What Would Be Better Than the Sigma 28-45 F1.8 Full Frame Zoom Lens

[@SummersSnaps]

Speaking to the converted my friend. I think what manufactures haven't been doing is really thinking about all this from a 'complete kit' perspective, especially for those event and wedding shooters (where realistically that is where a lot of this stuff is marketed towards). Let's consider the following; 1) A professional event shooter is going to want/need 2x bodies. This is just sensible from a back up perspective (should one fail/get damaged) and from an increased versatility/lesson lens swapping times practicality. 2) So with this in mind, we then want to kit the cameras out to their maximum range across the two bodies. Doubling up anywhere (including the duplication of having 70mm on a 24-70 and 70-200) is basically a waste. A 28-105 whilst sounding impressive is still going to leave you needing two more lenses, one wider and one tele, so this doesn't really help at all. Same issue with 24-70/2 or 24-105's. 3) As an experienced event shooter, 20mm is the goldilocks for width, it rides that cusp of being wide enough for almost everything on the day without unacceptable distortion. You're 100% correct, we need more zooms starting here, and even if they stopped a little short the telezoom cousin could be developed to compensate. 4) We need a double combo, sometime like a 20-45 and then a 55-180, we can omit the 10mm between the two and really we don't need all of that 200mm, or if the manufacturer wants to make it 1.4xTC compatible or we can use a crop mode, something to get a little more reach if absolutely necessary. But in my experience, if I need more than 180mm then its a whole other lens for the job, 20mm on tele is not a big difference. 5) As to whether they need to be f1.8 or not, well... make both and let the consumer choose between fast and heavy or slow and lighter. APS-C needs 1.8 more than FF, which is why the Sigma 28-45/1.8 is actually frustrating, 2.8 is fine on FF already! It's APS-C that needs that lens (but not at 28-45). 6) Shooting my 2x XH2S's, I use the XF14/2.8 (for those 20mm equivalent shots), then its Sigma 18-35, and then its XF50-140. I can usually cover whatever with those three lenses. Sometimes I will opt for the Tokina 14-20/2 over the Sigma. I would really love a 20-40/2 for APS-C, and then the 50-140/2, dream combo.. but I can't really see anyone with balls big enough to make that. But yeh, this 24-70 + 70-200 has to stop, its not the right way to go about things, not in this day and age.

[@_tographer]

Perfectly articulated!

[@SummersSnaps]

@@_tographer I've seriously contemplated moving to M43 just for that PanaLeica 10-25/1.7. Manufacturers need to recognise this!

[@_tographer]

Huge opportunity for Panny/Leica if they can get out a 20-50mm for full frame L mount

[@iamhassan9943]

The Lumix 20-60 is such an awesome lens. Very underrated due to the “kit” lens label and variable aperture. I would love for Lumix to come out with a fixed aperture version around f4 or so. Even f2.8-4. Though that would probably be a chonky lens. Edit: f2 or f2.8 fixed would be perfect.

[@anupew3276]

Concidering its brightness and optical quality I would say its more fitting to look at it as alternative for 35 and 50mm primes than as a regular zoom lens. That lens competes in optical quality with 35 and 50mm GM primes in centre to mid frame and still good at edges too. For people looking for zoom lens in that ranges there are better options in 24-70 or 28-105mm lenses.

[@obscurelines]

The lumix mft 10-25 and 25-50 f1.7s have such a great range covered.

[@_tographer]

Unmatched and exceptional quality

[@rainlesure4690]

The older sigma 18 to 35 for crop sensor cameras is a little bit better of a focal range cause instead of it stopping at 45 which leave you a little bit short on full frame,it stops at 35 on APSC which gives you a 55 mm look which is a little bit more zoomed in but it’s worth having the extra reach. My one big gripe about that lens is that it’s not quite wide enough for me. 18 mm on crop gives you about 28 mm effective field of view. But you get some pretty serious focus breathing on the wide. Which, in my opinion drastically limits close-up framing I would’ve loved to have like a 16 to 35 1.8 that would be killer

[@marionobre2678]

well i have a 24-50 2.5 sigma art…. with the gh7 and a speedbooster ahaha

[@TheTensecondz]

Tamron 20-40mm 2.8 and/or any 35mm 1.4 are better choices.

[@obscurelines]

Really, just a 35mm will do it.

[@freedomgovernment]

It's lighter than carrying around a 35, 50, and 85mm but most people use 35 and 85mm for portrait.

[@_tographer]

How would this lens compensate for an 85mm?

[@freedomgovernment]

@@_tographer 28mm at f/1.8 isn't much different than 35mm f/2 with that 35-150mm f2-2.8 lens. You can throw it on an APS-C body? I'm not so sure sure it's the right lens for me, but it could be a Hero Lens.

[@slows728]

I have both the 10-25mm and the 28-45mm. I found the 10-25mm excellent back in 2020 when I bought it. Contrast, shadows and highlights transitions are very good. The lens is sharp wide open (a bit less at 25mm but still ok). But I prefer the 25-50mm for IQ, the colors are even better with an even stronger contrast. The 28-45mm I bought recently doesn't look like the old Sigma lenses like the 18-35mm or even the 24-70mm DG DN, it has much better colors and contrast. Compared to the 10-25mm it has better low light performance, sharpness, contrast and of course shallower DOF. Of course the 10-25mm has better range, but for someone who doesn't need wide angle, the 28-45mm is the best choice. I use it with the 25-50mm and I think it's a great combo.

[@waynealejo]

Tamron makes a 20-40 and I wish Sigma made their own version of that, would be perfect for the S9

[@_tographer]

Ah that’s quite interesting, if only it were L mount though

[@endorfintrials]

Sigma have 24-35f2 ff, why noone talk about that?

[@_tographer]

Maybe too similar with the classic 16-35 2.8?

[@endorfintrials]

@ but f2

[@_tographer]

Sure but psychological marketing makes me think people gravitate towards 1.8 instead of 2

[@AI3Dorinte]

so basically you don't really care about background separation, it's pretty obvious who this lens was made for

[@dleise]

Low light as well.

[@AI3Dorinte]

@ i guess a good body like a sony can handle low light with a f2.8, but what if you don’t want to use a sony? :) Yeah, low light gets way better at 1.8, i honestly love this lens and i think it’s perfect for vlogs, documenting a trip, studio work, etc

[@whitedobie]

It's still a $1300 lens too

[@_tographer]

Right, easy expense to avoid because it doesn’t really solve a problem for me.

[@Giovanni-Giorgio]

28-70 f2 for example. But 24-70 f2 would be welcome.

[@_tographer]

Wider. 20-XXmm would be golden

[@KNURKonesur]

It's the perfect traditionalist lens, covers 28, 35, 43... that's all you need + a portrait lens.

[@alchymista2]

pretty much anything that starts at 24mm. 28 is no go - just another missed opportunity.

[@_tographer]

For me when I need wide, 20mm is where it’s at. You can show off a space, as well as shoot closeups, and feel context for the space. It’s a very satisfying look when trying to place things in their environment.

[@ggdfggdfgdffgfddg34]

18-40 best!

[@zyxyuv1650]

This lens does not even accomplish the goal of fulfilling two roles: WIDE, and STANDARD. It's not wide enough to be useful. 20-45mm F1.8 would have been a big seller. At least that is fulfilling both roles. I don't really need 20-55mm because 45mm is usable instead of 55mm. I use a couple 45mm lenses and they work perfectly instead of 50's. But 28mm is not usable instead of 20mm. And I can't even do a selfie or close up inside-the-car shot with 28mm.

[@_tographer]

Agreed, this middle of the middle doesn't really offer much to me in practical terms. it's cool that it exists but not all that useful for the content I shoot.

[@martzallmedia]

Sony 20-70? F4 but so