One note for the manual focus. If you buy the L-Mount version for a Panasonic camera, you can change it to linear. Not only that, you can also select the desired throw degree. (No additional software needed, it's all in camera).
@@creativegreatsvisuals Linear focus throw means the focus racking distance is linked to angle of rotation rather than speed of rotation. That makes it much easier to make repeatable focus pulls.
I absolutely love mine. I use it on an a7RV so for photos I can use crop mode and still get 26MP. So it’s effectively a 28-67.5 fov f1.8 lens for photos, and then for video it pretty much covers 95% of my handheld stuff on a wedding day. I also don’t think its weight is an issue at all, it’s quite similar in feel to an old 24-70 f2.8, which is absolutely fine.
In APSC crop, the aperture also needs to be multiplied by 1.5x, so it would be a 42-67.5 f2.7 in APSC crop. All in all, it is like a 28-70 f2.8 lens that is 1.3 stops faster upto 45mm if you use it in conjunction with crop mode, so a very versatile range. Would have loved it if it went as wide as 24mm though.
@@Wildridefilms no it doesn’t. This is just wrong. The aperture is a physical opening of a lens. A 1.8 aperture is a 1.8 aperture regardless of whether you’re in full frame mode or apsc mode. The “look” of the image will more closely resemble the look of a full frame f2.8 aperture look when set to 1.8 in apsc mode (so for example being at 30mm f1.8 in apsc mode would produce an image that looks pretty much the same in terms of subject separation as a similarly framed image taken at 45mm f2.8 in full frame mode) but its light gathering ability is still what an f1.8 aperture gives. Please stop saying you need to multiply the aperture as you don’t, that’s incorrect technical knowledge and leads to confusion.
@@kingweddingmedia so you think a f/1.8 lens on a smartphone and an f/1.8 lens on a FF camera capture the same amount of light? The f stop only refers to the light DENSITY. So regardless of area of the sensor, you'll get the same amount of light performance square cm/inch. But when you crop in, you reduce the total area that is absorbing light, so even with the same light density as f/1.8, there is less light collected in total.
@@Wildridefilms what you’ve said there is worded a bit better than before - but to say it’s a 2.8 lens in apsc mode is still categorically wrong. Aperture literally means the size of the opening on a lens, created by the positioning of the blades - yes a smart phone that has a physically smaller sized lens (and therefore smaller aperture blades) at a 1.8 aperture will obviously not let in as much light as a larger lens on a larger camera with larger blades. However, in the case of switching into apsc mode on a full frame camera using a full frame lens - you’re still letting in the same amount of light at 1.8 whether you’re in full frame mode or apsc mode, you’re just not recording/using all of it when you’re in apsc mode as it’s recording a cropped image. Test it out on a brick wall - you’ll see the exposure stays exactly the same whether you’re in apsc mode or full frame mode. If you’re suggesting that using f1.8 in apsc mode would change it to f2.8 and therefore to get the same exposure as before you’d need to change the shutter or ISO? That’s not correct. If you’re not suggesting that and agree with what I’ve said above, then I think your explanation is not great as people will get confused when you say the aperture also needs to be multiplied by the crop factor, it doesn’t. The opening of the lens (aperture) is still f1.8, the exposure will remain the same, yes you haven’t recorded the light that would have been hitting the outer portions of the full frame image, but you’re then presenting a cropped image which is still be exposed as it was previously if it had been taken in full frame mode. Noise might be amplified a bit because you’re cropped in on it, and the depth of field will resemble something closer to a 2.8 look, but that’s because of the wider focal length required for the same framing when using apsc mode, not because the aperture has “changed”, it hasn’t.
Every reviewer says „28mm is wide enough“ - I disagree. Nowadays I shoot a lot of handheld, with image stabilisation and therefore a crop. Sonys new dynamic active steady shot will be further implemented in the upcoming Sony cameras. Its 1,3 times crop lets me want an even wider option like a 20-40 for instance, to cover small spaces in a wedding scenario.
while I agree that 28mm isn't wide enough I also feel that 20 isn't wide enough either, when I want a really wide establishing shot usually I always end up with something more like 16mm (and I wouldn't mind of going even wider) so I feel like a 16-45 would be the holly grail... but well... that would have probably become very expensive and losing a bit of image quality... I think this lens paired with for example the 16-28 f2.8 also from sigma would make a good pairing and if you manage to have a b-cam you can have the two lens always mounted and ready to run and gun and get the best of both world!!! keep up bro✌✌✌
Your angle of comparing this to an 11 year old lens is a miss in my opinion. We loved 18-35 because it was (amongst other things) f/1.8 and because it was all we had at the time. With the advance of modern sensors being better in low light (so less need for f/1.8) and bigger (so you don't have to shoot at f/1.8 to get decent DoF) I'd say the best comparison to the 18-35 is actually the 24-50 f/2.8 which gives you better range with the same DoF and similar lowlight for half the size and weight. It just feels like the 28-45 1.8 is a lens made with an 11 year old design mindset and it's not very practical for 2024. 24-70 2.8 gets you more range and the upcoming 24-70 2.0 will get you same DoF. If it was a more budget oriented 24-50 f/1.8 it would fly off the shelves.
The problem in lens design is wide angles with fast apertures and while keeping it sharp hence why canons f2 zoom is 28 and why this is 28. The iq would probably suffer to much for modern tastes
would you say the same about new Sigma 24-70 f/ 2.8 II - that it gives the same the same DoF when you are at at 35MM on both cameras? I returned it to get the 28-45 because I thought I would would get more shallow DoF while retaining the same sharpness at 1.8
Hey Matt, Great video!!! Don't forget about the extra zoom you can get on super35 crop! 45x1.5 = 67,5 which is a little bigger than 56mm so adding up on the math you end up having a lens that is as wide as the 18-35 but also with more zoom range if you consider the super35 crop that most full frame cameras have the ability nowadays so!!! I would love to try that lens myself! might end up getting one!!! keep up man ✌✌✌
Although the 18-35 was a 1.9x zoom and this is only a 1.6x zoom, I think that at least for PHOTOGRAPHY, this is still effectively the same because full frame doesn't push the lens as hard, meaning that it's sharper, and lenses nowadays are just generally sharper... Like a 2024 mid-tier lens is out-resolving a lot of the best glass from about 2014 or so. My point being that as long as you have the pixels, you can crop in to make a 1.6x zoom probably more like a 3x zoom, really... Losing some DOF effect of course. For video, there is often a 1.5x crop mode as well, and I'm sure this lens would have no problem being sharp enough for that.
With improving low light capabilities of modern cameras, theres no really need for a super fast lens. And for a shallow depth of field.. that’s just another “trend” we run after, without questioning its origin. Look a films from the giant himself - Steven Spielberg. He hardly ever shoots wide open. Most of his films are shot f5.6 and above. Would you deny Spielberg doing your wedding video, because you insist on having a decent bokeh? What I’m trying to say: Don’t always run after everything, everyone else is doing - create your own style. A (wedding)film is more than slowmo and a blurry background.
Sold my Lumix 24, 50 & 85mm and bought Sigma 28-45mm f1.8 (A Lumix s5ii cam) plus Lumix s pro 70-200 f2.8 (B Lumix s5ii cam). Amazing LENS! plus on 45mm and 4k 50fps (crop) it looks like a macro!
I’ve just started using the Smallrig Weight-Reducing Sling Handgrip Kit for DJI gimbals and it really does make a difference when using “chunky lenses” 😂
I just ordered this lens because of this review. There as another annoying video that was 3 times as long and I was ready to pass on the lens but then saw yours and I'm gonna give it a go.
Just rented it for a destination wedding and loved it. As a S5II user it’s great, I shoot 24/30fps so the zoom range is pretty decent for a wedding especially when you crop in to APSC (which I have set as a function button). You can also adjust the manual focus settings, the first one I changed was setting it to linear and I had 0 complaints. The AF was also very good and I forgot about it entirely when I was using it since it was so quick and smooth. I also love being able to program the buttons on the lens to pretty much whatever I want. I’m just pretty happy to have a lens option like this for L-Mount that doesn’t require an adapter. The 18-35 with the MC-21 has some weird issues for me on the S5II when shooting 60fps with AF, and using any of my wife’s Art series EF lenses you get some weird issues depending on which one you use (24,35,50,85). Like dropping frames and making clips unusable kind of weird, or on my old S5 I just got a bunch of corrupted MDT files lol. For $1300 there isn’t a lot to complain about. Hopefully they make a FF version of the 50-100 f/1.8!
I'm so glad you are talking about this lens. I just bought it this morning- actually I returned the new Sigma 24-70 2.8 for 28-45 . I hope I did not make a mistake. I would love a comparison made with the Sigma 24-70 for sharpness, and ease of use. Maybe compare the focal length to see does it make that much of a difference? IDK maybe these thoughts are crazy hehe
I'm surprised literally no reviewer talks about or even mentions Sigma 24-35 f/2, which is actually Full-Frame EF mount internal zoom with repeatable MF and can be adapted/speedboosted to different mirrorless mount. For its much lower price it has much better value than 28-45. I picked one up used for $400 last year.
While you are right about the zoom and crop factors that you're remarking about the 18-35 most people used them with speed boosters making it equivalent (18x1.6x0.71=) 25mm much wider and 35mm is essentially double 18 so it is a 2X zoom lens. Giving a 25-50. This lens on the other hand is a 1.5 zoom which is a noticable difference and ti me is more akin to the 24-35 f2 while it cannot be utilised by speed boosters due to the shallow flange and mirrorless mount options. (and obviously you wouodnt with full frame) This limits it usability quite drastically in comparision to the 18-35 and i get it. Mkaing a 28 -55 which would be big and extremly heavy and more akin to a specialist cine lens and not a consumer lens at all while the e mount or l mount probably wouldnt even support the weight. And would have to be LPL mount. So for me to summerise this is a more spicialised lens that offers a unique and versatile shooting situation with great lowlight while sacrificing weighg zoom and IQ for maximum "speed" and headline grabbing fstop. What i feel would have been the smarter move and one most would have more enjoyed is a 28-70 f2. This is 1/3 of a stop difference and offeres a much greater range and a 17-28 to accompany it. While also making it half the price of the canon version.
@@frankfeng2701 I see where your coming but I was thinking keeping it 2x zoom and then your so close to having the same focal length as the canon for the cost of a 1/3 of light. So would seem like it would be worth it especially if you stick in the knees of canon users who cant buy it cos canon has locked out the mount. Though you'd have to do a proper market analysis to see what the majority wants.
@@heartshapedfilms 28-55 f/2 or 25-50 f/2 at $1350 would be ideal. 20-50 f/2 at $1700, home run. 28-50 f/2 at $1350, decent. This lens, counterproductive. The market wants more zoom than speed in a zoom, that's for sure in the video age.
there are so many lenses, including this one, where I wish repeatable focus pulls were standard regardless of the speed of pulling the focus ring. Love my tamron 35-150, but thats aside from the weight is definitely its main drawback. In order to be on board for this lens I have to think of it as a 35mm 1.8 that happens to have some extra mm on both ends cause otherwise it's not entirely that attractive- to me. the comparison to the 18-35 in terms of focal range is a good point to bring up though
that's why I got it- it was a toss up between getting a 50MM 1.8 and a 35 MM 1.8 (though Id prefer 1.4 or even 1.2 I just don't have the pocketbook for that) so I thought I get nearly three prime lenses w/out having to switch them out which is a big deal while shooting a music video for example
Great review! I think this lens is also great because it sits in a nice sweet spot regardless of whether you're shooting on a full frame or APS-C sensor. For example if you're shooting on an A7IV at 4k60, this will give a nice focal range to work with (42-67mm) + it will give full frame level DOF because of the wider aperture.
@@wotiluv Yup, all APS-C modes across Sony cameras have a x1.5 crop factor. But the A7IV would give a better image because of its higher megapixels, the FX3 is only 12megapixels so if you crop to APS-C mode, you won't get a "true" 4k image. It will look more like 1080p/2k.
Would you recommend this lens for wedding ceremonies? I am a solo videographer and I've been surviving on a 24-70 from sigma but needing something tighter. Would love your feedback!
@@SJYangProduction I bought mine for $400. Great lens to replace Sigma EF 24 1.4 and 35 1.4, neither of which is great.
Месяц назад
@@frankfeng2701 That's a great idea, do you use with which camera? I've used my 18-35mm with the mc-11 across many cameras and the autofocus never let me down.
