< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

It’s real: Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM lens announced

Sigma-18-35mm-f1.8-DC-HSM-lens-with-hood

The rumors were true: Sigma officially announced the world's first 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM zoom lens:

World’s first lens offering an aperture of F1.8 throughout the zoom range.SIGMA 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM

The Sigma Corporation is pleased to announce the new Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM, the large aperture APS-C format standard zoom lens.

What makes a standard lens ideal for you?

Certain important qualities are required, such as fast maximum aperture, versatility for snap shots, portraiture and indoor photography plus a good combination of a wide range of focal lengths in a compact design.

SIGMA 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM is the first zoom lens ever to achieve a maximum aperture of f1.8 throughout the zoom range. It is a wide aperture, standard zoom-lens for digital single lens reflex camera's with APS-C size sensor's.

The lens has a focal range equivalent to 27mm - 52.5mm in a 35mm format and it can cover the angles of view of multiple fixed focal length lenses. This wide aperture, standard zoom lens enables the photographer to expand creative possibilities on any occasion.

More details from Sigma's website:

MTF Chart

Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 DC HSM lens mtf chart

Vignetting

Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 DC HSM lens vignetting

Distortion

Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 DC HSM lens distortion

Lens design

Sigma-18-35mm-f1.8-DC-HSM-lens-design

 

Specifications

Lens Construction: 17 elements in 12 groups
Minimum aperture f16
Filter size: 72mm
Angle of view (SD1): 76.5°-44.2°
Minimum focusing distance 11in
Dimensions (Diameter x Length):  3.1 inches x 4.8 inches
Number of diaphragm blades: 9 (rounded diaphragm)
Maximum magnification ratio:  1:4.3
Weight: 28.6 oz
This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Zoron

    holy sheet !!…this is it…

  • Kenny

    Wow. Sigma has really upped their game lately.

    • Noor

      Now if the QC improves, I’ll consider it. Until then, no.

      • Jon McGuffin

        I think they’ve addressed their QC issues in their new line of lenses.. the Art series are fantastic and I’ve heard no complaints

        • http://www.facebook.com/abhinav.sah Abhinav Sah

          Well..the first copy of 35 f/1.4 art series I received was dead on arrival.. the focus motor refused to move.. the manual override didnt move the lens elements at all.. i have 3 of the sigmas best lenses.. and they had their share of serious QC issues.. i love their glass but not the production pipe !

          Wrote to Sigma with the serial Number but no response.

          • catinhat

            I’m not questioning your experience However, I consider myself a heavy Sigma user, some of my most used lenses are Sigmas, and not once did I have a QC or any type of failure with a Sigma lens or TC. Frankly, after Nikon’s recent string of QC debacles, I have more confidence in Sigma quality than Nikon’s.

            • http://www.facebook.com/abhinav.sah Abhinav Sah

              That’s good to hear. I have had colleagues who used sigma glass and not faced issues and i have had colleagues who had similar issues. Not that Nikon/Canon don’t have QC issues but at least in India where Sigma doesn’t have a direct presence (only through distributors) its really really difficult to get your copy exchanged/repaired.

  • Zoron

    I am super glad Sigma is messing with NIkon Canon…now they hv to act on it….

    • orpickaname

      I’d rather watch Sigma extend the Art line… can’t wait for an updated 85 f/1.4, 105 and/or 135 (f/1.8 maybe?) etc

  • http://the.me/ DanTHEME

    This thing is huge though, wonder if it’s worth the extra brightness… Samples anyone? Guess this lens is mostly about bokeh.

  • JC

    sigma, please shock us all with a 18-35/1.8 DG!
    nevertheless before that happen, I will have this on my FF, don’t care about Dof. :p

  • jake

    it looks like a DX lens , so no use for me at all.

    • Bobby

      That’s because it is a DX lens you bumbling fool.

      • umeshrw

        Why so caustic? You can say what you want even without insulting people.

        • neversink

          Insulting people anonymously is what the internet is all about…. ;–}

  • http://www.facebook.com/chris.rylee Chris Rylee

    Game changer.

    • Mr. Mamiya

      It’s the equivalent of a 27-50 f/2.8 on FX in terms of focal length and DOF, for the speed I’d bump up my ISO on my FX camera one stop. Good addition for DX users, but nothing a 28-70 or 24-70/2.8 hasn’t done on film and FX for decades. Nice, but doesn’t sound like a “game changer” to me.

      • Bobby

        Except one is at f1.8 and the other is at f2.8. Do you understand now? Can you comprehend that Dumbo?

        • Mr. Mamiya

          I do. And when you shoot something at f/1.8 on DX and I shoot the same thing at f/2.8 on 35mm film or FX, we will both get an almost identical image. Can you comprehend that? Magic of the image sensor formats.

          • Konrad

            You don’t know what You are talking about. If You claim You have FF one stop faster then DX then You must have D4. This one is 6 (six) times pricier then d7k. And now You still claim that You have FF lens with the same DOF like DX f/1.8. Then You must have 2.4 FF zoom lens. But there is no such in existence. Nowhere. Even if You would have one You still are few thousands (thousands!!!) dollars behind. Not a game changer? So what is “a game changer” for You?

            • Mr. Mamiya

              Check out a DOF calculator, f/1.8 on DX is ~ f/2.7 on FX, so it’s almost f/2.8.

              No D4 necessary, the cheapest combination of a full frame camera and f/2.8 zoom I could use to demonstrate this behaviour to you would be my trusty F100 and a AF 35-70/2.8 D, worth 350 € summed up.

            • http://www.facebook.com/chris.lewis.16144606 Chris Lewis

              I’d give up if I were you. You been wholly correct in everything you’ve posted, but idiots will never be convinced that they might be wrong.

            • FOH

              shoot 24mm f/2.8 on FX and 24mm f/1.8 on DX with this Sigma lens, crop the FX photo to match DX field of view and tell me which has a shallower depth of field.

            • orpickaname

              What are you trying to tell? You’d just end up comparing the same focal length on DX, with two different F-numbers.

              Instead, compare an image shot at 36 mm f/2.8 on FX to one that is shot at 24mm f/1.8 on DX from the exact same spot and you’ll get very similar images from both cameras (no cropping involved). We call this “equivalence” in both FoV and DoF.

            • MRGABE

              you cannot conduct an experiment and test a hypothesis with two variables. 24mm is NOT the same as 36mm. the angle of view is NOT the same.

            • orpickaname

              Not a hypothesis. Just try it. By the way, did you read the above post correctly (that is, we’re comparing two different focal lengths on two different SENSOR sizes here)?

              Please don’t confuse focal length with “angle of view” (or “field of view” for that matter). The latter is a function of the focal length AND the image sensor size, not just the focal length alone.

            • MRGABE

              once again. you cannot conduct an experiment and test a hypothesis with two variables. 24mm f/1.8 on DX isn’t the same as 36mm f/2.8 on FX.

              angle of view and field of view are two different things. they are not one and the same. at 24mm, you get the same angle of view on both an FX and DX camera.
              regarding field of view, THEN DX 36mm = FX 24mm.

            • orpickaname

              MRGABE, the point is here to find an equivalence in both FoV (and actually also AoV, please read on) and DoF, in order to get identical/very similar image from both setup.

              And respectfully, MRGABE, please check your understanding again — are you sure you understand the term “angle of view” correctly?

              Yes, angle of view and FoV are different things, but they are directly related to each other, and they are both affected by not only the focal length, but also the SENSOR size.

              I searched for some clear examples to illustrate this without explaining too much, so here goes, please check:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view
              http://www.acapixus.dk/photography/angle_of_view.htm
              http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/standard_display/bctv_tools/bctv_range_calculator/bctv_range_angleview

              In the last two links, we don’t have the correct DX size for comparison but you should be able to see clearly how the image sensor affected the angle of view.

              By the way, the more accurate equivalence in AoV and FoV would be closer to 24mm on DX ~ 36.72mm on FX (1.53x ratio, IIRC).

              If you referred to another “angle of view” term that is different than described above, then please give me a pointer so I can see your point.

              Thanks.

            • orpickaname

              (continuing the above post)

              I’ve found a better explanation someone else has made. Please take a look at the best answer in this article, it’s crystal clear:

              http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/5917/what-is-angle-of-view-in-photography

            • MRGABE

              i completely understand what you’re saying, that FX 36mm and DX 24mm produce similar images.

              what I’m saying is, they cannot be compared. there are two different systems. a higher focal length will always have the advantage when it comes to shallower depth of field.

              all in all, i really just came to say that this lens is a game changer.

            • MRGABE

              another thing i wanted to mention is, i think this will push lens technology and force lens makers to produce f/1.8 zoom lenses for FX. It doesn’t have to be 12-300mm. I think 3 lenses covering the 16-85mm range is definitely plausible/doable. maybe 16-35mm, 35-70mm, 70-85mm?

          • Bert

            big difference in shutter speed when shooting at f/1.8 vs f/2.8

            • Mr. Mamiya

              That’s why I said I’d raise my ISO on FX and still have the same thing with similar noise performance.

            • fred

              If you put this lens on D800 in DX mode will it still be f1.8 then? Will I need to adjust flash value? Important! (GN = fstop x distance)

            • Guest

              One might even say 1 1/3rd stops faster…

            • YR

              shutter speed is also a function of ISO and low light performance which is significantly better on full frame

          • Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

            So you are saying you expect this lens to cost 4000+ USD?
            Because thats how much your equivalent FX comparison cost. (D600 + nikon 24-70/2.8)
            Atleast give sigma som cred for trying to innovative.

            • Mr. Mamiya

              I do agree that Sigma is innovative, it’s probably the first commercially available f/1.8 zoom ever, great engineering by great engineers. But it’s not a “game changer” in a way that it enables you to shoot images or work in a way that was never possible before. I’d declare it “the first real 2.8 zoom for the DX format”, but DX isn’t the world.

            • No longer Pablo Ricasso

              It’s a game changer in that you can now get your DX camera to have the depth of field that your full frame has with a fast zoom. Let’s hope it works OK wide open.

            • Mr. Mamiya

              Looking forward to the announcement of the Sigma 10-15mm f/1.2 zoom lens for the Nikon 1. First f/1.2 zoom ever, game changer too.

        • Mike M

          Except DX is typically at least one stop worse for noise performance and has about a stop less DOF “control” for those that like super short DOF. This lens allows DX cameras to perform more like an FX camera with a 28-55 f2.8 would, which is what the other poster said, but you clearly lack the understanding to comprehend.

          • Bobby

            LOL. This worked out better than I expected. I was merely being facetious in that one was an f1.8 and the other f2.8. There was no mention of DOF. But, by all means do carry on. And while you are at it, go look up the term facetious because you ‘clearly lack the understanding to comprehend’.

        • phosgene

          Optics is not your strong point. Kudos to your artful combination of incorrectness and rudeness though.

        • KG

          God, you’re dumb. He said all an FX user has to do is up their ISO by a stop, you pretty much get the same light, FX sensors offer shallower DOF to counter any other differences. Dumbo.

      • yeh

        Photography is always about a balance between fstop, ISO and shutter speed and giving preference to the ones that creatively make the capture. There are always tradeoff between the choices you make (ie grain, shallow DOF, freeze motion) If you want to continue to be a boring shooter then continue to focus on “properly exposed”.

        Also what are you talking about that it is the equivalent in terms of DOF? Last time I checked it means “the range of acceptable focus” don’t all lenses do this? So many people think DOF means subject isolation that is called shallow depth of field. An f22 landscape image has DOF too it is just not SHALLOW. Sorry got off on a rant…

        • fjfjjj

          Photography is always about f-stop, ISO and shutter speed? I thought it was always about film, paper, and developer. Or was it light, subject, and composition? Dammit, I always forget!

          • No longer Pablo Ricasso

            No. It’s about naked women and lots of booze.

      • http://www.facebook.com/chris.rylee Chris Rylee

        The lens is the first of its kind and gives DX shooters the opportunity to get 24-70/2.8 results on a crop sensor body. It also appears to provide some fast aperture focal lengths that nikon hasn’t ever tried to fill.

        I’m an FX shooter and have no intent to purchase this lens, but I see this lens as an innovative game changer. It might not change my shooting game, but my point will stand when Nikon and Canon start releasing similar lenses in the coming years.

        • fjfjjj

          Don’t you mean 28-50 f/2.8?

          • http://www.facebook.com/chris.rylee Chris Rylee

            That was a direct response to Mr. Mamiya’s comparison to the 24-70

        • Mr. Mamiya

          It’s innovative for DX and for sure many DX users will love it, as there also only a few fast wide primes (e.g. the Sigma 20/1.8). I was just thinking a bit outside the box. For example there’s a Olympus Zuiko 14-35 f/2.0 fast zoom lens in production for many years now. If you know that, it’s not super-revolutionary.

      • Phil

        If two photos are taken, one on FX and the other on DX at the same distance from the subject, the focal length will be different. However, the depth of field will remain unchanged.
        See this article for clarification:

        http://www.have-camera-will-travel.com/field_reports/full_frame_vs_crop_sensor_-.html

        • cppguy16

          But in order to get the same angle of view, you use a 1.5x longer focal length on FX, which makes the DOF noticeably shallower.

          • Phil

            Did you read my post properly? If both shots are taken from THE SAME DISTANCE from the subject, the focal length will be different, but the depth of field will be the same. Check the photo in the link I provided as a comparison.

            • orpickaname

              Yes, Phil, the depth of field will be the same for the EXACT SAME FOCAL LENGTH… not only that, but the EXACT SAME LENS will always have the EXACT SAME FOCAL LENGTH no matter what plane (i.e. sensor/film size) you will use to focus the lens on.

              Now it is the SENSOR SIZE that makes the DIFFERENCE, Hence why we’re talking about EQUIVALENCE.

              In that page you referenced, for example, to get the 30D to yield the EQUIVALENT i.e. SAME IMAGE (same depth of field AND SAME FIELD OF VIEW) as the 5D did, (yes, from THE SAME DISTANCE as you said), you will have to use a

              105mm / 1.6 = 65.625 mm (EQUIVALENT focal length for the same FOV on the crop sensor)
              F2.8 / 1.6 = F1.75 (EQUIVALENT F-number for the same DOF with the focal length given above)

              (1.6 being the crop ratio for Canon APS-C sensor as compared to FF/35mm)

              Then you will have two pictures that are EQUIVALENT in PERCEIVED depth of field AND in PERCEIVED FIELD OF VIEW (try calculating both combinations and you will see it). The exposure, however, will be different, because of the difference in aperture number between the two.

              GET IT?

            • http://www.facebook.com/omar.barcenas Omar Barcenas-Photography

              you’re repeating what phil said but saying it in a more confusing way.

              also “But in order to get the same angle of view, you use a 1.5x longer focal length on FX, which makes the DOF noticeably shallower.” wtf does that even mean. I think that’s why phil told you to read his post, I have no idea what you mean by this sentence. maybe stop looking a calculations and start shooting photos. and this goes for me too (I spend so much time reading crappy comments, it wastes brain cells).

              too many whiners and nerds with money (read leica ‘photographers who shoot cats) on these forums, it’s becoming like dpreview.

            • orpickaname

              No, I was not repeating what Phil said. And I’m saying this with respect: please take another look when you’re not tired, Omar.

              So, have you tried the experiment yourself? No need for calculations. Just try this very simple example.

              24mm @ f/1.8 on DX
              36mm @ f/2.8 on FX

              Same distance. Same object & scene. See whether you’re not getting VERY similar images (in field of view and DoF alike) from both setup.

              Thanks.

              P.S. it’s actually between 36mm and 37mm, so you may want to use a zoom instead to let you get the exact same FoV)

          • FOH

            no, to get the same angle of view, you shoot at the same focal length. to get the same FIELD of view, you use 1.5x longer focal length.

            • orpickaname

              Actually, both angle of view AND field of view are affected by the focal length AND the SENSOR size.

            • MRGABE

              field of view and angle of view are not the same thing. angle of view does not change, and is completely independent from sensor size. field of view is a dependent variable of sensor size.

            • orpickaname

              I just wrote a longer post above, stating how both Field of View and Angle of View are both variables that are dependent on sensor size (in addition to focal length, of course). Please have a look.

              Thank you.

        • http://www.facebook.com/mauro.schramm Mauro Schramm

          The article states: same subject distance, same focal length, same depth of field and different field of view.

      • Olaf Hoyer

        Depends on the price. I’m doing for example lots of Photography in low-light environments, like event/Party (Club), where also price is a concern. When a decent DX Body like a Nikon 7000 or 7100 (or a Canon 7D) can be equipped with that lens, and is still cheaper than a FX with comparable AF (like 6D/5DIII, or D600/D700/D800) and a 24-70/2,8 – then it will change the game here in a certain market segment.
        So when you are able to save about 1/3 of the cost of a FX/24-70 combo, it will make a difference to you. Will mean: Game changer in certain area only if lens can be sold for sub-1000$ to compete with the proven combo of FX with way more headroom on difficult lighting situations.

        Will mean: as FX is typically one stop better, a f/1,8 lens for DX will finally put DOF _and_ ISO/Noise Relation to par settings again.

    • Smudger

      Not without a D400 to put it on it isn’t.
      The DX game is stalled.

      • ActionJunky

        I am sorry to hear that you are quitting photography. If you are going to continually wait for a mystical camera, you should just give up.

        • Smudger

          Now, where did I say any of that?
          I was writing in English.
          Which language were you reading in?

      • NRA Advocate

        Booooo-hooooo, where’s my D400! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

        Get over it already. D400 ain’t comin’.

    • Aldo

      For what I do …. a true game changer would be the 24-70 2.8 VR from nikon

  • BenHDisqus

    Wow! If I still shot with a DX body, I would so order one right now.

    • RC

      I wonder how much of the FX frame it would cover.

      • san

        I’m thinking the same thing — who knows, it could make a good candlelit party shooter, even with the vignetting.

      • SleeperSmith

        Doesn’t look like much if you look at the vignetting graph.

      • mlwadester

        I’d say about 2/3 of it…

  • Spy Black

    No VR. I know you’re probably thinking you don’t need it with an F like that, but you do. VR is the single most important lens advancement since coated optics. And forget about bokeh, it means jack in this range. While I think this is cool, I’ll take an f4 optic with VR over this any day.

    • http://www.facebook.com/razvanbk Razvan Tulai

      Nikon 35 1.8 DX does not have VR… so sad.. 24-70 2.8 Nikon has no VR… so that would meen Tamron is King right now? I love Tamron, but let’s be serious… 18-35 is not a lens that needs vr.. unless it has Tamron VC so it would actualy do something.

      • Spy Black

        My lowly 18-55 Nikkor kit optic has VR, and it’s been instrumental in low-light situations. An f/4 optic with VR will give you a sharper image image than an f/1.8, because it still has a one-stop stabilization advantage over the f/1.8.

        • neversink

          Myths… Learn how to photograph…

          • Spy Black

            No myths, quite the reality. Learn to accept…

    • Orestor

      VR? How about learning a good shooting technique?

      I agree it’s suitable for long and heavy tele lenses, but on this range? I have a Nikon 24-70 and i don’t need it.

      • RC

        I don’t care how good of a technique anyone has. VR can still help. Movies could also benefit from VR.

      • vFunct

        Good Shooting Technique + VR is better than Good Shooting Technique alone.

        The Nikon 24-70 needs VR the most. VR is most useful for low-light scenes – clubs, parties, theatre, concerts, etc. A mid-range zoom lens, fast (f1.4), with VR would be the most perfect lens ever.

        Not sure where it would be NOT useful. All images are better with VR. (unless of course you’re going for a long-exposure blurry look)

        I agree that VR is the single most important lens advancement since.. anything really. People are going nuts because this Sigma lens adds 1.5 stops of power over the typical F2.8 mid zoom. Well, VR now adds -4-5 stops!

        I can’t wait for all cell phone cameras to include optical image stabilization as well. My next cell phone will include that.

        • Zivko Radovanovic

          Agree with you in most part, except your last comment on cell phone…a good and useful IS/VR ‘contraption’ etc requires physical dimensions…don’t count on it in the cell phone, especially not the way they’re heading with thinner and thinner profile in every edition. If they introduce it it will be electronic and won’t be even as nearly as functional as the ‘real’ one.

          • t8t

            Nokia Lumia 920 has OIS using MEMS. So does HTC One. So…

            • Pablo Ricasso

              If you can call that a decent VR…

            • t8t

              Decent or not, it’s an optical image stabilizer.

            • Pablo Ricasso

              Don’t be silly t8t…I have it on my Lumia 920 and it sucks. I don’t believe HTC one would be much better, either.

        • ActionJunky

          I cannot agree. Even Nikon and Canon recommend turning off the VR when using a tripod, because it can induce a small level of unwanted blur. I have tried VR on numerous occasions and I cannot point to a single instance where it was beneficial, except video. I suspect that my technique has much to do with it. I usually tuck my elbows in to support the camera or lean against a sturdy object.

          VR is an important technology, but it is not for everyone.

          I really do not see how it would work at clubs, parties, theaters, etc. You are going to be shooting wide-open in these venues already. You cannot lower the shutter speed because that would blur the images beyond recognition. You might be able to lower the ISO 3-4 stops because that effects shutter speed.

          • vFunct

            You can lower shutter speeds to 1/30 or 1/15 just fine for clubs/parties/theatre/concerts. Don’t need 1/500+ for those, since they aren’t high-speed sporting shots. And, when you’re at those slow shutter speeds, VR is necessary.

            And no one shoots with tripods at clubs/parties/theatre/concerts, so you need to enable VR.

    • SOMA

      VR? LOL! you don’t need any VR on this focal range.. and VR has a price.. have you seen the price of canon’s 35mm f2 IS?!

      • Kombi

        Ever shot video with your wide lens?
        Getoutatown…

      • AM

        How come the Nikkor 16-35mm f/4 has VR and is always backordered?
        Have you ever shot indoors in poor light conditions where tripods are not allowed, such as in a museum? I guess not, based on your idiotic reasoning.

        • Swade

          Because you’re shooting at f/4, not f/1.8

          • AM

            We are talking about usefulness of VR on WA lenses that doesn’t have anything to do with the f stop you are using. There are times that you want more DOF to have more stuff in focus and f/1.8 will not cut it, such as taking a picture of the whole room, you’ll most likely be using f/5.6 or smaller, the VR will come handy.

            And before somebody goes “just use a higher ISO”, wouldn’t you prefer low-noise images using the lowest ISO possible? VR will help as well.

    • Chris P

      Unfortunately the provision of VR has become one of those things which a lot of people now demand because they lack optical knowledge. VR only helps in reducing vibrations caused by the photographer’s movement and therefore is of little use in wide angle lenses where the relative subject movement, unlike telephoto lenses, is small. Secondly it only helps where none of the objects in the frame are in motion as it cannot reduce blurring due to subject motion, this being wholly controlled by shutter speed. Thirdly, and most important of all is that the introduction of VR reduces the optical quality of the lens. This trade off is worth it when hand holding a long focal length lens, but not in wide angles.

      Sigma have adopted the approach of a lens manufacturer who cares about optical quality and those photographers who have some understanding of optics; unlike Nikon, who with their introduction of the 16-35 and 24-120 f4’s, demonstrated that they are after the biggest market, who due to lack of understanding, want VR with everything and wide focal length ranges.

      • Rosco Tanner

        “…unlike Nikon, who with their introduction of the 16-35 and 24-120 f4’s, demonstrated that they are after the biggest market, who due to lack of understanding, want VR with everything and wide focal length ranges..”

        No, not really. Nikon introduced VR in those two lenses you mention primarily to aid those who use their DSLRs for video recording, as well as photo shooting.
        And having a VR in a lens that goes up to 120mm telephoto on the second lens you mention, is pretty much a must on any modern lens.

        So it appears you’ve been giving unsolicited ‘lessons’ to others here while you seem to be in a dire need of one, yourself.

        • kikica j.

          Well said.

        • Kenny

          Good points, but he was responding to a someone who said “I’ll take an f4 optic with VR over this any day,” which is a pretty dumb thing to say.

          • Spy Black

            And why is that?

      • António Gomes

        Chris, thanks for allowing me to realize my “lack of understanding” but after a second thought I still think VR is an advantage of my 16-35m zoom, even if I don’t use it for all shots I value it in situations demanding rapid lateral camera movements in low light conditions.
        By the way, I don’t intend to sell my primes due to the lack of VR.

        • Swade

          How would VR be helping with “rapid lateral movements in low light conditions”?

      • Spy Black

        Considering I’ve been shooting for 40 years with plenty of unstabilized optics in low-light conditions, I think I might know a thing or two about shooting techniques, and optical knowledge to boot. I would say far more than you.

  • Nitsubishi

    18-35 1.8 ‘DG’ PLEASE!!!

    • 800mm f/2.8 DX VR

      just won’t happen!

    • Papa Shtrumph

      That would be so big and heavy it would most likely come with a tripod collar…get real, people.

      • babola

        True that, many people seem to forget about the rules of physics that come into play with fast glass for full frame cameras.

    • Zoron

      DG in 2-4 years time…

      • Citra

        Same launch date as D900

      • Kenny Loggins

        Don’t think so, Tim…
        How big and heavy do you want your standard zoom lens to be?
        Come on…

        • Zoron

          won’t be any heavier than 14-24

  • martijn

    At least one company is trying something new and daring. I am curious about the performance!

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      I agree, Fuji, Sigma and partially Sony are trying very hard to bring unique and innovative products.

      • Sushi Fuji

        And Fuji is doing a hell of a job. From experience, their products are great!

  • JohnM

    Impressive. I am curious what kind of performance it will have. And then there is cost. In the US:

    AF-S 28mm f/1.8 (FX) = $700
    AF-S 35mm f/1.8 (DX) = $200
    AF-S 50mm f/1.8 (FX) = $220

    Anything over $1200 is going to be paying for convenience, among other things.

    • sloma_p

      Now compare prices of cheapest FX and DX bodies, or even better cheapest FX and most expensive DX so that those primes give you equiv. FOV and then talk…

      • JohnM

        I don’t understand what your point is here. Equivalent DOF? FX vs DX? What does these have to do with anything?

        This lens from Sigma is DX. The above three primes cover the same focal range with the same aperture for $1200, and also work on DX.

        • Fuzz

          The focal length of the lens if 18-35. DX or FX doesn’t make any difference to cover that focal length at f/1.8 you would need 18/24/35 primes. Problem is no one makes the 18 or 24 in DX so you have to buy the sigma 20/1.8 £515, sigma 24/1.8 £429, Nikon 35/1.8 £150 so nearly £1100 in total and you still aren’t at 18mm at the wide end.

      • Swade

        That is exactly why he put those three lenses…

  • Scott M.

    Any ideas on how much it cost$.

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      Sigma usually announces prices few weeks later.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=572614912 Jay Donahue

      i’m going to guess that it will be priced similar to the 50-150 ($999 after rebate.)

  • Crusty

    I am truely awed by this announcement

  • Iso500

    Either it’s horrible expensive or medicore in quality.

    • Johnny Dough

      Or mediocorally expensive and horrible in quality

    • orpickaname

      Haven’t heard anything of Sigma’s 35mm f/1.4 DG lately?
      Best-in-class performance for much cheaper price than Nikon’s own version. That’s gotta be saying something.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=24401133 Scott Riemann

    And I JUST picked up a Tokina 11-16 II :(

    • RC

      Return it

    • Rick

      hmm? that’s a ultra wide..it will pair up nicely with this

    • Sports

      What’s the problem? There’s no overlap:
      11-16
      18-35
      Sounds like the perfect match.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=572614912 Jay Donahue

      KEEP the tokina.

  • Rick

    WOW…..when everyone is waiting for nikon to produce fast DX primes, Sigma jumps ahead of the game by giving it a convenient 18-35mm constant f/1.8 that covers wide to normal perspective. If the optics are good…this is a great buy. I kinda disagree it needs a VR because then the price would be out of reach. If you cant do well at wide angle territory with a f/1.8 and body with high ISO, which most bodies are nowadays, then you probably need a tripod or flash? No?

    • RC

      Movies can benefit from VR

      • Rick

        Sure it’s nice to have it. Let’s see the price of this. If add VR, definitely gonna be more $$$

  • 800mm f/2.8 DX VR

    Admin, I thought from what you said before that the 2013 DX love was going to be from nikon!

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      Maybe they will respond with something similar?

  • Captain Megaton

    “What makes a standard lens ideal for you?”

    The compact size~

  • http://twitter.com/maninsuitcase Chris Pearson

    Seems I need to eat some humble pie. I was convinced this was a fake last night!

    Will be interesting to see the price and image quality as it could be a genuine alternative to the Nikon 17-55 2.8 I’ve been considering. Vignetting at f1.8 looks fairly strong however at a bit over a stop at it’s worst but not terrible.

    Seems Sigma are really gunning to change the way of things with their new lenses.

    • Bob_buttons

      Never underestimate Japanese people… They can make anything. :P

      • SleeperSmith

        Doesn’t seem to apply to Nikon/Canon

        • lorenzo

          is Nikon still in Japan? :-(

          • SleeperSmith

            Pretty sure they both Japan

    • david k

      Well, I respect you for admitting that you made a mistake. For some reason, few seem to be able/willing to do that.

      • http://twitter.com/maninsuitcase Chris Pearson

        Life would be boring if you where always right!

    • rivercityrocker

      Stay away from the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 if you are shooting a D7100 or plan on getting one. It’s so soft wide open that it was almost unusable for a lot of my work. I ended up trading it for a Zeiss lens for my Leica and now I’m using the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 C instead. It’s pretty sad that a $500 beats Nikon’s flagship DX zoom in IQ.

      If this new lens is as sharp as the the 17-70 you will come out ahead.

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      Nobody believe me also when I published the rumor about the 36MP D800, this is part of the fun :)

      • http://twitter.com/maninsuitcase Chris Pearson

        I guess that’s what happens when some one doesn’t so much push the boundary but smash it down with a big stick!

  • pellevin

    The lack of something bright in the wide angle area was one of the reasons I upgraded from DX to FX. If this lens has good IQ and don’t weigh too much I would almost regret that choice. Seems like a very useful lens for event photography, parties etc. Nikon has not even given us a wide and fast DX prime in ten years, even though every other camera system has one.

  • http://www.facebook.com/vsevolodzh Vsevolod Zhovtenko

    SUPERB. I will definately buy one!

  • FvckedNinja

    Oh my … time to sell my D800 and switch back to a DX camera again. For some reason my old 35mm f1.8g on my D90 was a lot better than the 50mm f1.8g on the D800 – i got more keepers and faster focusing on my old D90 than i get with my new D800 when shooting under extreme light conditions (outdoor events at night).

    Not loving the MTF charts though .. looks like this sigma zoom lens won’t be very sharp. Waiting for some test reviews first ;-/

    • Pat Mann

      On the contrary – these MTF curves are quite impressive for a zoom in this focal range – even if it was only f/2.8 it would be respectable against the current contenders. It’s quite close to the Nikon 17-55 at f/2.8 except for that lens’s very high sharpness at center on the wide end. Though I hear lots of people dissing the 17-55, I find its combination of relatively low distortion and pretty good resolution across most of the field throughout the zoom range very useful to me – I don’t really have to worry about any bad spots. Of course, if I could get a D400, or some wide DX primes, I might be more picky about what my zoom delivers.
      A very strong and commendable effort by Sigma, at least per the graphs they present. Very tempting in Nikon land with no high-speed DX primes at 18mm or 23-24mm.

    • xjxjxjxjxj

      looks like you should work on your technique rather than go back to an 2008-camera

  • jerre

    I think sigma, unlike the major brands is trying to cover every niche in the market… Every brand has VR, and every brand has a constant 2.8 aperture lens, but no one (atleast that I know of) or atleast very few have a constant aperture 1.8… and for a third party lens manufacturer, and just after their recent success with the 35mm f/1.4, its pretty impressive what they can do.

    They even have a (sort of) APS-C equivalent of the “pro-grade” 70-200mm f/2.8 in the form of their 50-150mm f/2.8 which neither Nikon nor Canon have in their N/L-Lens lineups.

    I salute them for making this move. rather than just being another generic company to make a wide angle with VR, they actually made a lens that is faster than the long standing professional standard of f/2.8 in zooms. If it does become “just another lens” in terms of IQ, atleast they managed to up the ante in maximum aperture. Canon and Nikon needs to wake up because the so called “3rd party” lens makers are starting to make good lenses and their share in the market will only grow if this trend continues.

    In the end, it is this kind of competition that is good for us consumers because competition drives innovation, and also lowers the prices.

    • fred

      I read somewhere that DX bodies is nearly 90% of Nikon camera body sales. Thats 90% that have an interest in this lens, good one Sigma for supporting DX. Still waiting for Nikon wide primes in DX.

  • Glenn

    So much for those “experts” who claimed that it was a fake and that the pictures were photo-shopped. Of course you can never count out the other whiners who wants everything such as “VR”, VC, or IS, or it should have been made for full frame but complains about the price is just too high for them. Anyway, thanks for the great new Admin.

  • xjxjxjxjxjxjxj

    props to sigma!
    lens looks great (as does the 35/1.4), adressing pro-DX is smart, three new lenses touch my buy-now button1!

  • http://www.facebook.com/TJarsun Tomás Jarsun

    Nice!! For everyday use just carry this and a 50 1.8 and you are done! Maybe a tele zoom if have space on your bag (and need tele shoots)
    I hope it wont cost more than their 17-50 2.8.. That is a good allaround

  • http://www.facebook.com/relivelastnight Scooby Miranda

    go sigma! the only third party lense that got my vote! ty for making such awesome lenses, the 35mm i have with nikon mouth is superb with my d800 now this? wtf?!!?!?! hail to the new superior of lenses!

    • fred

      This lens will win some awards in 2013 I think.

      f1.8 zoom, world first.

  • Chriskras

    I’m not in the market for buying one, eversince I switched to FX. But I think it’s great the way Sigma is innovating the last months. I really like their new way of making lenses.

  • georges

    f 1,8 for a 18-35….. it’s a joke

  • duncan Dimanche

    I juste hope that it’s a “real” 1.8 and not a actual 2.4 or sth close to that that has been passed as a 1.8g
    But loving Sigma these days !!! I will hold off buying lenses for a bit…. the 35mm 1.4 is my next one

  • わからない

    Brilliant move by Sigma. It now has a full set of reasonably fast aps-c/DX lenses (10-20 f/3.5, this, 50-150 f/2.8 os). Especially in a year when we get the D7100, 70D, 7Dmkii, and imo a D400. A good number of pros abd amateurs will pick a combo of these lenses, IMO.

  • Eric Calabos

    Wake me up when they announced 16-85 f/2.8

  • Nikonnut

    Well done sigma! my most recent purchase was the sigma “art” 35mm f1.4 and its my favourite lens right now for my D600. I also have the Nikon 85mm 1.8g, 50mm 1.8g and tamron 24-70 vc 2.8 and i must say that the sigma feels very special, from the design, build quality through to its performance. I think sigma new vision is something to be excited about. Firmware updateable lenses anyone? Next FX lens annoucement please and make it a zoom!

  • FLfujiFan

    It has been my experience that most third party lenses hunt in low light. IMO a fast lens that hunts in low light is worthless!

    • anon

      both my Nikkor 85mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 hunt in low light on both my d800 and d300.. so i can’t seem to think it’s a body problem or a lens problem, which only leaves “that’s just how it is.”

  • Lino

    Now I realize that sigma is a game changer

  • 12

    Hopefully this means that we will slowly get away from variable aperture lens. For me I find them such a pain to use and because of that don’t buy them.

  • http://twitter.com/makatron Isaac Alonzo

    Wonder where are all those that yesterday were screaming FAKE :p

    I will seriously get this lens!

    • fred

      haha, list them all here. A slice of humble pie for each.

  • rajahx

    Go sigma! its about time someone made more affordable high end glass. I am tired of paying >$2K for Nikkor lenses.

    • http://twitter.com/Michaelius_pl Michaelius

      If it keeps in line with recent Sigma release it won’t be affordable :(

  • RondoX

    I LOVE NIKON RUMORS!!!

    First EVER constant 1.8 zoom in the history of consumer optics and people are ALREADY complaining!!

    “Who needs a DX lens???”

    “What, no VR??”

    “16-35mm f/2 would have been better.”

    “Only 1.8?? Where are the 1.4 zooms???”

    Admin,

    I have a new slogan for your website.

    NIKON RUMORS

    Come for the rumors, stay for the drama.

    • Tom

      You said it perfectly. Couldn’t have said it any better. Each page should have two sections. “Nikon Rumors” at the top and “Nikon Whiners” at the bottom.

    • Laurentiu Ilie

      Wellcome! Stay for the drama.

      Many people share their ideas here, freely, for years, but the manufacturers are just not listening.

      This lens looks great for the moment, but others manufacturers could come with similar lenses with VR, slightly different focal range, aperture, etc, for different uses and users.

      Wake up Nikon!

      • KG

        Why would f/2 be better or more interesting?? You can still use this at f/2. Some people just have to nay-say everything for no apparent reason. f/2 would be better …. lol. How dumb.

    • No longer Pablo Ricasso

      What in the hell took so long?
      Aren’t they going to make it in white?
      Why don’t they have one that fits my RB67????????

      • No longer Pablo Ricasso

        And on a more serious note…
        I think this is going to make a huge splash.
        For a lot of DX shooters it may be the only thing they carry with their 80-400. Some might add either a cheap 50, fast 50, or a macro 50 to their bag. Other people might carry it with a 50-135 and an 8-16 and a few would add a 150-500 to that.
        Let’s hope that the quality control is good on this one.
        And maybe they can make a faster short telephoto to go with it.
        The 35-70 f2.8 full frame has a 62 filter and almost no distortion.

        • Spy Black

          “For a lot of DX shooters it may be the only thing they carry with their 80-400. Some might add…”
          After you add this lens and the 80-400, you’re gonna have a hard time lugging anything else around. ;-)

        • Global

          Nice thought. But only the top of the top of the top of crop will do that (considering the price of the 80-400). The rest will carry a Nikon 18-300 VR + 35/1.8 or 50/1.8.

    • syd

      Really? I don’t get that impression after reading all the posts. It’s a comp between whiners and whiners whining about whiners (and me now).

      I’m more surprised about the potential early adopters. Great for me, I wouldn’t buy a siggy lens until I was 100% sure it was a stunner. It will still take time to repair the bad rep they have (from very personal experience).

      • Global

        Actually, they are not whiners. Gear-heads do often talk curtly, but these are well-intentioned people, who tend to be more informed than average & are just sharing information. For example — assuming the cost of the Sigma is around $1,000+, the reason why a 30/1.4 or 35/1.8 DX lens is recommended INSTEAD of this zoom, is because those lenses cost $200~ dollars. Whereas, this zoom is going to cost $1,000 dollars. So……. you figure it out. Is it whining to give advice to your friends “don’t buy this limited range $1,000 zoom — buy a 50/1.8 & a 30/1.8 for $400 total instead & spend the other $600 on a third lens”? This is not whining — its GOOD advice. These are DSLRS. And this Sigma is a very limited range zoom. If its anywhere near $1000 — its not worth it. This is friendly advice, not whining. To prove it: Kudos to Sigma for innovating a fixed zoom f/1.8; excellent job! I just wouldn’t buy it for exactly the same reason I would never buy a 135-200mm/4 if it cost TRIPLE the amount of a 200/f4. Right? Wouldn’t it be better for 99% of people to get a 200/4, 135/2 & one more lens, instead? Exactly. Now, if the Sigma only costs $400 bucks — then HEY! That’s a GREAT deal. But if it costs $1,000+… then its not a good deal at all. Okay, seems you understand now.

        • nobody cares

          It depends on what you’re using it for. IF I bought this lens (and i’d definitely wait on reviews from users), it’d be for shooting bands in clubs, where lighting is limited as is space, the ability to zoom in/out matters. The other choice is to carry an extra body, or 2. I love my primes, but swapping them out is a PITA and by the time you change the lens, the moment has passed.

  • ambi

    now we gotta see what nikon, tamron and canon has to say

    • lorenzo

      have*

  • http://www.facebook.com/nefsantos Nelson Santos

    Ok guys, am I kissing something here?! This is definitely a game changer! Its a 1.8 wide angle zoom! It gives you about 1.5 stops extra of light! No its not FX, but soon it will be! This is the start, its a game changer! Besides, you can use it on a FX camera like the D800 in crop mode! Might not be the sharpest, but I don’t mind sacrificing a bit of sharpness for a more accurate exposure, lower noise, or even “motion freezing power”. Go shoot inside a chrurch with no flash and u might see how much of a game changer this lens might be!

    • joseph

      Wide-angle zoom? Not really. Slightly wide to normal. 1.5 stops? NOPE, 1 and a third.

      Shooting this on the D800 in crop mode is about the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Just go get a 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.4.

  • Michael Choong

    So much shorter focal length not sure it is useful..

  • Greg

    Boom goes the dynamite!!

  • Jonathan Ingram

    I need a 14-300 f/1.8 for fx please! LOL. Even if this lens
    isn’t for you we should all step back for a moment and appreciate that Sigma is
    creating new options for dx photographers. I have a lot of respect for this
    company, from the outrageous 200-500 f/2.8, to the recent 18-35 f/1.8. Although
    they have had QC issues in the past I really appreciate that this company
    continues to be innovative with their technology. But, seriously, who of us
    wouldn’t sell our house/soul for a 14-300 f/1.8?

    • AlphaTed

      You had me at 300/f1.8.

    • SAL158

      Assuming we do sell our house/soul? The real question is: What would it weigh?

      • lorenzo

        and the next question: how sharp would it be?

      • Clarity

        Something like the Hubble Space Telescope.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kajfal Kaj Fallström

    It looks a bit like a Zeiss to me. Nice look for a Sigma indeed.

  • singlecoilpickup

    This is really impressive. I hope this means that ultra-fast FX wide zooms are close behind.

  • Robert Mossack

    Wow. This would certainly fill a need I’ve been needing to fill for a while.

  • AlphaTed

    Awesome. Now, where’s the D400 to put it on?

    • fred

      Guessing September announcement.. (~waves~ dollar bills under Nikon’s nose)

  • Mike

    Holy shit.

  • Back to top