Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art: The brightest full frame zoom EVER MADE 

🤣

Lmfaoo

Just because it focus breathes, it does not make it a zoom lens.

@@user-zw4iy1rt8k it's a joke

Top comment award

Other hot contenders: Lumix S1ii (I'd assume rather than gh7. Especially as it would make sense for Panasonic to supply an S1ii together with the lens) and Canon R1. My camera shop dude said something of new Sony-cameras and Nikon Z6iii seems to be a possibility (though not really rumoured yet). Someone said R5ii in the chat but why would they release that together with the R1?

@@hendrickziegler8487 I think the most likely cameras are the GH7, Nikon Z6III, Lumix LX100II, or the S1II in that order from most likely to least likely. Sony and Canon are possibilities as well its just I haven't heard a name for any of there cameras coming in the next month or two so I doubt its in reviewers hands if we don't even have a name yet. The reason I said GH7 is because those other 3 cameras have major road blocks for showing up in a video like this at this point in time. Nikon doesn't like sending cameras out they prefer to send out a rep with their camera. The LX100II seems a bit out of place for this video but it is the most rumored camera currently. The S1II has had no info leaked at all other then some form of the S1 has been registered.

@@hendrickziegler8487 Could also be the Sony ZV-E10II but I think that is the least like by far.

Nah the colours really don't look too great, that's definitely not a Lumix

@@hendrickziegler8487 panasonic doesnt even have an unknown FF camera registered atm so defenitely not a new lumix FF

yeah I too would prefer to give up some light for greater versatility

I wish it was a 28-70. 28 is just wide enough for most things, while 70 is just tight enough for most things.

​@@piotrgraniszewski8544I respectfully disagree. I think 24mm is basically a necessary focal length for professional coverage. You're probably looking for coverage if shooting with a zoom already, the question is if it's for professional use. I could never feel comfortable shooting a wedding without having 24 on the wide end. For amateur use, I absolutely agree with you -- 28mm is a great "split the difference" focal length

I think I would prefer 35 to 85mm

Personally I would prefer an 18-150mm F1.7 with internal zoom motor, no focus breathing and full titanium build quality with a hint of swirly Soviet bokeh characteristics. But I also live in a real world and understand that wishing for the impossible is the norm among netizens without understanding how difficult its already to achieve a 28-45mm F1.8 in a full frame world.

Yeah, for photography, I'd rather carry a wider, smaller, lighter prime and crop in. Neat, though.

Yep. 18-35/1.8 makes much more sense.

@@xmeda what a dream that would be

I totally agree with you. It sounds nice, but in the end, the size and weight make it impractical. I'm with you, a 35mm lens will do with newer high pixel cameras. It's a lens that is fixing a problem or void that doesn't exist.

In fact, a 35 F1.4 is lighter and smaller, and would crop nicely to 45mm without sacrificing bokeh compared to 28-45 F1.8

that is better. there you go

Tony mentioned the 28-70 F/2. Sony will also bring a 24-70 F/2 soon

I'm not sure why you'd want to compare those two. First off they are for different systems, and then the Canon has twice the range, costs three times as much, and weighs 50% more. Nobody would seriously weigh those up against the other.

@@MarcelVolker the comparison exists by the simple fact they share faster than an F/2.8 aperture as a full-frame zoom. These are the kind of lenses that someone like a wedding photographer would jump to a camera system for because they’re incredibly unique. It’s not like it’s a run-of-the-mill 24-70 f/2.8 that every system has, it’s something that stands out. You’re correct that these lenses are at separate price points for different systems, but they are both attempting to achieve similar goals with different approaches.

While this is not a lens available to me (Canon shooter), I am contemplating the same idea of "is this useful?" Initially I was like, "wow, a really limited zoom range." Then I got to thinking about when I use a standard zoom lens, most my shots are in the range this lens can shoot, 28-40mm. At least half of my shots at any event will be in that range with a 24-70mm. Not to mention the 18-35mm F1.8 they made for crops is a similar field of view after crop factor is considered, and that lens was very popular (granted part of the reason for that may have been the lack of options for a fast, constant aperture standard zoom for crops). I agree, I probably couldn't use a lens like this, but there certainly will be those that will find it a dream come true.

They need to update their 50-150 apsc lens for mirrorless. It’ll be even better with Canon RF-S in the race now. Canon makes great apsc bodies for sports!

Best start to a comment ever: “I was literally just complaining”.

Actually there is a 50-100/1.8​@@justinburley8659

This is the only sensible take, honestly the review could be summed up into this

The Tamron is 1899. This is 1349.

question is what about optical quality of those mentioned lenses? I have seen one review with direct comparisons of Sigma 28-45 to Sony GM 50, 35 and 24 primes and it was consistently against all 3 primes slightly sharper in centre but softer on edges. Also Sigma had less CA than GM primes. 24-70 have better range, but also a whole list of problems. Beginning with worse sharpness and contrast, way worse CA (especially that new Sigma 24-70) and also dust gathering extending tube. So 24-70 f/2 is possibly comming soon, it sounds awesome on paper, but it also would have to be a significant improvement over 24-70 f/2.8 GM II in sharpness, contrast and CA. And even though 25-50mm f/2 also sounds great on paper, we wont know if it really is as good as it sounds until its released, tested and results compared. Sigma 28-45 is a lens full of compromises. Less versatile focal range, large size and more weight for superior image quality, more light gathering and possible subject separation and better weather sealing. IMO it would pair really well with 70-200 GM II. Both with its focal range and its weight and dimensions. Only if they both had same filter size too...

Plus the name sucks.

You got it. I’ll make a concerted effort

The 10-25 is very reasonably sized considering all that it does and how well it does it in a 20-50mm FF range

But absurdly priced. You can get the Sigma 35 f/1.4 for $550 less lol

That replacement for 35/1.8 looks a bit big and heavy, don't you think.

24-40 would have been a better indoor range

Tamron 35-150mm is a crazy package. I can cover everything in a full wedding day with that and a 24-70mm GM.

Panasonic has better autofocus than Nikon. Nikon sucks so bad 😅

@@lewcehjitl3282 This sounds like a faulty source. Nikon is basically AF relevant when you move up to the Exspeed 7 bodies.

@@lewcehjitl3282 you are imagining too much 😂

@@USGrant21st the Canon R100 has better autofocus than Nikons entire line up. Facts are facts 🤷🏻‍♂️. Nikon also ruined an all American company Red so sad..

@@lewcehjitl3282 dreaming again 😁

The Plena is an optical standard. The best 135mm lens ever made.

@@macmac6479 You totally missed the point, but it's fine. The Noct is a curiosity, most people know the lens. The Plena?! Who the fck cares for this lens?!

The teaspoon is totally not gonna stick, everyone knows the Tablespoon is the ultimate unit.

@@Benjamin_JehneI do!

My thought is this mainly removes the need to carry 24,35,50 fast primes and having to futz with them repeatedly

At that time, Sigma 18-35/1.8 was sharper than many primes so I started my Sigma F1.8 purchase

I love my 24-105 but F4 isnt enough for every situation

Sure the Canon is much more versatile, at a cost! And because of that, hardly anyone can afford it. You're forgetting that this Sigma is mainly targeted to video shooters because of the limited range.

& terms of cost ;-)

would be nice, but de 18-35 is still a blast even in 2024

@@IJAY2509 True, but would be nice if they make native versions for Sony E and Fuji X mount. That lens is perfect for the Sony FX30 & A6700 and Fuji X-H2s, X-T5 and XS20

@@Edwin-- thats true

they dont really push crop sensor development atm

What does it need though? It seems like a really good lens still

Honestly I was fully expecting it to be like $2000

nice irony

You can get the much better Sigma 35 f/1.4 for $550 less lol

are you being sarcastic? never know on internet if somebody is serious.

@@michaelbell75 yeah, and even 35/1.4 GM is now cheaper than 28-45. It's a nobrainer which one to buy.

Ask Nikon to get out of the way

@@PhotoVideoTechOz I guess it's both sides needing to agree on something. Worked with Tamron, which gave us the lovely 35-150mm. Hopefully will happen with Sigma too. At least for APS-C we're already there.

Anything you can shoot with this zoom you can shoot with 35/1.8. It's a useless lens.

@@USGrant21st sure. who cares about the 50% more field of view between 28 and 45mm anyway. leaving alone all the differences in style and usage that come with certain focal lengths. nobody cares. useless lens. period.

@@trueatfalse lol. you are making stuff up. The difference between 28 and 35 is 1.25x and between 35 and 45 is 1.28x -- miniscule, no matter how you slice it.

The FF brother of the 18-35 is the already existing 24-35 f/2. This is some sort of mid ground. It's an interesting lens, but it's not the 2nd gen 24-35 f/2 I was hoping for.

Yes, this is the brother of the 18-35 APS-C. Which cropped would be around a 28-54mm. So this one is bit shorter on the long end but nothing crazy. It also stays at f1.8 which is crazy thinking this is full frame. Such a beast of a lens. A 28 f1.8, 35 1.8 and 50 1.8 bag of primes in one lens. Yeah, it’s big and heavy, but it replaces 3 lenses.

because that is a crop lens.

Absolutely because those shots worked better outside of f/1.8. You got some samples in there at 1.8 too.