, I've had mine since 2014 when I was shooting with a Canon 7D. I then sold my 7D to test the waters with mirrorless, so I bought a Sony a6000 and the Sigma MC-11. It has served me well, but I just upgraded to a Sony a7iii, and need a new wide prime to replace it with. Luckily I already had a Sony FE 85mm f/1.8.
If only Sony or Sigma made a 24-70mm f/1.8, I would jump all over that.
am learning so much by watching your videos, thanks
Tony, I've dropped in on your channel numerous several times and really enjoy your thoughts. I'm an old guy and have been shooting since my 4x5 Crown Graphic was new. (Chuckle). With great admiration and respect I have to say I think you might be wrong on the crop factor effecting the T stop. (2:40 in your video) The amount of light striking the sensor is the same regardless of the amount of crop. It's like if I stuck 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 roll film back on my 4x5 Linhof there is no adjustment necessary for exposure . If you set the T-stop at T-4.5 it will be T-4.5 no matter if its on a 16mm camera or 70mm camera. The only way it would have an effect on the light is if you used bellows or an extension tube for close-ups. I'm a director for 40 years now and have in the past gotten into many discussions Pro-ACs who don't understand that a 30mm is a 30mm no matter what camera or frame size it's on. The only thing that is affected is the field of view. All the best.
No portraits? No street or candid? Mmmm Well we all have our opinions I guess. I think its great for all those. Love the channel Tony and learning a lot from you! Peace
Tony,
I love you... im watching this now..
Lol
I think I asked you to review this lens like a couple days ago... you did it with a quickness
Thanks! I never knew you had to multiply the aperture as well. You helped me make up my mind.
i have 70D and the sigma 18-35.. im gonna have to agree that it compensates the crop sensor sharpness issues, and gives bit higher quality than any regular canon lens, but has a major disadvantage and that is the inability to create that blurred bokeh in the background ESPECIALLY when shoot a pigeon for example standing on the grass.. i cant get zoom that much to it and it doesnt come out that sharp from min.. 2 meter distance... to be honest im not that gonna have to say that the sigma lens received applause more than it can actually achieve!
So, a f/1.8 lens is faster in a full frame than in a crop sensor?? Im so confused...
I bought this lens based on your recommendation. So far I'm very happy with it.
I have this lens and I used it on my Sony crop camera (A77). Now I switched to an A7R2 and when adapting this lens to that full frame body, I'm not getting any vignetting as long as I don't go to the shorter focal lengths. I haven't checked the corner sharpness in detail yet, but so far it looks quite good.
Great review Sigma is really stepping it up
Tony how did you get so smart? Man you are filled with wisdom!
I have this fantastic lens and put it on my EOS M100. The camera is tiny compared to the lens, but what quality it delivers! It's the cheaper alternative to full frame. Most people won't need ff at all if you see what this lens can do.
I have the pentax DA* 50-135 2.8 it produces some very nice portraits.
ive taken dozens of events with this lens. its my workhorse lens and can honestly do just about anything!
Would you consider this a decent walk around lens? Though a but heavy.
Thought this was for E-mount and got really excited for a bit.
I want to pick up that lens for the 70D. I have seen it take sharp photos and I want it for night time video in the city.
Hi Tony, just letting you know that I love this lens. It's on my shopping list and I have tried it out on my D5300. A great compliment to the Sigma 18-250 DC MACRO.
Thank you so much Tony. I decide to buy the Sigma lens today after your lucid and adequate review. I am going to use it with my GH4 and will use Zhong-yi lens turbo adapter before I could spend Metabone speed booster. Thanks again.
Hi Tony. Thanks for all the great shows. So, I bought the Sigma 18-35 on the strength of you and others raving about the sharpness. I've found it less sharp, even at the f4 sweet spot than my 18-135 on my Canon 60D. I sent some sample images to Sigma USA tech support: essentially side-by-sides using the Sigma, the Canon 50mm 1.4 and the Canon 18-135. Sigma tech support responded quickly but without offering advice or any suggestion that the images suggested a problem to them. So, much as I want to love this lens, back it goes (and I take a 15% restocking-fee hit - Ugh).
Kevin Corbett Strange! Sorry about that!
The best Canon-branded standard zoom for APS-C is the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 which has IS. I think that would have been the appropriate lens to compare to the Sigma.
Excellent review Tony. I always appreciate your knowledge and opinion. thanks!
Thanks, Tony! usging this for several months, I think it is fantastic with my D7100. Falling cap problem only when lense hood is on, strange, same for me.
Also a lot of people including me complain about backfocus. Focus a little bit shifted and should be corrected with USB thing, I have corrected mine a little bit, and now it is perfect.
Here is the sample with Sigma 18-35
500px.com/photo/63467769
I had a chance to borrow this lens and shoot it on a 7D, 1D Mark IV, and 5D Mark 3. Yes it is intended for crop, but unlike Canon's EF-S line it fits and works great with FF and 1.3 crop cameras. on the 1.3 crop there was some vignetting at 18mm but it was not bad. On the FF, lots at 18mm but gone by 22mm
I don't think you are talking about the same lens that is being reviewed in this video. It's focal length is from 18mm to 35mm, so it could not possibly have ANYTHING wrong or otherwise at 11mm.
I shot some pictures with 5D MKII, vignetting was gone around 24mm. But those pictures were not as sharp as on 60D. Also, when shot at night scene, pictures on 5D II were just not good. So I have this lens and Canon 135mm on my 60D and will use them on my coming trip to Chile, Torres Del Payne::=))
I Have the Canon 70D and Love it but I really would like to have that Full frame 5D Mark III, but once I started seeing videos on this sigma lens I thought this might be able to satisfy me short term and this video really sealed that deal so Thanks Tony for a great review, I believe this lens just might be a God Send... cheers mate
GameFaceEnt Thanks!
You are blowing my mind with this part about not only multiplying the focal length by 1.6 in a Canon 70d and the like, but also the aperture. I have a 28-105mm f2.8 and a 50mm f1.8 prime and a 100mm f2.0 prime and have never been truly happy with sharpness on this camera. Shopping for a WA brought me here. In an ideal world, this lens would be 10-35mm at f1.8. I've been shopping the 2.8 lenses like the Tokina 11-16 and 16-50 Sigma, but now I have to rethink EVERYTHING in light of this new revelation. Confused, however, since I can set my aperture to 2.8 in the camera, at least it has the function I need to open the aperture wide, so you're just saying it won't look as good as it will on a full frame body? So you mean then that a photo taken on a crop sensor at 2.8 will only look as good as a photo on a full-frame sensor at 4.5?
Why didn't you set the 24-70 to 56mm instead of 70mm? That would make for an exact comparison to the Sigma 18-35 at 35 f/1.8. Of course the 24-70 at 70 f/2.8 gives more blur than at 56 f/2.8.
Hey Tony, huge fan of yours! Keep up the great reviews! Love them!
Watching this in Dec 2021, the lens is still doing well in most reviews ☺️👍🏽 planning to get it with an adaptor for my Fuji XT-4
The 18-35 is so long it looks like a telephoto zoom!
Tony you say no one makes a good fast zoom for crop sensors until this one so you have to buy the 70-200 2.8 or the 24-70 2.8 but sigma has brought out multiple lenses for crop bodies, the 50-150 2.8(multiple versions infact) and the 17-50 2.8 and sure they arnt really 2.8, but if you buy the 70-200 2.8 as the pro lense then you cant say they arnt fast crop lenses
Shouldn't the comparison with the 24-70 have been at 56mm on the full frame rather than 70mm? That would explain the DOF difference, because the full frame lens is at a longer focal length
Hi Tony,
I think you are wrong here.
The cropped sensor only affects the focal length and not the aperture.
f2.8 lens is still f2.8 even on a crop sensor camera.
I'm making a video to explain this in detail, so please stay tuned. Applying the crop factor to the aperture gives allows you to understand depth-of-field and total light gathered (and thus image quality) as well as focal length.
One of the best review of Sigma, tnx Tony
Great videos Tony and Chelsea! About this lens, I hear they have had some focus problems. Did you need to calibrate it? Have people needed to do so often? And is it hard?
It´s such a fantastic lens! So crazy sharp!! Only thing I miss is a stabilizer...
WOH. I did NOT know the crop factor also impacted the aperature!!! I tend to shoot FF but also keep a 7D for that little extra 1.6 factor reach. SO this won't work on an FF ?
It is a DX specific lens. It will not illuminate all of the full frame sensor. I just picked up this baby and it's spectacular.
Applying crop factor to f stop only works in order to achieve the same DOF and noise ratio, NOT THE SAME EXPOSURE, or else light meters would include a crop variable. Please do not miss inform viewers. A FF camera set to "X" settings WILL HAVE SAME EXPOSURE as a MFT camera with same "X" settings. DOF and NOISE RATIO won't be the same.
The exposure formula is such that the END RESULT in terms of EXPOSURE won't change, no matter sensor size. Ok, FF lets in more light, but the ISO formula works with light per square area, meaning it is already compensating for total amount of light difference. That's the whole point of having a universal exposure system. TRY IT, meassure exposure with a light meter and watch the exposure be the same wether you use FF, MFT, APSC, or a medium format analog film camera from the 60's. As this channel has demonstrated, actual iso luminosity can vary between companies, but that is not the same as applying crop factor to f stop to get the same exposure. Thanks bye.
Great review as usual Tony, you are a Master of your trade!