Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN 'Art' lens review

[@tomasocarbone]

Wow, the sharpness of wide open is honestly impressive, it is shocking how insane lens resolution has come in the last decade or so. I remember being super excited about how sharp the Zeiss Otus 50mm 1.4 was when it came out. Now we have similar level of sharpness in 1.8 zoom lenses..! what a time to be a photography enthusiast :)

[@sickheadache9903]

Zeiss never made a 50mm 1.4 Otus. They made a 55mm 1.4. I used the Otus 55 1.4 and was amazed but when Sigma made a 50mm 1.4 Art..for the cost..I truly was amazed. And still today use the Sigma Art Line!

[@tomasocarbone]

@@sickheadache9903 yes right, it was a 55!

[@Stop-All-War]

Sigma Art 40mm was virtually equal to Zeiss Otus 55mm in image quality in testing but few people bought it.. it's safe to say that lens is a hidden gem & used now, can be bought for £400

[@sunlbx]

@@sickheadache9903 can't go wrong with Sigma ART line! the only flop they had in the ART line was their attempt to make a decent 24-70 f2.8 for DSLRs

[@piotrpedzich4437]

Wow, 11 years of waiting for Sigma 18-35 full frame equivalent! Great lens

[@k1k13004]

it's not even 2x zoom.

[@jeremytheoneofdestiny8691]

@@k1k13004neither was the 18-35

[@adamadamis]

​@k1k13004 may be, but another way to see it is three F/1.8 primes in one lens.

[@k1k13004]

@@jeremytheoneofdestiny8691 come on ! 18-36 is quite closer. Here we need 11mm more to get the equivalent.

[@budthecyborg4575]

The 28-45 has more pincushion on the long end but less barrel distortion on the wide end. Overall the Full Frame image plus extra sharpness of the new lens is going to blow the old APS-C lens out of the water. Sigma needs to update the 18-35, I wouldn't hesitate to buy an updated model for my R7 if they did (and assuming Canon allowed Sigma to release such a lens on R mount).

[@martinruiz398]

Omg! Christopher Frost dropping a new video on release date. This is awesome!

[@zball_6396]

The image quality is simply brilliant, the coma, astigmatism and bokeh performance really indicates it is a nice piece of optic. I love this.

[@HuwRees]

Sigma are absolute madlads. Just need them to make Z mount, and they can have all my money. Btw mate - heard about you from some people at WBC last Saturday! I'm just up the road 😉

[@Fededrums25]

Christopher, your reviews are the reference par excellence! Thank you for your dedication and helping us choose with your great judgment! Greetings from Uruguay! ♥

[@EverythingCameFromNothing]

King of lens reviews!! You should have more subscribers

[@swistedfilms]

I've noticed lately that some of his review tactics have been adopted by another reviewer.

[@EverythingCameFromNothing]

@@swistedfilms who are you thinking of?

[@swistedfilms]

@@EverythingCameFromNothing Well, I don't want to say but it rhymes with Sony Sorthrup.

[@EverythingCameFromNothing]

@@swistedfilms 🤔 i wonder who 😂

[@ricardoromanach]

Amazing as usual! Both Sigma and Frost’s detailed reviews! This lens is perfect for those who prefer a wider look to portraits. 45 1.8 is so close to 50 1.8, and the latter is basically ubiquitous for photographers. I’m so happy I pursued the DG DN lenses since they’re just as high quality as 1st party lenses, except their much cheaper, slightly heavier, and have (in my opinion) gorgeous build quality. Focus and aperture rings turn soooo smoothly.

[@nickorafael3887]

It's a prime zoom lens

[@pabloalvaradolopez3941]

I think this is a really PERFECT choice for people who really enjoys using his 35mm like a main lens, but sometimes wants to make little zoom adjustments. Obviously this lens is a great competitor for that 28-70 f2, because of the price and that lovely aperture ring. Sigma is a perfect company, making really awesome options for way better price.

[@MattTrevett]

35mm is my favorite, but the only lenses I have which cover it are Sony 24-105 f/4 and Tamron 35-150. Both are fantastic, but I'd be curious to see how this lens compares. A tad larger aperture than the Sony and a fair bit smaller than the Tamron.

[@mirrorlessmemory]

How is it a competitor to canons 28-70 f2? It’s not even made for RF mount lol

[@pabloalvaradolopez3941]

@@mirrorlessmemory people is always upgrading or buying equipment, and occasionally changing their system, and lenses like this one could be really important to take Sony and not Canon.

[@philipplangenbacher]

Christopher, I want to thank you for this amazing review as well as all the ones you've done before! The care and love for detail, common-sensical application and general no-fuzz, non-overexcited reviewing makes your videos a delight to watch, and a most reliable source for finding out about lenses. You have helped me get my head around about what I should bid on on online auction sites so many times! Also, you have lured me into watching reviews of products I don't even care about, just because I like to hear about new stuff through your channel, and your very soothing voice and professional tone (to me you are the Sir David Attenborough of Photography gear reviews XD ). Keep up the brilliant work, and again thank you for providing all this high-quality consumer information 🙂

[@hendrickziegler8487]

I'd bet a pint that Sigma felt a bit triggered when Tamron went for the 35-150. "Ooooh, much bright, so zoom... Guys, let's one-up them on the normal range"

[@maggnet4829]

Lol, I the same thought.

[@CallMeRabbitzUSVI]

Well, Tamron has been making a 35-150mm for about 5 years now when it released it fir DSLRs in early 2019. So either Sigma is a bit slow or has the reaction time of a sloth

[@MaxusMV]

@@CallMeRabbitzUSVIThese are two incomparable lenses. They have nothing in common beside being produced by the same brand and having the same range.

[@KCMaynes]

​@@CallMeRabbitzUSVI lens development takes time! Five years from conception to retail doesn't seem crazy, especially for a new design.

[@frankfeng2701]

This Sigma lens don't even come close to the versatility of Tamron which is known for being good at making zooms anyway.

[@warpspeed9877]

Now Sigma has to make it's brother lens : the 45-105/1.8 DG DN Art.

[@nat-lj8kt]

Would be bigger than their 70-200 2.8. It would be the coolest portrait focused lens, still bsrely wide enough for flexibility but with buttery bokeh and compeession at 135mm.

[@CallMeRabbitzUSVI]

Yes! That would be the ultimate portrait lens, i will buy it no matter if it huge! Sometimes you gotta suffer for your ART!

[@jukeboxjohnnie]

I would settle for 35-105 if it made it smaller

[@TheSangjy]

Too heavy, too bulky and abnormal expensively. One glass breaks there goes lot of money :))))))

[@ElementaryWatson-oxo]

In line with tradition, Sigma should make something equally useful, like 45-65/1.8 lens next. 🤪

[@TechnoBabble]

I've been using the Sigma Art 40mm f/1.4 DG HSM on Sony for a while now. It's very large and very heavy, but optically stunning. Probably one of the best lenses ever made. This could probably replace it. It weighs less, is about the same length, can zoom (internally, too), is quite sharp (obviously not as good as the 40mm, but still very good for most of what I do), and the only downside is f/1.8 instead of f/1.4.

[@THEMARCKNIGHT]

I always turn to your and Gerald Undones videos when a new lens comes out. Thanks for your effort :)

[@maggnet4829]

Wow, you got it for testing so early. Awesome! What is missing is the crop mode, especially for a lens that ends at 45mm but has a sharp center I think this matters. It effectively transforms this lens into a 28mm-62mm. Fun fact, that's about the focal length of the tiny 28-60mm from Sony.

[@michelecintramika8482]

42-67mm aps-c

[@maggnet4829]

@michelecintramika8482 I mean on a full frame high resolution sensor where you can switch to apsc mode any time. On an apsc sensor alone it's a lot less interesting.

[@ahmetvural544]

sigma is killing it with the art series

[@RealRaynedance]

It's a lens like this that makes me glad we were all asking for separate AF-S and AF-C testing a few years back. And however they (mostly) avoided their recent famously bad distortion, I'm glad they did it. This is the first lens in five years to make me consider using a zoom that's in my usual prime range and the first Sigma lens I've wanted since the 35mm f/1.2.

[@zbieraj]

The problem is that for the same price, you can get the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8. An important note: in the 35-45mm range, the Tamron still maintains an f/2.0 aperture (it only goes to f/2.2 at 50mm). It is 5mm longer and 215g heavier than the Sigma. Additionally, the Tamron 25-50mm f/2.0 is coming, which according to rumors, will be half the size, half the weight, and half the price of the Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8. And Sony is about to release Sony 24-70mm f/2.0 for the price (again, rumors) between this Sigma and Canon 28-70mm f/2.0. While it is the brightest full-frame zoom ever made, it doesn't offer enough in terms of range, size, and weight to be truly competitive with what's already available on the market, especially considering what's about to be released (such as the aforementioned Tamron 25-50mm f/2.0).

[@xenonsens]

Any Rumors of when the Tamron Lena will be released?

[@zbieraj]

@@xenonsens Mid-2024-ish. Both Tamron and that f/2.0 Sony.

[@joostkuijper6272]

This is wrong. The Tamron 35-150mm does f/2.0 up to 39mm, and f/2.2 up to 59mm, and f/2.5 up to 79mm. So at 45mm you won't get f/2.0 with the Tamron, but f/2.2, making the difference two thirds of a stop compared to the Sigma 28-45mm at 45mm. Furthermore: the advantage if the Sigma is nut just numbers about max aperture (brighter) and range (wider, not having 28mm but only 35mm is a thing), but the main advantage is the stunning IQ. Of course, the Tamron has more range, but for IQ it's only close to primes, whereas the Sigma simply beats most of the primes. It's a beyond zoom performance lens. Therefor the Sigma shouldn't be compared to zooms as if it would be an inflexible short range zoom, it should actually be compared to primes, as being the "most flexible prime" ever. The Sigma is waaaay more flexible than a 35mm prime, while at the same time the IQ is at the same level. The Tamron is amongst the best zooms, but nothing more than that, and beyond 120 or 135mm or so it can't compete wide open with most 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses. And if I would have both lenses I would change to the Sigma for the 35-45mm shots, to get true prime IQ.

[@schm147]

Sony is always the first to get the best lenses on the market, I love it

[@stew_redman]

I have the Canon RF 28-70 f2. I sometimes wish it had a slightly larger zoom range than 42mm. f1.8 is great, but a 17mm focal range difference is a bit limiting I think

[@EverythingCameFromNothing]

I agree. I also have the 28-70! I wish canon would release a 35-85mm f2 🤞

[@k1k13004]

that's not serious. Even not 2x zoom. F1.8 vs F2 is not an argument, so sigma with this lens is quite far from the performance of canon 28-70

[@Xirpzy]

Yeah. Im considering getting the 24-105mm f4 just because its smaller and I tend to find 28mm to not be wide enough and 70mm not long enough. Not much point in a zoom if the focal range is so small.

[@Stellar-Nucleosynthesis]

These are the kind of lenses I want to see. There needs to be a better variety and unique lens seelction for the Sony E mount. It is severely lacking, and as a Sony shooter, I am severely disappointed. I'm glad Sigma is making affordable alternatives, as well as not being afraid to try other things.

[@banditalley9592]

they made a tiny f/2.8 18-50mm for APSC, wonder if they would try a 16-45 f/1.8 for APSC and give us a true 24-70 for crop sensors

[@jmanig76]

There is the 18-35 f/1.8 for APSC, it’s just 13 years old

[@Sgt_Rash]

@@jmanig76 11 years

[@dfj555]

Great review. Which one do you like better this lens or the Canon rf 28-70, in terms of shrapeness and rendering?

[@robertcudlipp3426]

Have no doubts as to the excellent optical qualities. However, the focal range, for me, is simply too restricted at each end, particularly the wide angle.

[@J.R.Y.]

This is an automatic purchase for me. The perfect range for what I shoot.

[@russellbaston974]

I may be declared a ‘heretic’ but a zoom “range” of 1.6? To a ‘nowt nor something’ imho 45mm , and it’s big and heavy.

[@EricRoseBahamas]

Awesome video and cool lens. Do you think that it is as sharp as the old Sigma 8-16mm?

[@AWAShowme]

Those waterfall shots are incredible!

[@christianschneiderphoto]

Impressive to say the least. Canon user here past 20 years, don’t care about what lens brand I have, as long as it makes me look good. My sigma 50mm EF with RF adapter is my go to. But I can’t really understand the focal lengths here. Sure it can replace some primes but still a zoom range that’s to me pretty pointless. But the day when 24-70 comes in a 1.8 that’ll be the day.

[@DesoloZantas]

Very interesting 🤔 I wonder if they are planning on 2 lenses actually. - 50 - 85mm 1.8 for full frame - 50 - 120mm 2.8 for APS-C (compact)

[@ElementaryWatson-oxo]

probably 45-65/1.8 next 🤪

[@RM-hy4so]

Wow, amazing zoom lens. Thanks for the detailed review. I wish I could afford it.

[@hendrickziegler8487]

That colour fringing on out of focus contrast is surprisingly well controlled considering it is a Sigma lens. i-series, the small APSC-zooms as well as the 24-70 2.8 are all somewhat rainbowy.

[@waveland]

I don’t agree about your “no hard focus pulls” at the wide end. And even relatively short throws with that much breathing can be distracting if your subject is moving around. The headline “f1.8 Zoom” specification is attention grabbing, but based on the reviews posted I don’t see anything compelling as either a stills lens or for filmmaking.

[@sorek__]

Superb lens. I had 18-35mm f1.8 with speedbooster back in GH4 days and I loved this lens, this seems to be obvious upgrade for FF lenses. Only problem is price but I can replace so many lenses I own (especially 40mm f2.5 from sony) that this is totally something I need.

[@fouriousbanana6966]

The close-up performance of the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 is quite poor, so I'd be interested to see that same test on this lens, you seemed to skip that.

[@swistedfilms]

I'm a Canon shooter so this one is off the menu. But this will be a must-have for people who do indoor work who shoot Sony or L Mount Alliance (alliance...alliance...alliance...) If there was an RF mount version available I would've already pre-ordered it.

[@Mionwang]

oh man if they could make it 24-45 f/1.8!!

[@JohnAudioTech]

Impressive lens! I'd wish it could have around a 2x zoom range, say, 24-50 or 28-60 but I'm sure it is very difficult the make a fast zoom FF lens with such a range.

[@FotoAparati]

Great information as always.

[@shanecrowe1309]

Dang, now I’m torn on what to buy. I was ready to pull the trigger on the Sigma 14-24 2.8 but this is tempting. I want a wide angle zoom that would be good for both photos and video. This could replace my 35mm 1.8 prime but I wish it was wider. Now I can’t decide between keeping my 35 1.8 and buying the 14-24 2.8 or selling my 35 prime lens, getting this 28-45 1.8 and a 14mm prime lens. 😅

[@amitkrupal1234]

Now waiting for 35-85 f/2 from Sigma, this might be wedding photographer's dream lens

[@noscopesallowed8128]

Not that I'll likely ever get to use it, but I think this is the first lens I've seen in a long while that has a price point I can at least understand. A more zoomed in lens would be my ideal follow-up to this. Something around 50-100mm. Is it always true that a lens performing well on full frame will be equally as good or better on a compact sensor?

[@Termidryna]

Three primes in one unit ❤

[@Jabber-ig3iw]

Not at those focal lengths it’s not.

[@thatguyoverthere115]

I keep drooling over the new Sigma lenses! Only problem is that I refuse to leave the SLR camp. I like my optical finders! I use film a lot so it's good to keep consistency.

[@MattTrevett]

When you're ready, mirrorless will be here waiting. The higher end EVFs are ballin.

[@thatguyoverthere115]

@@MattTrevett I have yet to use a nice nice new EVF, but I don't think it will be worth it to me. I have a couple mirrorless cameras, but it's not as fun to compose with!

[@molybdnum]

This isn't a lens that I'm jumping to get, but it's half the price I was expecting for how "exotic" it is. Very impressive.

[@DrWasim]

It is brilliant. However, one could get away with just a fast 28mm prime, which in crop mode would get close to 42mm.

[@timothysteenwyk2978]

With 45mm you could still crop to about 70mm fov… with a 28mm prime you’d lose too much resolution by that point

[@80-80.]

You could get away with your smartphone as well, nobody would care.

[@Simoneister]

You'd need a 28mm f/1.1 or so to get the same shallow depth of field as a 45mm f/1.8. The Sigma 28mm f/1.4 would get you an equivalent of 45mm f/2.2 or. So, yeah that lens is cheaper and a smidge lighter? Horses for courses I guess. This zoom seems good if you care about resolution, or are a photo & video shooter.

[@maggnet4829]

​@@Simoneisterf1.2 would do, like the Viltrox 27mm f1.2.

[@ElementaryWatson-oxo]

I can shoot everything one would shoot with that zoom with just one 35/1.8 prime and have a helluva better experience as well.

[@alloutofspace]

6 years of photography experience here. You are a great photographer Christopher!

[@nat-lj8kt]

Hats off to Sigma. Only real downside is size+weight which is expected and is a result of physics. As a 24-70 GM II user, I would not replace 24mm and 70mm but this is a different, very strong product with unique parameters in a saturated market where everyone can design good lenses but it's a matter of cost and quality.

[@eugeneo1589]

Can't wait to get one for Z mount. These are 90% of my shots' zoom range (28mm to 50mm) and the price is very tempting.

[@mambotkurt7296]

Interestingly, I get the impression that current lenses begin to outperform camera sensors. Let's see whether lenses like this one will spur some drastic improvements in sensor resolution over the next years.

[@ooharloo]

Is it too much to ask for a 24-200 f1.4 zoom with perfect optics and the size of a kit lens?!

[@tld8102]

If the lense have optical stabilisation for video then that would be good. But focal length is quite 50mm or 20mm for wide vlogging style.

[@djspecialpaul]

This lense is amazing ... REALLY. I must test this on my Sony FX9 and FX6

[@stefan_becker]

Unfortunately not the focal length range where I would need that fast aperture. I'm still waiting for a 24-70mm f2.0 or 28-75mm f2.0 for Sony full frame.

[@ΑΓΑΝΜΕΜΝΩΝ]

Now make 70-200 f2. Btw another excellent review Chris thanks a lot!

[@vinzaputra]

very tempting for videographer, but the question is can the gimbal lift it?

[@Romanbala]

Great lens, nice work Sigma. But I'll prefer 24-50 2.0, still waiting for Tamron announcement :)

[@MarkHuynh7]

Hm gerald undone said it wasnt parfocal but u said is was can u confirm?

[@stkuj]

It would be really dope if Sigma made a 35-85 1.8/2.0 zoom!

[@jeroenvdw]

Really nice lens for sure! Pleasantly surprised by the bokeh quality. Though the zoom range isn't something for me, I gladly just keep on using my 24-70 2.8 and 35mm 1.4. I never use anything around 50mm.

[@hikari_ray]

Still waiting for sigma 16-35mm lens, at least f4. Why didn't they still release it.😢

[@q3aki]

thats the one lens im craving now ;)

[@Jabber-ig3iw]

If it had been 24-50 1.8 it would be a genuine replacement for 3 fast primes, at 28-45 it’s just a fast 35mm with a bit of flexibility either side.

[@Realist-m9c]

Internal zoom, nice!

[@Illuminationsfromtheattic]

I'd much rather have this than a 24-70 f2.8. As I see it, it does indeed replace a standard zoom! I just wish it was available natively for Z mount, though this may be the lens which finally forces me to buy an E to Z AF adapter!

[@jeroenvdw]

Meh, you'll miss the 46-70mm range which is quite a lot of range, but you can lower your ISO.

[@Illuminationsfromtheattic]

@jeroenvdw I shot with the 18-35 on my old 80D, so I'm familiar with the equivalent focal range. I've never found focal ranges past 50 and below 100 to be particularly compelling, so while a 24-120 is a great lens for me, a 24-70 is not. However, I love shooting between 24 and 50, and I want the low light and compositional advantages of a really bright aperture in that range. It'd be great for astrophotography.

[@tonyw3250]

Not much point comparing it against the canon when it's not available for the canon mount

[@classic.cameras]

As someone who has the Sigma 28mm f1.4 ART and 50mm f1.4 ART and barely uses my 24-70mm f2.8 dgdn ART. This lens does interests me. I could see this lens as a kit lens for my camera and also pocketing a few bucks with the sale of those lenses.

[@frankfeng2701]

28 Art is just a better and faster lens at half the price. Just switch between FF and crop mode.

[@classic.cameras]

@@frankfeng2701 Oh I do agree with that. And its also one of the best Sigma lenses ever made. Plus it has a mechanical MF.

[@TechnoBabble]

@@frankfeng2701 Cropping loses you resolution, signal to noise ratio, and background separation over using a longer lens at the same aperture. It's most certainly not "better" as soon as you have to start cropping.

[@Seniorup]

We need more manual aperture rings!

[@johngreenwood9247]

Incredible performance ...but wait a moment, wouldn't a 35mm f/1.4 GM (or even fe 35mm f/1.8) lens be lighter, cheaper & offer better performance, over 90% of general photographic situations? Yes, I'm sure videographers would find it a great proposition, but I'm always surprised how, by moving back a few feet I can avoid the need for a 28mm prime over a 35mm one. Now a "true" 24mm focal length @ the short end & possibly 50mm @ the long end would be a greater attraction. I just think this optic offers an answer to a question that not that many people want to know. Very clever & interesting as it may be!

[@akkarparkiamopas3401]

I wish it could cover wider focal length like 20-50mm . That would be able to replace a few of my astro lenses. 28-45mm is not that versatile for my use.

[@belfeuhr]

no offense but I expect it to be a good pick 3 or 4 years later when the price may or may not be halved or so.

[@CurtGodwin]

This will be on my short list if Sigma comes out with a Z-mount version.

[@vicronychen]

a jaw dropping prime zoom lens.

[@hedydd2]

While I’m sure it is an excellent lens, the large size for a sub 2x zoom at that price means I’ll give it a miss given that I have a 45mm f1.8 already. Others may love its high quality of course.

[@TechnoBabble]

Man, some photographers truly are the most self-centered people I have ever seen. These comments about it having a "useless zoom range" and the like are just insane. If it's not for you, that's fine. Go buy something else. Just because you lack the creativity or skill to imagine what it could be used for doesn't mean it's useless. Sigma made a 24-35mm f/2 and plenty of people bought that... and what about the 18-35mm f/1.8 that this is a spiritual successor to? 18-35 on APS-C and 28-45 on full frame aren't that big of a difference, not to mention this new full frame one effectively has an aperture twice as large at every field of view.

[@AndrewDaddy]

Zeiss Otus 28mm at F2 or this Leica Apo 28mm at F2?? Purely asking about image quality

[@KwyjiboVanDeKamp]

Now Sigma make an APS-C version for mirrorless cameras please!

[@tptrsn]

Great review as always Chris, actually too good probably. I really want one of these lenses! Hahahaha...

[@DirtRoad_Chronicles]

Do you see this being used as a sports lens, say for indoor volleyball, basketball, or anything else indoors? Is the autofocus fast enough?

[@PatrikSkiffardFoto]

Got a mail today that it arrived, im thinking of tradig in my 24mm 2.8 35mm gm 1.4 and maybe the 50 1.4 ?

[@hazard3020]

Whats the point ? Tamron already have a great 20-40mm and a 35-150mm. Sony have a great 24-70 2.8 / 24-50 2.8 / 16-35mm 12-24mm and excellent 24-105 f4 too 🤷🏼

[@joerg_koeln]

Hm, I don't see the advantage of such a zoom range. However, the optics is very fine.

[@fariax8345]

It looks like an updated version of Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8

[@livejames9374]

Sigma isn’t playing around

[@frankfeng2701]

Still not as serious as Tamron

[@joealtona2532]

It's a pure video lens. I think most photographers would rather get 35/1.4

[@kenjiyamamoto3884]

Nothing beats 28-70 f2 of Canon,.

[@Twobarpsi]

Sigma is a great company!

[@mvp_kryptonite]

What a neat lens

[@yuidfbse]

Sigma has just re-written the books of optics. Truly groundbreaking!

[@frankfeng2701]

Quite the opposite. Just a minor derivative update that combines the features of Sigma 18-35 and 24-35, both of which released 10 years ago.

[@hauberty]

RF28-70mm f/2 and RF24-105mm f/2.8 are the groundbreaking lenses

[@devinsmedts5023]

"sequel as good as The Empire Strikes back, or as bad as World War II" You're wild man.

[@gregsullivan7408]

Bugger! Bought the Sigma 50mm F1.4 just YESTERDAY, before learning about this one - i would have got this instead! 🤣

[@BorisZX6R]

I find it frustrating, that most, if not all of these fast/expensive lenses have to be stopped down in order to actually be great... as mentioned here sometimes f2.8 and sometimes f4, or for perfect corner sharpness f5.6... Makes that Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 (699USD vs 1350USD) lens look very good as far as price/performance/reach

[@TechnoBabble]

There's more to optical quality than just sharpness and this new Sigma lens is better than something like the Tamron 28-75 G2 in nearly every other way.

[@BorisZX6R]

@@TechnoBabble apart from the build quality which should come with that price difference, according to actual tests of the lenses I disagree. If it wasn't a 1.8 you or any of these reviewers wouldn't even mention it. And that 1.8 seems overrated.

[@TechnoBabble]

@@BorisZX6R according to actual tests of the lenses I can immediately say that it has less lateral and longitudinal chromatic aberration. Something that is much more important than perfect sharpness in the corners to most people. Also, what a completely asinine thing to say. Of course the f/1.8 aperture is important, that's the whole reason for the lens existing. What kind of statement is that? It's letting in over double the light of an f/2.8 soon, that's the whole reason to buy it.

[@BorisZX6R]

@@TechnoBabble Not saying f1.8 is not important, just saying it is overrated if you have to step the lens down to get great results. If sharpness is not important to you, then that is fine. To me, I see sharpness issue coming up much more than lateral and longitudinal aberration.

[@TechnoBabble]

@@BorisZX6R If you think this lens needs to be stopped down to get great results then there's no hope for you. It's very sharp wide open, sharper than anyone but the top fashion or product photographers in the world would need. You're nitpicking the sharpness in the far corners compared to a lens you likely already own so that you can justify your own purchase. I own a Sigma 40mm f/1.4, I can basically guarantee it's sharper wide open than any lens you own. And yet I can still see that the 28-45 is a sharp lens and can think of many use cases for it, imagine that.

[@meho9668]

What can this lens do that 35 f1.8 cant?

[@muzlee7479]

Zoom put to 28mm and zoom in to 45.

[@meho9668]

@@muzlee7479 Ok true. But lets talk about sth useful for 3-4 times the money.

[@muzlee7479]

@@meho9668 it is not for you. It's fine.

[@CallMeRabbitzUSVI]

​@@meho9668 You can either step 1/2 step back or take a 1/2 step forward and save your money. This 28-45mm is a nonsense lens for nonsense people

[@CallMeRabbitzUSVI]

​@@muzlee7479I never understood this argument. Like when people point out flaws in a product your response is to say it isn't for them? That's like someone walking by one of those used underwear vending machines in Japan and saying "Ewww, thats disgusting" for which you'll reply, "It's not for you"

[@jtoyp]

The lens seems solid but my wrist not enough

[@JaySilva88]

Sigma is clearly not the same company from 20 years ago producing cheap lenses. This lens is razor sharp and produces perfect images, for a reasonable price.

[@andydlamini]

Sony has a large variety of lenses to choose from. I get tempted to switch from canon 🤕

[@sottheaphoeurng9044]

I wish it would do 20m-50mm even f2 is fine or 35mm-75mm is fine too

[@wotiluv]

I tried the lens and found it very heavy and cumbersome to use for video. After 20-30 minutes of straight handheld it got tiresome I think for the price I’d rather get two or three prime lens or just get the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 which is almost the same price but way way better quality

[@cy9nvs]

It's cool and all, but personally, I couldn't think of anything I'd need a 28-45 lens for. Really is a pretty small zoom range.

[@TechnoBabble]

The 18-35mm f/1.8 that tons of people used was equivalent to a full frame 27-52.5mm, not much of a difference.

[@davidpossien3061]

@@TechnoBabble 18-35 can be used on full frame at 25mm using a hack. 25-52mm is quite a large range for such a fast lens. I'll personally be sticking with my 18-35 for video. This new sigma really only makes sense for photography.

[@TechnoBabble]

@@davidpossien3061 Where are you getting 25-52? It's 25-35 on full frame, you don't just magically also get the APS-C crop equivalent.

[@davidpossien3061]

@@TechnoBabble I'm glad you asked. Assuming you're shooting in 4k, in full frame mode, you get 25-35mm (the part of the zoom range without a vignette). In APSC mode you get 27-52mm equivalent (assuming a 1.5 crop factor). Add the two together, and you get 25-52mm. So using the full frame mode, it really only gives you an extra 2 mm of usable range...however the cool part is when using the e-stab on high on full frame mode, it gives you all the benefits of a full frame lens using the entire lens' zoom range. This of course works on the apsc mode as well, but that's not newsworthy. The newsworthy bit is that you maintain more field of view using the 18-35mm in full frame mode with e-stab. I've tried it. It works well, and it's free...since I already own it. Perhaps I should make a video to explain. Now, given what I've outlined above, and this new Sigma lens...which one do you think gives a wider field of view, assuming that is more desired?

[@TechnoBabble]

@@davidpossien3061 well I never said anything about which one gives a wider field of view, nor did I or anyone else in this thread say anything about which is more desired. Using your same logic the new lens gives you a more telephoto field of view, so it's better if that's what's desired. Oh, and you're also making the assumption that the APS-C crop video on the camera being used is good quality or even still 4k, what about the A7S III/FX3/FX6? Also, it's free cause you already own it? Clearly your entire argument is from the point of view of someone that owns and is happy with the 18-35, nobody said you should upgrade. You're clearly just trying to defend your existing gear against... Nothing? Plenty of people don't own the 18-35 because they shoot primarily on full frame and a 24-70 f/2.8 makes more sense, so this is a cool lens for both photo and video.