Impressive lens. Not sure I'd personally prefer it over a set of primes, but it was definitely great fun to use in the field.
Posted 18 December 2016 - 02:08 AM
Well, the weight...
It's a pity I already have 24 and 35 Sigmas. This lens might be heavy, but following your MTFs it's better than both Sigmas in terms of resolution, bokehwise not worse and the minimum focus distance only 3 cm longer than with the 24 mm (and 2 cm shorter than 35 mm).
So, yes, heavier.
But: it doesn't need much more space in the photo bag - in fact, 24 and 35 put together with a twin rear cap is longer, 400 grams heavier and 580 francs more expensive while both lenses, although primes, don't reach the MTF of the zoom.
Only problem - for people owning already the primes there's not much to gain. Except the advantage to have three primes in front of the camera without constantly exchanging them. It is not a discrete lens - but with a fat DSLR behind it, none of the primes are, either.
Okay, another downside might be the necessary AF adjustment if one uses often wide open aperture. Usually one can set up 16 combinations of distances and FL with the dock which is timeconsuming.
The value of the lens is massively better than the primes, not to speak of the genuine Nikon ones. If I take the Nikkor 35 and 24 f/1.4 in the shopping basket, it's the value of 4 (!) of these Sigma zooms. Which means, I could afford cracking three of them and would sil save some money with the 4th
Posted 18 December 2016 - 01:33 PM
Wow. Before reading this review I was wondering where's the gotcha (apart from the hard parameters of the lens). Now I see there's truly none. However this lens is stuck a bit in a no man's land between the 16-35 and 24-70 class zooms as most people own one of these lenses (and probably both). I have difficulties envisioning a lens set to put it into while not going into complete redundancy. Maybe with a 12-24 Sigma and a tele lens starting at 50 or 70mm, leaving a gap in the middle...
Posted 18 December 2016 - 02:06 PM
True. I first thought, now there's a use for the 50-100/1.8 but then realized that one 's just APS-C, and in that region they already offer 18-35/1.8. I also thought "wedding photogs who want to be falshless in the church?"
A the moment, the only target group I can imagine is people starting fresh with FF and have no decent fast wide-angles. The 12-24 is a disappointment by it's own, but 3-4 years earlier I would have gone rather for this zoom than for two primes.
Posted 18 December 2016 - 05:21 PM
Yeah, that sums up my issues with the lens nicely. As great as it is, I wouldn't prefer it over a set of Art f/1.4 primes (because of f/1.4 alone), maybe not even over Nikkor f/1.8 primes. And personally I'd be fine with just two primes in my bag, 24 and 35mm, never really found much fun in 28mm.
It happens that I reviewed the lens at the same time as the Tamron 15-30 VC. Whenever I went shooting with both in my bag, I usually grabbed the Tamron first (and had to force myself to use the Sigma, too, to get some sample shots). That's maybe the even bigger competition: a decent UWA zoom with fast aperture. The difference in DOF between f/2 and f/2.8 isn't that dramatic, while the Tamron offers way more flexibility with its bigger zoom range.
Posted 18 December 2016 - 05:30 PM
18-35 and 50-100 look like an unbeatable combo. The only thing I don't like about these is the lack of IS in the 50-100 - else I would've probably swapped my 70-200/2.8 IS for the 50-100 and the Canon 100-400.
Posted 19 December 2016 - 08:05 AM
Oh yes, and Markus - the Tamron 15-30 and the Sigma 24-35 reviews are out of sequence in the Nikon FF section. The Sigma is among the Tamrons and the Tamron is put ahead of the primes.
I also believe a couple of reviews may no longer be considered "recent" like the Zeiss 25/2 and the Sigma 50/1.4 - the latter is over a year old by now.
Posted 19 December 2016 - 02:23 PM
Thanks, Rover, yes, I messed that up a little. All corrected now
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users