< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM lens price announced: $799

Pin It

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

Sigma announced the pricing of their groundbreaking 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM lens for Nikon DX cameras and I think it's a pleasant surprise: the lens is currently listed at B&H for $799. For comparison (not really, but still) the Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II DX lens costs $846, the 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF DX Lens costs $1,399. Shipment is expected to start on July 31, 2013.

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

    $800? *jawdrop* that’s a pretty good price! Too bad it’s not 18-50/1.8 now…

    • n11

      I’d rather just get the 6mm-1200mm F/.95 for $1,000,000,000 instead.

      • AM

        I returned mine. I found it to be soft when coupled with a TC-20E III.

        • Aldo

          You guys are noobs… i rented mine for 100k and saved a lot of money

          • AM

            I got full refund and a $50K gift card for the inconveniences.

      • fixit

        You’ll have no money left to pay a crew to carry it for you.

    • Nikonhead

      It already weighs almost 2 lbs.

    • fred

      18-50 f1.8…expensive kit lens, but good to have a choice.

  • Mr Andy Pandy

    I just has a little orgasm of the heart! Gosh, I hope this isn’t a typo or mistake from B&H…that would be so devastating.

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      Don’t they have to honor the advertised price if it is a mistake?

      • Paul

        Just having it on their website is not advertising the price. And for true “typos” they don’t have to actually honor it.

      • DafOwen

        No – only if you buy one at that price – and then they can get out of it. See the Nikon UK D800 price debacle.

      • DafOwen

        No – only if you buy one at that price – and then they can get out of it. See the Nikon UK D800 price debacle.

  • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

    I was expecting this lens to cost over $1000.

    • n11

      I was expecting about $1200.
      They nailed it here, but there will be naysayers left and right of course.

      • Anto de Chav

        I’m disappointed .. it should have been $798….

        • http://micahmedia.com/ Micah

          I think it should have been $797.99

    • JS
      • Calibrator

        In other words: When the dust has settled the lens is available for 799 Euros or less incl. taxes in Germany.

        The 8-16mm ultra-wide also has a UVP price of 999,- Euros (still!) and many stores sold it for 699,- or less two years ago when I bought one (now it’s even less).

        • JS

          Time will tell, lets find out in the summer. If its under 800€ I think we’ll see it mounted on every other d7000 d300 etc.

    • Pocket Watcher

      Nikon should learn to price like sigma (we wish!)

      • Sahaja

        Perhaps Sigma learnt a lesson after the disaterous initial pricing of the SD1

    • Calibrator

      Don’t blame yourself! I’ve read a magazine editorial where the editor expected the price to be 1.800 Euros…

    • Pablo Ricasso returned

      It MUST be priced reasonably. Because even at that point, a full frame camera is a better investment. This will become a larger sticking point as the price of the full frame camera continues to come down. It also had best work really really well…

  • ajamess

    Sigma pulling out the big guns with that price! More power to ‘em.

    • Juvo

      Well, let’s see how fast the af motor breaks.

  • Caio Basilio Muñoz

    I just wanna know about mtf chart.

  • Sonkion

    Don’t Worry You’ll probably see $1200 prices if it becomes a hard to find lens and people start scalping them.

  • Sonkion

    Don’t Worry You’ll probably see $1200 prices if it becomes a hard to find lens and people start scalping them.

  • Paul

    Wow, Sigma better get some advice from sellers of hotcakes because this baby is going to sell like them.

    • Smudger

      Not until the D400 ceases to be fantasyware………..

  • Jun Seita

    Sigma, not Simga.

    • Aldo

      zomg you deserve the nobel prize

      • Anto de Chav

        Doesn’t take much to win a Nobel these days….in fact Sigma should win for for services to the photographic community…

    • Sebastian Rasch

      They meant Simba, the Lion prince.

      • Calibrator

        I still wait for the Smegma Ultra-Zoom!

      • fixit

        could it be Sinbad, the persian sailor, or the comedian?

    • gly

      Stigma is still hanging in there.

  • nick

    OMG – I wanted to stop buying lenses but this one will go straight on my beloved D300

  • Rick

    holy crap….a constant f/1.8 ZOOM for less than the price of 35 1.4…we need sigmas to produce more awesome stuff

  • x-vision

    Wow, that’s pretty low, actually. I was also expecting a price above $1000.
    Way to go, Simga.

  • Fry

    Sigma has always been the least popular 3rd party producer to me – I would pick Tokina or Tamron if I didn’t want to pay for a Nikon lens.

    But since the introduction of the Art line, Sigma has really outdone themselves. And asking $800 for the first ever f1.8 zoom ? That’s ridiculous. I might get it even if I don’t really need it.

    • http://Flickr.com/inthemist InTheMist

      I’m the exact opposite. Nikon first, Sigma second – and nothing below that.

    • http://Flickr.com/inthemist InTheMist

      I’m the exact opposite. Nikon first, Sigma second – and nothing below that.

    • Rock Kenwell

      Sigma EX line has always been very good to me. Tokina’s build quality is (sometimes) better, but for the overall experience (build quality, image quality, and usability) the prize goes to Sigma. These new lenses with the firmware upgrade / af tuning look even better!

      • KK

        For wide, I will take Tokina. For Macro, I will take Tamron 90 / Sigma 150. For mid-range zoom, I will take Tamron 24-70 VC. For long zoom, I will take Tamron 70-200 VC. Which one is the best 3rd party, I don’t know. :-)

        • Lardinio

          For fast primes Sigma – 35, 50, 85 all f/1.4 and all great lenses. For ultra-wides Sigma 10-20, 8-16. For Super-telephoto zoom Bigma. 50-500. I do know :-)

    • http://micahmedia.com/ Micah

      Tokina has been tops for build–like a tank. They always lagged on image quality/resolution comparing like models. Their exceptional lens is the 11-16, which I sold when I bought a D700, but will be buying again for my D7100. Their old 300/2.8 AF was pretty stellar too. I like some of their AF to MF clutches, but they aren’t consistently designed from model to model.

      Tamron has always had wildly varying image quality, but has consistently had the flimsiest build. Their exceptional lens is the 28-75, which I’m seriously considering. I had their 17-50VC for about a week–didn’t like the slow to spin up or the janky AF motor implementation. Wildest field curvature of any lens I’ve owned. When it nailed focus, it was amazingly sharp though. Too bad about the build. Their 90 macro is a secret gem. Their new 24-70VC is nicer than the Tokina and Sigma fast normal zooms, but it’s still not as sharp as the Nikon or Canon. Not even sharper than the previous gen.

      Sigma has always had the best compromise all around in my opinion. And they have quite a few exceptional lenses…albeit in a sea of “me too” throwaway lenses. I’m still deeply in love with my 20mm/1.8. The 50/1.4 (why did it take so long for them to make an fast AF 50?!) is highly overated. They do wide like nobody’s business: 8-16, 12-24 FF, 15-30 FF are all pretty good stopped down, and nobody gets as wide. Their AF motors are sometimes flimsy, but they’re nicer to use than kludges from Tamron and Tokina. Their fast “normal” DX/DC lenses have always been solid. Their very first 18-50/2.8 had a touch too much CA, but it was still quite sharp at all apertures.

      Nikon’s own glass tends to be a cut above all the third parties, but there are some exceptions. Their wide primes were not spectacular. They made up for it with the 14-24. The 12-24 is mediocre and the 10-24 is worse. The Sigma and Tokina in this ranger are much better. I still like Nikon’s 50mm best. Best bokeh; least LoCA; highest resolution. The third party 70-200 lenses don’t compare well with the real Nikon versions. All the current 1.4 lenses are great–yes, the Sigma 35mm is a little sharper, but I’ll take the Nikon for build/weather sealing. And no third party makes anything like the 200/2. God that thing is amazing. Nikon can’t make a good 24-120 to save it’s life. Then again, who needs it when their 28-300 is just as good?

      • Fry

        Nikon’s 12-24 and 10-24 are still way sharper than any 3rd party lenses with the same range.

        The Tokina 12-24 is a joke, Sigma’s 10-24 and 12-24 are even worse! The 11-16 Tokina is more or less a prime (with less than half the range) and absolutely can’t handle the sun in the frame.

        The 10-24 range is a lot more “universal” than an UWA lens that stops at 16mm on the long end. With the 24mm end, you can take pictures of people without having their faces terribly distorted, so the 10-24mm range is quite usable as a “walkaround” lens – unlike the 11-16mm range.

        • http://micahmedia.com/ Micah

          Whaaaaaambulance is on it’s way. Any pics to back up the BS?

          What do you have against primes? Universal? What garbage. If you want 24mm, you use a different lens. Of course even 24mm is going to have rectilinear distortion–it’s wide! Even on a crop sensor it’s a wide angle lens. All lenses wider than 50mm (or about 32mm on crop sensor) have rectilinear distortion. This is why people use short teles for portraits: flattering distortion. Of course there are no rules and you can shoot any subject with any lens–but you are bound by the physical properties of the lens, which has nothing to do with brand. Right tool, right job and all that. Wider than 50 or it’s equivalent will distort–end of story.

          Even Sigma’s original 10-20 (btw they don’t make a 10-24, nor have they ever–which you’d know if you’d ever actually used the lens you’re
          panning) is sharper than the Nikon 10-24 in my experience. Same with the 12-24. It’s rock solid, but isn’t as sharp as the Sigma. At least in my experience. YMMV, and Sigma is known for having questionable QC in the past, so maybe I lucked out.

          Back when I shot a D2x, I tried out the 12-24 and the 10-20 side by side. The 10-24 was a clear winner, so I kept it. The 11-16 was sharper still. I tried the 10-24 and it performed worse than my old 10-20. Looking around the net, the
          tests and opinions and images seem to confirm that my experience isn’t an exception. Go check out

          You seem to talk a lot about gear you haven’t used. And you don’t seem to have any evidence to refute anything I’ve said about Sigma’s quality.

          Yeah, Fry is an appropriate name. Do you actually take pictures, or just troll comments for a hobby?

          • Fry

            So, your link actually proves that the Sigma lens is not sharper, thanks.
            And have you seen this Sigma wonder ?
            http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/194/cat/31

            • http://micahmedia.com/ Micah

              Actually it shows they’re about the same at the wide end, and the Sigma is better at the rest of the range and aperture settings. And it shows the Nikon tested actually had bad centering issues. But I didn’t expect you to look closely enough or be able to comprehend that.

              Why would I look at another lens that we’re not talking about? Also, one that nobody else makes anything like? Nikon doesn’t make a anything in the 12mm FF range. We’re talking crop sensor lenses at the moment.

              And if you go look on flickr and pixel peeper, you’ll see that the Nikon has horrible CA at the wide end, which resolution ratings don’t tell you. Even at the same SLRGear you can see that in the MTF charts. Feel free to misread those too.

              Look, I never said every model of Sigma was amazing. I just said they have some models that are par excellence and some things that nobody else makes. You can’t compare the 8-16 or 12-24 lenses, because there is nothing to compare against. No, they’re not optically perfect, but they do unique things. Same with my 20mm/f1.8 lens. Sure I have sharped lenses in the 20mm range…but not that go to 11–er, f1.8 and focus so close. There are effects that lens can get that you can’t reproduce with another lens.

              And I did say that Nikon makes great lenses. They have a higher hit ratio than any of the third party makers. And I still think the Nikon 50/1.4G doesn’t have an equal–third part or even compared to other OEM lines–it’s good shit!

              But credit where it’s due–the 11-16 is the sharpest thing at it’s focal lengths on DX. And it’s f2.8. And it’s build solidly. And in the UWA for crop sensor range, the only weaker performer than the Nikon 10-24 is the suspiciously similar Tamron 10-24. And maybe a bad sample of the 8-16. But image quality-wise, it’s absolutely

              #1Tokina 11-16
              #2 Sigma 10-20
              #3 Nikon 12-24
              #4 Nikon 10-24

            • Fry

              as mentioned before – that tokina can’t handle the sun, and has a very limited range. And the other tokina – the 12-24mm is softer than either of the Nikons.

            • http://micahmedia.com/ Micah

              All UWA lenses are prone to flare. The Tokina is much more resistant than the 10-24 Nikon and the 10-20 Sigma. I have used the flare of the Sigma to my advantage in the past. The 11-16 was much more resistant, and the 10-24 has a well known reputation for horrible flare. The 11-16 handles the sun just fine. Which you’d know if you actually used it.

              I don’t know anything about the 12-24 Tokina. I’m talking about the 11-16 and the two Nikons. And the Sigma 10-20mm. Those are lenses I have experience with in this range.

            • Fry

              well, you’re the only one who thinks the Tokina is more resistant to flare than Nikon. Did you have the Nikon at all ?

            • http://micahmedia.com/ Micah

              Have it? No. I tried it a bunch of times and it disappointed every time. Just too soft. If it flared some immeasurable amount less, who cares? That’s like saying traction off a start is way less of an issue on a Geo Metro than a Ferrari. If speed/sharpness/overall image quality are a priority, the Nikon loses to the 11-16 Tokina. Period. I shot them side by side myself on a D2x. The Tokina won. And I’m not the only person around who thinks so. Your opinion seems to be an outlier.

              I bet you just own the Nikon and can’t stand the idea that there’s something better. Well, there is. It’s not a big deal. Enjoy what you have or upgrade. But you won’t win any points for arguing against the obvious truth.

            • Fry

              you can go ahead and pretend it’s your obvious truth, for all I care

            • http://micahmedia.com/ Micah

              I’ll pretend I’m pretending. But I’m not gonna like it! So there!

        • Pablo Ricasso returned

          Both of Sigma’s 10-20 lenses have no shortcomings that are avoidable by using other zooms. You don’t like the names of the lenses you are bashing.

      • Pablo Ricasso returned

        I read through this argument and it sounds like you’re the one who knows stuff. But you need to get you a Tamron 20-40. It’s like a little 90.

  • tertius_decimus

    Seems like reasonable price. Canikon duo should learn that lesson.

  • germany

    18-35mm F1,8 DC HSM

    NEU!!! A – 18-35mm F1,8 DC HSM – das erste Zoom-Objektiv
    überhaupt, welches eine Anfangslichtstärke von F1,8 über den gesamten
    Brennweitenbereich bietet.

    UVP: 999,- Euro

  • Mr. Mamiya

    I won’t complain, but the FX equivalent Tamron 28-75 ist still half price. One could invest this money in a D600 instead of a D7100.

    • Jorge

      Not that Sigma is all that great, but Tamron lenses I have found to suck big time. I usually wind up returning them, and am so disgusted I open my wallet and let Nikon take whatever they want for a brand name lens…

      • Mr. Mamiya

        The Tamron 28-75 has an excellent reputation. Optically close to the Nikon 28-70 or 24-70, a lightweight, inexpensive workhorse lens.

        • Underthestairs

          Optically close to the 24-70?! Not on a D800 it isn’t, nor on a D700 and D3, I can’t imagine that it is on the D600. Far from close.

          • Steven Wade

            Huh? That means you are saying it is optically close on some cameras and not on others, and that makes no sense. It either is or isn’t. I know a couple people who use it and produce great images. Not to mention the 28-75 is also macro. You must be one of those people who thinks gear makes good pictures.

            • umeshrw

              It just means that he is comparing resolution only. On 800 not good enough but on lesser cams it is manageable.

            • umeshrw

              Oops . Sorry . On another read of OP really doesn’t make sense as he has also stated 700 and D3.

            • Underthestairs

              I’m not that much of a tech geek, as I’m a photographer. I just look at the pictures, and on all my full-frame camera’s I never came across any zoom that could get as much out of my sensors as the 24-70. On the D800 it’s more obvious that you can’t get the same imagequality with the Tamron. It’s just not that good as the Nikkor… Maybe there is another lens that can do what the 24-70 does, but I haven’t used it, so I can’t comment any further.

              Gear doesn’t make good pictures, but if you make good pictures, you don’t want them ruined by aberations and softness produced by less (I DON’T say ‘poor’) quality lenses.

            • umeshrw

              Nor am I a tech geek. But being a pro makes one knowledgeable about basic tech. I do not own both these lenses but I have used 24-70 extensively. Super sharp. Cannot tell about tamron. I was just contradicting the statement that overall optical quality of a lens excepting resolution is dependent on sensor and it varies from camera to camera.

            • AM

              It is a well-known fact that there are lenses that will give acceptable results on certain bodies. But as you move to bodies with higher resolution sensors, those lenses will start showing their limitations and give poor results.

            • umeshrw

              He has also mentioned D700 and D3.

            • AM

              I replied to Steven. It doesn’t make sense to him that lenses will perform differently on different bodies.

            • umeshrw

              Sorry . My bad.

            • happy989

              No. Resolution is NOT the issue here. It’s sensor size- APS-C vs. full frame. The 28-75 is fantastic on APS-C, and not nearly as good on FF.

            • happy989

              No, Underthestairs is spot-on. The 28-75 on full frame is terrible. It’s fantastic on APS-C though, which chops off the bad borders.

          • happy989

            I expect Mr. Mamiya was referring to APS-C, where the 28-75 is fantastic.

        • http://micahmedia.com/ Micah

          No, on a D700/D3 it’s comparable. Heck, I’d say it’s still pretty good on a D3x. The D800 is where you run into trouble. And it’s still pretty close to the 28-70AFS there.

          If you’re shooting jpegs, you might not notice the CA on the 24-70, which can be worse than the 28-75. Things swap at the long end. However, the 24-70 is definitely a higher resolution optic.

          It’s not like a night and day difference though. If I can get a hold of a 24-70 I’ll do a comparison.

  • stoooopid

    Wow, I didn’t expect that price. Sigma has turned on it’s game here recently. They are now making some fine optics that rival Nikon and Canon (although if you want an f/1.8 zoom, this is the only game in town). Now, please Sigma make a 50mm f/1.2 for $800. I know they can do it. If they can make an f/1.8 zoom for $799, then making an f/1.2 prime should not be a problem. If you think this wide f/1.8 zoom lens will sell like hotcakes – a 50mm f/1.2 lens for $800 would sell like crack.

  • Brandon Burtner

    Woah. I just got very excited for reviews and samples of this lens. I’ve been waiting for Sigma to release a new 24mm f/1.8 (or a 24mm f/1.4) for a LONG time, but this will do just fine if its got the image quality. I just worry that it can’t possibly deliver…

  • Rock Kenwell
  • Spy Black

    Now they just need to make an FX lens like that, add VR, and charge $1000 for it…

    • happy989

      Although it’d weigh 10 pounds…

  • JimP

    Great news for DX.

  • Analyst

    SLR Gear has a review of this lens out: http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1609/cat/31

    “This is an amazingly sharp lens, even wide open at ƒ/1.8, which is typically not the case with very wide-aperture lenses.”

    “The Sigma does quite well in controlling chromatic aberration.”

    “We also see well-controlled vignetting with the Sigma 18-35mm lens.”

    “….distortion is nicely controlled, although not eliminated altogether.”

    “The Sigma 18-35mm lens autofocuses very quickly, racking from closest focus to infinity in about 1 second”
    “The build quality of this lens seems excellent.”

  • Aldo

    at this rate sigma will take over the dx lens market

    • Nikonhead

      And they said DX was dead

      • Pablo Ricasso returned

        Maybe not “dead,” but it has been sentenced.
        You notice that while there have been two versions of the 11-16, the new 16 prime, and this there has been nothing comparable from the people who produce the cameras these go on, despite the fact that they produce a lot of lenses and want you to buy their cameras and lenses?

        Why do you suppose that is?

  • Blinkit

    Can’t wait for them to create some FX lens….for Nikon.

  • a4

    Great surprise, really. Still… where’s the new 30/1.4? Been waiting since the announcement… :/

  • King of Swaziland

    If the Tamron 24-70 VC was a shot across the bow of the major camera makers, and the Sigma 35mm holed them below the waterline, this could be a direct hit on the magazine.

    Of course, the dreadnought slipping unquietly to the bottom of the ocean is Canikon’s reputation as the only provider of top quality AF lenses, not their sales #s, but still.

    • Plug

      Yes, my policy of only buying Nikon, other than that I have a Zeiss 15mm, is definitely up for reconsideration.

  • dbltax

    What I really want them to do now is make a 35-85mm f/1.8 DG HSM. That’d be something I (and millions of wedding/portrait/documentary photographers the world over) would buy.

    • Deep_Lurker

      I don’t know if a 35-85 f/1.8 is doable, but a 35-70mm f/1.8 would be one I’d want more than the 18-35mm

    • BroncoBro

      Olympus has a 35-100 f/2.0 for their 4/3 sensor and that thing is 8 1/2″ long and weighs 3.6 POUNDS! Not sure too many of your wedding/portrait/doc photogs would want to carry something that would undoubtedly weigh more than the Olympus.

  • Arkasai

    Win for us consumers, hopefully this will be a sign of future price competition.

  • Damus

    This marked the beginning of the dead of Nikon APS-C, I guess..

  • Bobtheboulder

    I would prefer by far a full frame 17-35 f2.8 update… :-(

  • Marco Santa Cruz

    so how much would an 18mm 1.8, or 35 1.8…. or even a 18mm 1.8 (or 2.8)…. this is super cheap… and if i remember correctly, the IQ was excellent…

  • Shawn

    I am not sure I can see a use for this especially if you have the 17-50 F2.8 (which I do). 1 stop ( I think that is right?) at the wide could be useful I guess for wide shots in low light but other than that 35mm seems to not get exactly a lot of zoom. I guess it probably at least give you the ability to no have to move in an out like a prime would.

    • mikeswitz

      Huh?

    • josh

      what?

  • Sahaja

    Where’s the D400 to put this on?

    • enesunkie

      The D7100 is so “yesterday” also. When is the D7200 coming out?

  • jk

    this thing is extremely ugly and too huge for any type of DX , maybe except for D2Xs type of cameras.

  • BroncoBro

    Many of the comments here support the idea that DX is really a better format for handheld, mobile, fast shooting. I know there are a bunch of FX fanboys out there that will go on and on about about the well deserved merits of larger sensors. But, in terms of building a system with lenses that can do extraordinary things and remain light and small enough to carry around all day (not to mention not breaking the bank at the same time) DX is really hard to beat. Think about it; to duplicate this for an FX sensor you’re talking about a 28-55mm f/2 that needs to cover a diagonal half again as long. Any guesses on what that weighs or costs? So, go ahead and submit your wishes for that 21-135mmf/1.2 FX that’s for sure going to make you a better photographer. Then visit bodybuilding.com and Fidelity or Vanguard so you can start getting the muscle and coin to own it.

  • Sebastian Kahlcke

    C-c-c-c-combobreaker.

  • pol
  • Eddy Warburton

    A good price for a non OS zoom lens with a f/1.8 and fast AF hsm motor.
    But, is still a APS-c.. and the lens is a bit to long to came handy in many photograpic situations. for wedding, portrait or landscape photographners: go grab this beauty.

  • Back to top