< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

First images taken with the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM lens are out

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

The Korean website lcap.tistory.com published many sample images taken with the just announced Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM lens. The post also contains distortion, light fall-off and "starring" samples. The photos are taken with a Canon camera, but you can get an idea about the performance of the lens. Another post shows the lens coverage when used on a full frame camera (Canon 5D Mark II).

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Crusty

    Isn’t it nice

  • Peter

    Wow, looks killer — makes me almost wish I didn’t jump to FX.

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/barronlroth Barron Roth

      I’m sure we’ll have a 24-70 version soon enough!

      • http://www.facebook.com/lostark Noah Fence

        No, we definitely wont. The front element would be 100mm in diameter and it would weigh 5lbs. And that would just be for an FX 18-35, to say nothing of the monster that would be a 24-70.

        • http://www.flickr.com/photos/barronlroth Barron Roth

          I’m curious, how do you determine that?

      • rkas

        You already have lots of 24-70 versions for FX.

        • Kim

          He meant a 24-70mm f/1.8 of coarse!
          (Which would be GIGANTIC!)

          • rkas

            A DX 18-35/1.8 is equivalent to a 27-50/2.8 on FX.

            • preston

              Equivalent in field of view and depth of field, but NOT exposure. So if you’re shooting moving subjects in low light the extra stop and a third of light will let you shoot with a faster shutter speed that could be critical in getting an acceptably small amount of subject motion blur.

            • s1Lma

              Actually quite equivalent (27-52.5/2.7 to be accurate). You don’t take into account light gathering capability of the FF sensor.

    • shorebreeze

      No need for it. Between the better noise performance at FX and the weight issues and every thing else, something like a 24-70/2.8 on an FX body can be considered directly equivalent to this.

      • Peter

        The FX Nikons can take advantage of DX lenses with a simple sensor crop if you are willing to accept the loss of resolution that comes with it. With today’s FF resolutions, you can still take advantage of the FX sensor noise performance with DX lenses and get something out of it that is on a level with what a D300s produces for example in terms of megapixels.

  • fred

    Nikon will have to try hard to up the ante on this lens…or Nikon can ignore DX and the 90% of its DSLR customers.

    • Olaf Hoyer

      nooo, why? Most of its DX customers are from entry level segment and are happy with the kit lens or the super-duper el cheapo 18-200 Zoom lens from 3rd Party Mfgr like Tamron or Sigma. And even in the prosumer area, not everybody will really need a wide-angle-zoom with f/1.8- especially not when this lens will cost (I have to assume here) say, around 800-1000 $. Yes, in certain areas it can level out some things between highend DX users and save them the jump to FX, as FX does have one stop advantage over similar DX sensor in regards of shallower Depth-of-Field, oder dynamic/Tonal range. So, when you are dealing with lots of low-light stuff, you finally can do nearly the same things as a FX user with his 24-70 f/2,8 (despite being cut off at 50mm Fx-equiv.) I am doing lots of event photography, and for me it possibly will spare me the jump from my D7000 to FX like D600/D700 in combination with an adequate 24-70/2,8 lens. And therefore save me in the whole system easily 1000 bucks that dont have to be financed and can be spent otherwise. For me, such a lens makes very much sense, but for lots of other area of photography, where you will need DOF or do not need zoom lenses like portrait, there are cheaper and better lenses available.

  • viejopajillas

    How much cost this “toy”??

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      No info on price yet, Sigma usually announces the price few weeks/months later.

    • Mr. Mamiya

      You will hope it’s way cheaper than the Olympus 14-35/2.0 Zuiko.

    • lorenzo

      My bet is around $1,300, let’s see how close I was.

      • Doug

        I’d call that wishful thinking. My guess is ~$2300.

        • lorenzo

          If they want to beat Nikon and Canon I doubt they will sell it at that price, but you might be right, we’ll see :-)

          • Remedy

            Dude get Your shit straight. Both Nikon and Canon have NOTHING comparable to this lens. This way Sigma can charge for the lens as much as they want.

            Second, there are people who are not label hoes and choose better product not “better” label.

            Third, Sigma is already destroying Nikon and Canon on so many levels. 8-16mm (for crop), 12-24mm (for FF), 35mm f/1.4 which destroys both Canon and Nikon, 50mm f/1.4, macro 105mm, 150mm and 180mm, 300-800mm zoom, 200-500mm f/2.8 zoom (!!!!!!!!!!).

            People like You need to get their head out of their asses and look around a bit.

            • Pablo Ricasso

              You are the one who should get his shit crap before you start labeling other people. More that half of your dribble isn’t correct, yet somehow you seem to preach with such a pomp to others.

            • JakeB

              Well said Pablo, I doubt he even knows shat he’s talking about.

            • Remedy

              Do you refer to yourself in third person? Facepalm.

            • lorenzo

              Pablo, there are some that are not aware of how much psychiatric help they need. We should just ignore them :-)

            • Remedy

              …like you.

            • Remedy

              Read above imbecile.

            • genotypewriter

              Remedy, time to go back to school. And not just a photography one.
              While you’re there please ask the teacher to brief you on f-stop, then come back and start comparing wide angle Sigmas with Nikons and Canons. Ah, yeah…the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 may be marginally sharper in the corners but next time you hold one if you ever do, compare it’s bokeh wide open with Nikon 35mm f/1.4 you’re comparing it to, as well as put some rubber at the mount before you take it outdoors.

              Bozo.

            • Remedy

              You proved so many times before that you are one of those essential idiots who can’t understand basic sentences. Please show me you fking tool an f/1.8 zoom from Canon or Nikon. Fking moron.

              Now show me all the ther lenses I WAS TALKING ABOUT IN MY PREVIOUS POST YOU BLIND PHUCK.

              Also Sigma 35mm f/1.4 runs circles around 35L or 35 Nikkor in every aspect. ROTFL @ “marginally sharper at the corners”. You are marginally smarter than a shoe. It destroys, DESTROYS in terms of sharpness right from the start everything competition has to offer. At f2 Sigma 35 is sharper than 35L on it’s max!

              Now feel free to go back to whereever they can teach you having a brain.

            • Remedy

              You proved so many times before that you are one of those essential idiots who can’t understand basic sentences. Please show me you fking tool an f/1.8 zoom from Canon or Nikon. Fking moron.

              Now show me all the ther lenses I WAS TALKING ABOUT IN MY PREVIOUS POST YOU BLIND PHUCK.

              Also Sigma 35mm f/1.4 runs circles around 35L or 35 Nikkor in every aspect. ROTFL @ “marginally sharper at the corners”. You are marginally smarter than a shoe. It destroys, DESTROYS in terms of sharpness right from the start everything competition has to offer. At f2 Sigma 35 is sharper than 35L on it’s max!

              Now feel free to go back to whereever they can teach you having a brain.

            • thisguysadickhead

              Fuck you dickhead.

            • stationstall

              Hey NR !!! You need to start censoring profane, vulgar, childish responses like the above. The world is uncivilized enough without having to read these small-brains..

            • http://twitter.com/antodechav Anto de Chav

              I know it sounds infantile but it is often entertaining to read these rants… lol

            • lorenzo

              agree with you! We still have these kinda jerks here, just ignore them.

            • Mykon

              People like you should put their head back in the ass again.

            • Remedy

              Poeple like you should stop being useless in life.

  • Schocker

    Shaaaaaarp!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/lostark Noah Fence

      Maybe I’m spoiled by primes but the samples look like mush to me.

      • Micah Goldstein

        The not-100% images look like mush to you? Seriously?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Marcelo-Borges-Tezza-Pereira/1361296583 Marcelo Borges Tezza Pereira

    Very sharp!

  • Nikonnut

    Looks great!

  • 800mm f/2.8 DX VR

    How many people think that is very good? I think that is better than my 50mm f/1.8 D.

    • MyrddinWilt

      Why would a 800mm tele be DX? Coverage is no problem on a tele, comes for free. The hard part is throwing light away, not keeping it.

      I can’t see why admin thinks this lens is so special. It is just a DX version of the 28-70 f/2.8 which is a very commonplace lens design. There is no question Nikon could do that if they thought there was demand. But most of us would not pay the $2000 Nikon would charge for that lens.

      The only difference is that the rear elements converge the light on a smaller sensor area. The front elements would be identical.

      • jack yell

        Did you miss the 1.8 part?

      • Swade

        That one stop of light allows for a faster shutter speed. You may get the DOF equivalent of a 28 f/2.7 or something like that, but your shutter speed would still be faster.

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

    anyways we are all still waiting for pricing

    • fred

      Now that we know lens is real, the speculation now is on price tag.

      Will Sigma ask lofty premium price… or want to sell MORE lens at a lower price? , gets a Sigma in every camera bag.

      I owned a sigma lens lens in the 90’s, aperture sticking, almost always overexposed, bad surprise on film, (from what I read only) quality is much better now.

      I maybe buy Sigma 35mm f1.4 (890+) but if this zoom is almost same price, maybe not, get more practical 1.8 zoom instead.

  • Laurentiu Ilie

    The images look great, event at f/1.8-f/2.2!

  • Shawn

    I just wonder what use it would be for me??? I already have their 17-50mm F2.8 and am not sure what use the extra stop would be useful for with less zoom coverage. These pics do look good however and somehow seem to have better DOF that mine does at 2.8. I can only think it would have to be at least $1k.

    • Spy Black

      Does the 17-50 have stabilization? If so don’t worry about this lens.

      • Shawn

        Yes it does. The only thing I can see that might be nice is that it looks sharper and would likely be able to soften the background a bit more. It looks to likely make the 1.8 35mm primes redundant with the added benefit of some zoom. I am sure price is going to make the biggest difference to its success.

        • Spy Black

          >>It looks to likely make the 1.8 35mm primes redundant…<<
          No way. Never delude yourself into believing a zoom will outperform a prime. Ever. That's just marketing hype.

          • fred

            A zoom may not always OUTPERFORM a prime but it can at least EQUAL it. The Nikon 14-24mm comes to mind.

            • Spy Black

              Nope. The 14-24 hype is sales pitch. Excellent lens for what it is, but no equal to a prime.

            • Swade

              Not to mention the price tag?

  • Spy Black

    Center sharpness looks decent. No edge images at 100% tho. You can see some softness in the tree shots at 100% wide open, yet the kid shots look pretty good center. Not sure why that is.

  • lorenzo

    I don’t know exactly who these Korean people are but the showed us lot of very good pictures, contrarily to the “Ipse Dixit” from DXO :-)

  • Nikon

    Since when here become Sigma rumors?!

    • lorenzo

      Didn’t see your complain on Zeiss, instead, why? :-)

    • Calibrator

      There was a name change earlier this week.
      Before that it was called underwater-housings-rumors.com…

  • http://www.facebook.com/rob.ueberfeldt Rob Ueberfeldt

    Now they have done the hard stuff how about a dirt cheap ultrawide prime 12mm or less, F4 or less, $300 or…

    Nikon could do this first.

    • neversink

      But Nikon did not do it first. I am not interested because it is Dx. Although it seems to be sharp, not thrilled with the look of the bokeh in some of the shots. It seems to be more angular bokeh than I like, rather than creamy. But then again, that is what I experienced on my pos sigma 150-500. Hard, ugly angular bokeh.

      • captainobvious

        This lens is more of a niche technical achievement than anything. Nobody should expect it be a Zeiss prime. Also, I don’t see enough evidence of shitty bokeh here to give your opinions much consideration. Sure, it’s not Zeiss-level, but it looks more than passable to me, though the available examples don’t offer much in terms of bokeh. You’re just speculating.

        • neversink

          I took a second look and now find contradictory out of focus results. Actually — If you take a look at the DX sample photos you will find some interesting bokeh. Some soft and some hard. The photo of the cherry tree immediately following the white flowers against the off white sky has some very hard bokeh. Yet, the photo of the young girl in orange further below has much more pleasing elements to the out-of-focus areas.

    • http://www.facebook.com/rob.ueberfeldt Rob Ueberfeldt

      FX and DX…

      • neversink

        I stand corrected… thought it was just dx

        • Rob Ueberfeldt

          That’s for my hypothetical lens, the 18-35 is for APS as far as I know.

          • neversink

            I stand corrected again.

    • http://twitter.com/TersoIT David

      NZ$300 right? ;-)

      • http://www.facebook.com/rob.ueberfeldt Rob Ueberfeldt

        I was being easy on Sigma/Nikon and suggesting US$300 though in reality they should be able to get it closer to the price of a 50mm 1.8. Maybe around the $200 (US) mark.

    • http://twitter.com/Michaelius_pl Michaelius

      Something i realy wanted for years :) Altrough in the end sigma 10,5 fish and Nikkor 16-85 cover my needs for now.

      • http://www.facebook.com/rob.ueberfeldt Rob Ueberfeldt

        I had the 10-20 Sigma, nice lens. I didn’t need the zoom I always had it at 10mm. Drop the zoom, size, price etc and I think at LOT of enthusiasts would grab it. Make it FX compatible and you could capture two markets. Anything below 12mm is dam useful in either format.

  • SleeperSmith

    Am I the only person who have a strange feeling Sigma might have shot them selves in a foot, a bit?

    Look at the 18-35/1.8 on 5D2. It’s 35mm only has slight vignetting. Maybe the image circle will shrink in as the aperture closes down. But if not, might as well buy this and stick it on a FF instead of getting 35/1.4?

    • 800mm f/2.8 DX VR

      No way. 35mm f/1.4 is razor sharp corner to corner.

    • san

      No, but from 24mm and on it could work well for casual party shots in the dark. Still not compelling enough a reason if you don’t already have a DX body though.

  • Nikon69

    I wish they tried that lens on Nikon D800 on DX mode, not a crappy 5d….

    • 800mm f/2.8 DX VR

      D7100 would have been better

    • rkas

      Why would they do that? They already shot lots of pictures with a crop camera?

    • Kim

      Or a D3200, which would give even more resolution than D800 on the DX-area…

      • neversink

        I wish they tried that on the D700 replacement or the D400 — Just joking folks, just joking ;–}

  • Drazen B

    Sweet and sharp looking photos, indeed. This Art series is sure to make few of the executives in those more established lens brands scratch their heads.

    My bet is US$1099, on the announcement date.

    • Pablo Ricasso

      Yeah, I believe around or just over a $1K mark, not much more.

  • Alex Gordon

    It’s been said before, but I’ll say it again. This is not the most useful range. I really think if it had been F2 (or even F2.8) but a 16-50 we’d really have something to talk about..

    • Rick

      the zoom range is the compromise. It’s the constant f/1.8. 1 stop of speed, shallower DOF and possibly improved optics and built quality of the A series

      • Swade

        I don’t think he is talking about the DOF of having a 50mm, but the compression. There is more to a lens than DOF.

    • http://www.facebook.com/campanelli.mauro Mauro Campanelli

      I totally agree with you. 18mm is not enough wide, 16mm would be better and 35mm is too wide for portraits because from 50mm on faces look better. Told that, I think that a 16-50 f/1.8 would have set a new standard!

      • NoName

        35 * 1.5 = 52.5.. so it’s okay enough for portrait.

  • Fred Flintstone

    Aah makes me miss Korea, Seoul can be lovely to walk around and photograph, from busy markets to quiet nature area

    • 800mm f/2.8 DX VR

      Might not be a lovely place to walk around for very much longer.

  • Rick

    Wow..looks very clean and sharp, for DX @f/1.8!

  • http://www.facebook.com/campanelli.mauro Mauro Campanelli

    ehm … it is H U G E !!!!!!!

    • Phil McCrevasse

      …as the actress said to the Bishop….

  • Eric Calabos

    Best 18mm ever, but its too big for my D5100
    Nikon, give me a prime 18mm f/1.8 please… you hear me?

    • Kelvin K

      You mean 27mm…there are many lenses already sharp at that angle.

      As far as the 18mm on a DX, check the infamous Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 DX lens, hard to beat that one on a crop sensor camera.

      • babola

        True dat….17-55 DX is hard to beat…shame it’s the last ever pro-level glass made by Nikon for DX cameras, before the FX mania took over…

        • jhvcgxfz

          fx mania? It seems as if the fx maniacs feel that DX lenses keep getting released. we just can’t win ;)

      • preston

        Eric asked for a prime. Any f/1.8 prime in the 17-55 range is going to be less than half the size and weight of the 17-55 f/2.8 zoom (judging by the size of the 50 f/1.8 and the 35 f/1.8). Nikon has no DX primes wider than 35mm and it’s not unrealistic to ask for since they make a 28 f/1.8 for FX and an equiv for CX (the 10mm prime) but not for DX. And having a fixed lens DX camera with the focal length we want doesn’t count! ;)

        • Libby

          Eric stated “best 18mm ever”….which isn’t quite correct.

    • Micah Goldstein

      The closest you can get is the 20mm/1.8 Sigma. It is much maligned, but if you get a good copy, it’s plenty sharp. It’s a bit bulky too. Keep in mind, 1.8 is quite shallow, even at 20mm and wider.

      EDIT: here it is on full frame. This is only a couple feet from the subject, to the shallow DOF wide open is accentuated. It’s a little deeper for landscapes: http://h.micahmedia.com/MG1_4231.jpg

      It does suffer coma with point lights wide open. Otherwise, it is very sharp. Again, this is a good copy, YMMV.

  • winter007

    Wonder how will this DC lens look on FF :) with a little cropping if its anything like Nikkkor DX, you are left with a 30Mpix 5:4 image on D800.

    • san

      I think you’ll be mostly fine with 5:4 from 24mm onward, except for shots where the corners are critical.
      On the last link you can see how it fares on FF (using 5D II).
      You’re welcome. ;)

      • winter007

        Thanks! Missed the last part of the post… these things happen if I read before my morning coffee :)

      • neversink

        Every shot for me is critical. Why put this on an FX if it cuts off the corners….??????? How can I give that to a client???

  • http://twitter.com/csar Carsten Saager

    Looks they have a winner here, pretty sharp, well controlled fall-off and distortion and a good bokeh – even for >$1200 – it will remove the need for many DX shooters as they can get roughly the same DoF and noise performance as with a FX – for less

  • MK

    if nikon doesn’t step up, i may as well buy sigma lenses in the future. 24, 35 and 85 1,4 are all over priced PLASTIC gold ring. Now, there are even more plastic gold ring, they charge consumers premium price but can’t gave us better built. The latest Sigma lenses have superior metal built, superior IQ. Why do i still need to buy tat stupid plastics?

    • the real Pablo Ricasso

      MK, please get your facts right before you post next time. All of those 3 pro Nikon primes come with full internal magnesium alloy construction with plastic externals, just like the new sigma art series lenses. Oh and btw, comparing pro Nikon primes with sigma zooms is just silly.

  • Dreams&Visions

    Doesn’t look that great sry. My nikon primes are way sharper.

  • http://twitter.com/IntangibleGuy Green Life

    A serious contender. Though I’m afraid the price point will reflect the fact that this lens is unprecedented and has no competition.

    If you are not for ultimate sharpness (which is pointless most of the time, tbh) this lens is the perfect companion for low-light sessions.

  • Byron

    Have been considering both the 35mm & 50mm primes for D800. Now I wonder if I should get this to use on DX (15MP) instead for greater flexibility?

  • Smudger

    “Another post shows the lens coverage when used on a full frame camera (Canon 5D Mark II).”

    Users of 1.4 AFS optics will be familliar with this level of vignetting!!!

  • RonsterWVU

    I wouldn’t buy this lens, because it blurs everyone face out.
    How can I properly do my street photography!!!

    Try again Sigma!

    • RC

      You’re kidding right?

  • Alfonso FotoNovedades

    Best 18mm ever, but its too big for my D5100
    Nikon, give me a prime 35mm f/1.2 please!!

  • Chi

    Where are the images taken WITH the lens? :?

  • Jasper Bronkhorst

    Check out this video (English subtitled!) as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhLMGKnduQU

  • Roberto Rodriguez Meza

    Is this lens compatible with the Nikon D5100??

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      yes

  • Back to top