PaulWog
No longer a newbie, moving up!
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2013
- Messages
- 1,153
- Reaction score
- 188
- Location
- Canada
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
I posted about this in the Nikon Lens section, but I want to start something fresh here.
I'm just about ready to pull the trigger on a Sigma 18-35 f1.8 lens. I wasn't sure, but now I'm fairly certain. I already have everything I've listed in my signature, plus a tripod, bag, filters, etc. My most recent investment was DX glass, the Sigma 10-20. My next upgrade was going to either be full frame, or a 35mm normal lens (hence the Sigma 18-35). I always manage to justify little leaps, but the huge jump to FX seems to be beyond me (I feel crazy enough having spent as much as I have). I'm thinking about just getting the Sigma 18-35 f1.8, and sticking to DX for a number of years.
My two questions:
1) Has anyone invested in the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 primarily for photography (not video), and how have you liked it? I know the focal range, I know what I would be buying into: Essentially a wide to normal range lens, short zoom range but just enough to replace the need for 3 different primes. Great lens to carry alongside one additional prime, and potentially excellent for travel (I love shallow DoF... that's part of the conflict right there).
2) Do you think I would be making a mistake by settling into DX? If I get the 18-35, I really don't foresee the need for additional glass. I will have covered my focal range, and unless if I get into intense birding (which I am not really into), or an insanely fast 35mm lens comes out (ie. f1.2 at a $1000 price-point / living in a dreamworld), then there's nothing I want.
I don't think there's any exact right answer, but I never like making an $800+ purchase without getting feedback.
I'm just about ready to pull the trigger on a Sigma 18-35 f1.8 lens. I wasn't sure, but now I'm fairly certain. I already have everything I've listed in my signature, plus a tripod, bag, filters, etc. My most recent investment was DX glass, the Sigma 10-20. My next upgrade was going to either be full frame, or a 35mm normal lens (hence the Sigma 18-35). I always manage to justify little leaps, but the huge jump to FX seems to be beyond me (I feel crazy enough having spent as much as I have). I'm thinking about just getting the Sigma 18-35 f1.8, and sticking to DX for a number of years.
My two questions:
1) Has anyone invested in the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 primarily for photography (not video), and how have you liked it? I know the focal range, I know what I would be buying into: Essentially a wide to normal range lens, short zoom range but just enough to replace the need for 3 different primes. Great lens to carry alongside one additional prime, and potentially excellent for travel (I love shallow DoF... that's part of the conflict right there).
2) Do you think I would be making a mistake by settling into DX? If I get the 18-35, I really don't foresee the need for additional glass. I will have covered my focal range, and unless if I get into intense birding (which I am not really into), or an insanely fast 35mm lens comes out (ie. f1.2 at a $1000 price-point / living in a dreamworld), then there's nothing I want.
I don't think there's any exact right answer, but I never like making an $800+ purchase without getting feedback.