Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 price: US$ 799.00

[arthurking83]

Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 price in US$.

Makes a fantastic sounding lens fantastically priced .. good on Sigma

If you're into APS-C, you'd be mad not to consider this lens at this price.

[Lance B]

If it's as good as it seems to say on paper, that's an AMAZING price!! My Sigma 35 f1.4 is simply superb and if the 18-35 f1.8 is near as good, it will be an amazing lens.

[arthurking83]

Hoping that CRKennedy price this accordingly.

Current exchange rates are in the low to mid 90's with the USD .. so about $$880-$900 or so locally would be a half decent price. Of course expect high initial demand to keep prices highish, and then of course it'll drop even lower.

DPR will be doing a review on it soon .. they have a batch of sample images up on their gallery.

So far that I've seen, it renders important detail with enough resolution to be considered sharp, and yet still provides nicely rendered blur circles to form smooth bokeh ... all at f/1.8
The fullscreen view of the very first sample image in the gallery(of the girl with the coffee) is evidence enough that this lens looks the goods.
Both of the images of the purple flowers look to render enough detail to consider this lens a keeper too, again at f/1.8.

Problem with DPR's gallery doodad .. they don't provide a quick summary of shooting info on the thumbnails, so it's hard to find images shot at f/2. I peeped at only a few images and then gave up randomly searching.

[Lance B]

The results do look very promising! I think that if Sigma has their QC under control, and it certainly looks like it, then they will have another winner on their hands. QC was always an issue with Sigma, they made some great lenses but were let down by some hit and miss QC. If you got one of their top spec lenses and the QC was up to scratch, then you had a great lens.

[ameerat42]

Couldn't find it on Crake's lens list yet. (???)

[Mark L]

I'm in the market and was wanting something a little wider. 1.8 will make me pause and think.
Thanks AK

[Lance B]

Got a great write up on SLR Gear, looks like a real winner!

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...ct/1609/cat/31

[I @ M]

Got a great write up on SLR Gear, looks like a real winner!

Their write up certainly does praise it but I find it hard to give credence to sites like that which publish material that is so wrong.

I wonder if Nikon are aware that their 17-55 lens has VR, according to the quoted lines below from slr gear it does.

"For Nikon users, there is the similarly-spec'd 17-55mm ƒ/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX lens, featuring an identical focal length range, ƒ/2.8 aperture and Vibration Reduction, but again with a much higher price at $1400 and the same smaller maximum aperture."

[arthurking83]

Their write up certainly does praise it but I find it hard to give credence to sites like that which publish material that is so wrong.

......."

LOL!

I suppose it's one more site to add to the untrustworthy list!

[Lance B]

Their write up certainly does praise it but I find it hard to give credence to sites like that which publish material that is so wrong.

I wonder if Nikon are aware that their 17-55 lens has VR, according to the quoted lines below from slr gear it does.

"For Nikon users, there is the similarly-spec'd 17-55mm ƒ/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX lens, featuring an identical focal length range, ƒ/2.8 aperture and Vibration Reduction, but again with a much higher price at $1400 and the same smaller maximum aperture."

Quite an oversight on their part!

I must admist, it's not the first site I go to look for lens testing, but their test results do seem to usually correspond quite well when compared to the more respected sites as far as resolution tests are concerned.

Personally, I find that it is best to get feedback from respected users that I know of on the various forums that I frequent and then look at the test sites as an adjunct to what they have said. So far, I have found that this works and works well.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL!

I suppose it's one more site to add to the untrustworthy list!

Exactly why I am so cautious when trusting the results some of these sites.

[I @ M]

Personally, I find that it is best to get feedback from respected users that I know of on the various forums that I frequent and then look at the test sites as an adjunct to what they have said. So far, I have found that this works and works well.

I agree, multiple sources that arrive at similar conclusions are far more trustworthy. I think that sites like slr gear are so totally desperate to get a "review" out quickly to satisfy the instant gratification generation and their own website hit ratio that they simply become sloppy and are prone to slight "untruths" which in the end muddies their own reputation badly.

A bit of topic but, a similar "review" made me avoid a site totally where I once was an interested reader.
It is an Australian car review website.
They reviewed a Hyundai iload van.
Their review made mention of the vehicle having quite noticeable torque steering problems.
The iload van is a rear wheel drive vehicle and as such would not be prone in any shape form or manner to such an occurrence.
I was left wondering if they actually drove the vehicle and my immediate response was to delete the bookmark to the site and never visit again.
Ws

[swifty]

I have a friend who's very interested in this lens for his 1D MkIII.
But with an APS-H sensor it makes it a roughly 23-45mm equiv FOV lens and changes the characteristics a little, arguably to a more useful focal length range. The big question of course is how large is the image circle across the zoom range and how useful will it be on the 1D3, without encountering severe vignetting problems.
He's looking at this lens from the perspective of a wedding photographer. I can't help feel a 85-135mm f2 equiv zoom would pair incredibly well with this lens.

Lets see if Sigma'll create some 2X zoom constant f2 lenses for FF.
I'm very impressed with Sigma of late.