Sigma 18-35 f1.8, settling into DX?

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.
 
If you ever plan on upgrading in the future to a full frame camera i wouldn't get it.

I was considering it, but I'm just going to go with a 35mm prime (probably the sigma 35mm 1.4). "normal" lens for my crop sensor, and it'll be a fast wide lens when I eventually upgrade to full frame.
 
I 100% DISAGREE with what xzyrago said. Lets say you buy Sigma 1.8 now for $800 and in 2 years you decide to upgrade to FX. Then you can sell the lens for $500. So then you would have used an excellent lens for 2 years, for $300. Is that worth it?

In my opinion, heck yes! Think about all the amazing photos that you can capture.

Granted, I have only had the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 for 3 weeks now, but I really like it.

I am sure you can find better examples online, but like I said, I just got it, and haven't had time to play with it too much.

1. Obviously you can get that shallow DOF that you want...

Bangers-Mash3 by linktheworld219, on Flickr



2. It takes really good low light photos IMO...with my 3.5, I would have not been able to get so much detail.


Unny-55 by linktheworld219, on Flickr


3. It "crops" well, if that makes sense. Here are 2 pictures of this dragon...the second image is from the same position as the first image. Obviously I am standing on the ground, so I cant walk any closer to the dragon. The image is just cropped...


Unny-16 by linktheworld219, on Flickr



4. I think I got a lot of detailed for a cropped photo...

Unny-22 by linktheworld219, on Flickr




In conclusion, if I were you, I would get the lens.
 
If you wait and buy the lens used then you can minimize any future depreciation that you may be worried about.

But going to FX is hard, it depends upon your strategy and what you settle for along the way. For instance, I immediately knew that AF-S lenses were too expensive for my budget. But that was only one reason for immediately getting a d7000. Other than the kit AF-S 18-105 lens I only bought AF-D lenses. That saved a ton of $$$ right there and it allowed me into FAST FX glass immediately.

For instance, I bought a 18-35 mm F/3.5-4.5 D AF IF ED Lens lens which is UWA on FX for $264
The equivalent modern FX lens is $747, roughly 3 times what I spent.

So going with a body that can handle older lenses pays off in one's strategy to go FX, and I did this across the board on all my lenses and going with a higher end body has paid off. When I looked at upgrading my d7000 to a d7100 the refurb'd d600s were only a couple hundred more, so I made the jump and I haven't looked back.

You have a different issue. You have a d5200. You can't use AF-D screw focus lenses without giving up autofocus, thus the price differential to getting FX lenses is MUCH more. the 70-200/2.8 is $2400 versus the older 80-200/2.8 AF-D which is what I used, cost me $700.

What i give up is focusing speed. I can't really use AF-C Continuous and it requires a different technique. And NO video. But it's all fun.

So your strategy would be different.
(1) Buy FX glass which is incredibly expensive compared to DX glass,
(2) upgrade your body and slowly get into AF-D glass, or
(3) buy DX lenses.

As mentioned, you may be better off getting used/refub'd high end DX lenses and enjoy photography as your jump to FX is more $$$ daunting.

But if you want that lens now, I'd say get it. If it increases your enjoyment of photography then it is worth it.
 
I use the siggy 18-35 f1.8 on my D800E in DX mode all the time. works wonderfully, it actually replaced my 24-70 f2.8G I had previously. with the higher MP bodies out today, DX mode is actually a usable option, more so than it was in the past. the D800e give 16MP in DX mode, even the 24MP FX bodies will give a 10MP DX mode. with future bodies I'm sure going to give equal or higher MP ranges, there's no reason you can't continue to use the 18-35 even after you jump to FX, which would make your transition to FX a bit more gradual in the expense factor rather than an all-at-once endeavor.

I agree that looking at the used market for a 18-35 f1.8 would be ideal, and limit your loss when you do decide to sell it down the road, but finding one used may be a bit of a challenge right now, not to mention that used prices may not be exceptionally great with it being a new and in demand lens. you may be better off going with a new one if the price differential isn't that much because you'll also get the warranty. I'd also highly suggest the sigma dock to let you fine tune that baby, which is something you won't be able to do on your 5200 alone, its well worth the $50 price if you're using any of the new A/C/S lenses from Sigma.
 
The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is a lens that has more options than any other zoom made. It is the fastest zoom lens I know of on the market for conventional cameras (not a cinema lens). It brings some capabilities to the table, so the price seems fair for what you get. And yes, the poster above, Parker219, who mentioned you could use it then later sell it for $500; seems like that would be about the used market price of it in two years' time, provided that there is still no other option in the marketplace with similar FL range and speed.

I dunno...if you can see well enough to shoot well with a DX camera, then I say go for it. DX cameras are only going to get better and better, and right now, the D7100's IQ is very close to that of current FX cameras, and BETTER than what several older Canon and Nikon FX cameras produced.
 
I don't consider a move to FX as an 'upgrade', per se. It's a sidegrade, with both benefits and drawbacks. The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is really a lens that makes me question why people feel like they need FX.
With that lens, you'll get the same depth of field as you would with a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens on an FX camera (both wide open, of course) across their overlapping equivalent focal lengths. So really, using the 24-70 on FX only makes it a "better combo" if you need that in the range that isn't overlapping; that is, shorter than 27mm equivalent, and longer than 52mm equivalent.

DX is very powerful. With that lens and an f/2.8 telephoto zoom (either 70-200mm or Sigma's 50-150mm OS), you can get incredible results, much like any FX user with a 24-70mm f/2.8 and a 70-200mm f/2.8 or f/4. And you'll save some money in the process, because the 18-35 is cheaper than the 24-70 lenses.
 
Put in the order at bhphotovideo, total came to $860. Pretty happy, locally (in Canada) here it's $900 + taxes, which would be $1006. My local shops won't come down in price either.

Selling some weigh equipment I don't need to counter the cost. I have so many dumbbells it's not funny, so I'm getting rid of duplicates to balance the lens cost.

I dunno...if you can see well enough to shoot well with a DX camera, then I say go for it. DX cameras are only going to get better and better, and right now, the D7100's IQ is very close to that of current FX cameras, and BETTER than what several older Canon and Nikon FX cameras produced.

Oh ya, that reminds me of how much I like the viewfinder on FX cameras :( Your reply & all the replies above have been SO helpful, so I decided to get the lens anyways.

edit: Oh great... didn't know the dock is sold separately. Well, another $60. Oh well.
 
Last edited:
If it increases your *passion* for photography ... go FOR IT
maybe it's just the spending .. but hey .... either way :)
 
If it increases your *passion* for photography ... go FOR IT
maybe it's just the spending .. but hey .... either way :)

It really does increase my "*passion*" for photography. It's exciting. I need the focal range anyway. The spending always makes my gut sink though, I hate spending money... or rather, I love every bit that comes up until the "accept payment" part. Before, when I bought a new lens, I always knew which lens I felt I *needed* next. Every single time I made a purchase, there was always another lens on my mind. This is the first time I've picked up a lens and been able to say that there is no other lens I need right now, only stuff that would be nice (just like a Porsche would be nice right now). I want a Sigma 120-300 f2.8, I want an insanely telephoto prime lens, I want a full frame DSLR, but none of those things get me anything that I feel I need any longer.

So the short way to put it is I'm satisfied, but also extremely happy. With my current kit, I would head out and take a 50mm and my 10-20, and feel I couldn't get the shots I wanted. Or I'd go out with the 85 and 50 and wonder what the hell I was doing. I think now I can take out exactly what I need. I know there are days I need my 50 and an 18-35 1.8, and other days I need the 18-35 and 85. Sometimes I'll just want the 18-35, or the 18-35 and the 10-20. Basically, the 18-35 will probably be staying in the bag 24/7 wherever I go, regardless.
 
I totally love my 18-35 on my FF
i love the distortion one can create such as elongating lines with cars
Probably my favorite lens from the flexibility point of view .. So much fun
kust like your 10-20
 
On the note that was mentioned earlier (croppability), given the MTF's and all the reviews and numbers on the 18-35, could the Sigma possibly be better suited as a 50mm (cropped from 35mm) than a normal 50mm f2.8? As in, if you cropped a shot at around f2.2 @ 35mm to look like an f2.8 shot on a regular 50mm lens, you might end up with a better photo anyways? I saw a lot of people debating about whether to get the 18-35, or a 17-50/17-55 f2.8 lens, and I never saw anyone bring up the sharpness of the 18-35 allowing for crop for extra reach.
 
Have a tracking number now! Cannot wait. :D
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top