Would it be smart to get a Sigma 18-35 F/1.8 if I plan to get a full frame later?

[FamilyID]

Maybe a full frame in 1-2 years. The thing is I like my lenses to be something that I'll be using maybe a long time down the road. But paying $800 for only 1-2 years of use, before I drop it for some other wide angle lens. Also, it's like the only 18-35 with a constant F/1.8. But then on crop that's 28-56. Suggestions?

 

[minicoop1985]

Let's say you have a Nikon APS-C camera now, and plan on buying a D600 in 1-2 years. Wouldn't a lens for one fit both?

 

[Usul]

If you are sure you will go to FX and won't keep DX just don't buy the Sigma. Maybe you'd better look at Nikkor 16-35 f/4. It has VR so you the both lenses a pretty equal in low light situation. I think you won't shoot sport with such lenses and you don't need f1.8 really often.

 

[nikkwong]

If you are sure you will go to FX and won't keep DX just don't buy the Sigma. Maybe you'd better look at Nikkor 16-35 f/4. It has VR so you the both lenses a pretty equal in low light situation. I think you won't shoot sport with such lenses and you don't need f1.8 really often.

I disagree, I shoot 1.4 as often as possible. It's MY aperture of choice.

I would tell you to get a prime instead.

If you have your eyes on a full-frame, don't bother buying a lens that you're eventually going to want to sell. You could just get a prime that is going to handle even better on both a FX and DX body.

 

[Stevepwns]

If you plan on selling your gear, then how you spend your money is really just up to you. If you plan on keeping your gear, even after you upgrade, then why not buy it. Is the upgrade to a full frame camera guaranteed? Its your money and something only you can decide..

 

[astroNikon]

I have a plan of going to a D600/610 in a few years. So the lenses that I buy are all for FF. I only have the kit 18-105 DX lens.
The Sigma 1.8 lens offers the same light gathering as a 2.8 on a FF camera, But it is limited for the smaller APS-C sensor.

It comes down to do you want to spend the money for a lens, that if/when you sell your APS-C sensor that you also have to sell the lens?

For me, I'm going to try and keep my D7000 APS-C sensor camera and I have the 18-105 for it, and all the FF lens work well with it too and should transition with no problems to the FF D600/610 camera. So only buying FF lenses, to me, makes more sense.

 

[FamilyID]

Yea, I think I'll get the prime 35mm from Sigma. It works on full frames and it's a pretty good lens. Unless the Canon 35mm F/2.0 is better, but the comparison that I watched said that the Sigma performs identically with the Canon in terms of sharpness. For a wide angle lens, I don't know what to get. I want a Canon 6D or 5D MK II. I just wish Canon had something like the D600. More focus points, higher FPS and stuff.

 

[Smokeyr67]

I'm in a similar situation to you in that I'll be buying a new FF body soon, but I bought the 18-35 f1.8 for my 60d and it's so good that I've decided to keep an APS-C body even after I upgrade.

 

[FamilyID]

But a 18-35 wouldn't be an 18-35 anymore on a cropped sensor lens...
I think I'll ponder on this some more.

 

[Smokeyr67]

Well, it is still an 18-35, it's just that a crop sensor makes you see it as a 28-55

 

[FamilyID]

But then I'd have to get a 10-22mm with only F/3.5 - F./4.5?
That's like 16-35mm. Which if Sigma made the 18-35 a full frame compatible lens... that would be great.

 

[Dao]

This is my personal preference.

I buy a lens because I need to use it now. Not because I am planning to use it later. Of course, if I am going to get a full frame next week, then it is a difference story. If the lens is a great lens, chances are you do not loss all $800 dollars later if you upgrade to full frame and get rid of the cropped body. Great and popular lens usually don't drop their value that quick. (Except the initial value drop from NEW lens to USED lens).

 

[Smokeyr67]

But then I'd have to get a 10-22mm with only F/3.5 - F./4.5?
That's like 16-35mm. Which if Sigma made the 18-35 a full frame compatible lens... that would be great.

Whats that famous saying "life wasn't meant to be easy"

It will be interesting to see if Sigma do follow up with a similar lens for FF, I know the 18-35 is selling like hotcakes at least in my neck of the woods.

 

[o hey tyler]

If you are sure you will go to FX and won't keep DX just don't buy the Sigma. Maybe you'd better look at Nikkor 16-35 f/4. It has VR so you the both lenses a pretty equal in low light situation. I think you won't shoot sport with such lenses and you don't need f1.8 really often.

I disagree, I shoot 1.4 as often as possible. It's MY aperture of choice.

Why?

 

[FamilyID]

But then I'd have to get a 10-22mm with only F/3.5 - F./4.5?
That's like 16-35mm. Which if Sigma made the 18-35 a full frame compatible lens... that would be great.

Whats that famous saying "life wasn't meant to be easy"

It will be interesting to see if Sigma do follow up with a similar lens for FF, I know the 18-35 is selling like hotcakes at least in my neck of the woods.

That's a little too obvious to be a saying. :3
It would be nice if Sigma did, I would assume many FF users would get it. Just to cut away 2-3 primes. It's a fantastic lens after all.

Why?

Maybe he just loves a tiny DOF...
Bokeh love?