Why the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is still AMAZING in 2021 

You can buy filters that gives lenses certain aesthetics as well. I hate this trend of "too sharp" and "clinical" as well. There's a reason why we're seeing so many creative filters. I'd rather have a collection of sharp lenses that I can attach creative filters to than have a lens that does only one look well.

Yes, the crazy hair guy did say that. (FronoFoto w.e the hell his name is). People don't know wtf they want. It is very insane to complain about is too clean and sharp.

@@chickenpasta7359can you suggest some filters? I’m picking up my Canon 80D after a pause. Just bought this Sigma for myself. Now just exploring

It's been a year, but I hope you kept the 18-35 for your S5 because the S5 shoots 4k 60p only in aps-c mode, which is perfect for the Sigma.

Soo basicly when we use on fullframe have vigneting?

You are correct.

@@SenseiiOne is it normal if vignetting in aps-c?

@@naufalghazi6681 The corners might be a bit darker when using with APS-C sensor. But only when shooting at f/1.8 as far as I know.

Clinically sharp, looks unappealing for portraits,

This. ☝☝ It genuinely baffles me that they've updated and created so many lenses for Sony but not made a version of this for Sony E Mount yet.

For RF mount, canon didnt make any APS-C body until very recently with R7 and R10.

@@qiyuxuan9437 just picked up the r7 and this lens :)

Horrendous lens breathing even on the cine version :(

@@DastanZhumagulov i don't care. It's a less than 1k lens

@@DastanZhumagulov Absolutely silly lens breathing. I agree. Almost unusable. Have it 2 years. Used it twice.

Only cine version. Still is not. But with speedbuster it can be.

@@turusimpala7155 Cine version isn't parfocal either. Sigma says it's "near parfocal". Only 3rd party cheaper re-housings are parfocal, ironically.

@@professionalpotato4764 ok))

I think it pairs really well! I have both. However the autofocus on the 50-100 is not so great for video, it does a lot of hunting. I also have the sigma 4omm F1.4 (full frame), so I have a focal length in between (expensive though but really sharp). The 40mm doesn't have as good auto focus as the 18-35mm. Hope this helps!

It's like 28-56 for FF

why not make it an 18-100 1.2, while you are at it? I am afraid that sigma had pushed the specs quite to the max back then. They wanted to create a lens that put them on the map as a serious contender, which the 18-35 absolutely did. But while I absolutely would buy a 18-35 mm full frame for sony FE, I think that thing would be much too heavy, and now that sigma is on the map, I do not think they will make such an extremely cost-calculated product again. Better AF would obviously be very nice, but stabilisation would probably make the lens too heavy. And IS is not as crucial anymore, since most new cameras have inbody. I have tried the 18-35 on a sony a1, and the inbody is quite sufficient.

@@FlorisGerber Never said it had to be Full Frame, nor needed to have such an extreme range. Just pointed some extra or other features that I'd like to see happen because they'd fit my usage. Time will tell if it eventually come close to that or not at all.

Agreed. Actually I would like to see if they could make it a 16-35, for the slightly wider 24mm fov. Even a 16-35 f/2, silent motors, weather sealed will be a great addition, assuming they can design it to be usable on every mirrorless mount. If not I hope they just stick to EF.

I want to ask you, did you use this on a R6? Since its a APS-C lens how is the vignette and other performance. It will be great if you can advise me regarding this. Am confused whether to go for the 24-70f2. 8 art or this one. Thanks

@@soumikkar5049 If you have R6, just go for 24-70 f/2.8. Don't bother with apsc lens. The Sigma 18-35 was engineered to give full frame f/2.8 results on apsc.

Which shots exactly sorry?

I wouldn't suggest this lens for the R6 as it will limit what formats you can shoot in or the focal lengths of the lens you can use without vignetting. Jake

Faster aperture, you get the same DoF as f/2.8 on ff, but you can lower your ISO on a S35 sensor. Internal zooms make it easier to balance on gimbals. Extremely sharp. Many 24-70ish lenses aren't sharp at all, like the Canon EF 24-70. Smaller form factor vs a 24-70 f/2.8 ff lens. I guess the only cons would be, lack of weather sealing?

There is a 24-70mm F2.8 and a 70-200 F2.8 There difference between F2 and F2.8 (especially with the tele lenese) is barely, if at all, noticable. But the lenses would be giant (each would be around 1,5-2kg) The 24-35mm F2 was already bigger than the 24-70mm F2.8 The 120-300mm F2.8 is 3,5kg, i think people underestimate the size impact such fast lenses cause. If those lenses would exist tomorrow, i would bet you would not buy them because they would be too big and heavy.

I would like a 18 to 30 f2 and 35 to 50 f2. please sigma

@@jackhkf1419 the is a 14-24mm F2.8 and a 24-70mm F2.8

@@Vamp898 I would like a light zoom lens with 67mm filter thread

@@jackhkf1419 if only the laws of physics would not exist^^

Isn't the EOS R a full-frame camera? This is an APS-C lense...

@@Vamp898 It is, but I have an adapter for it.

@@LukeMackie but then it's gonna be cropped, isn't it? I'd say you're better off with an 24-70 F2.8

@@Vamp898 I shoot in 4K, there’s already a crop so it doesn’t affect it. This lens actually makes it so that there’s no crop shooting in 4K, it’s the only lens I know of that offers that.. I actually found that out after buying it, it was a win/win for me :)

@@LukeMackie ah, didn't know that. I actually don't know that camera well. My camera doesn't crop in 4K but if yours do, it's the best lense for the job. You could also use the 50-100 F1.8 then too I somehow assumed you were shooting stills because I almost exclusively shoot stills

The stills version performs very will on a calibrated mount and so does the cine.

Cine isn't parfocal. You have to get 3rd party versions.

@@professionalpotato4764 Technically, no lens is truly parfocal...

Canon sort of came close with 24-70 f2 RF

@@DastanZhumagulov In some ways that's actually way more impressive considering it's a FF lens. Now if only that was on the widely adaptable EF-mount. I think all video shooters worldwide would buy it instantly.

What camera are you using? Jake

@@CVPTV Sony a6000 with the mc-11 adapter. Maybe a hotshoe extender + audio recorder + shotgun microphone could do the trick. I don't know.

Have you tried the rehousing by PChood Cinematics? They're apparently better than official Sigma cine versions cos they're 100% parfocal. And only $1700~ for a piece. If you send in your own glass, it's only about $1000.

Why? Because it's not a "cine" lens?

@@markoboychuk some of those people lose their minds when they see someone shooting on this lens, and I mean that in a bad way.

@@joenicklo Do you know why though? What is it that triggers them about this lens?

Hahahahahaha. I'm guilty of this. I don't even know why.

It's a video centric review..so af is only used by youtubers.. its irrelevant! If you want af go watch sony ;)

@@ludovicavice3496 Very true haha in two years with this lens i've never switched the AF switch on.

@@encoreflix2377 does it have an af switch ? Damn u made me go check my lens..did nt know it had one lol..fk

You should watch the video

Did you watch the full video?

@@CVPTV Yes. And also watch many other reviews. I also rent a cinema version and compare it to my still version. Optically they're almost the same, cinema version hold up a contrast a bit better in frontlight situation and cinema version is parafocal, still version is NOT. Both still version my and my friend are loosing focus while going from 18-35 or back, (doesn't matter on which focal distance you in focus). And they are both super sharp when focused, and they both were calibrated on a sigma usb dock station.

@@iamfollowingmyheart Sigma says the cine version isn't parfocal. It's close. Almost parfocal, maybe 95%? But Sigma themselves say it isn't so it isn't. The only parfocal ones are 3rd party re-housed versions.

@@professionalpotato4764 what is the name of this 3rd party re-housed version?

Of course they do, why shouldn't they? The lense designs in the 50s and 70s would have been different, if they would have had our current technology. But they did not have that so they created worse lenses. Not because they were bad lense designers, but they didn't have giant high performance computing clusters with incredible software to develop better leneses. They did the best they could, but they would have done it better and/or differnet, if they could have done it. Lense designs constantly improve. The more CPU power und the better software we have, the better can we do calculations and experiement with lense designs, glass elements and so on. Modern lense designs have barely things in common with lense designs in the 50s and 70s. Where a 50mm lenses in the 50s and 70s hat 4-6 Glass Elements, modern 50mm lenses have 14-17 glass elements. Do you think they put so many elements into a lense just for fun, without any influence on the resulting image, not to mention lense coatings and glass materials. Glass Materials and glass development processes constantly evolve, lense caoting technology consantly evolve and the lense design as it is constantly evolves. Where glass used in the 50s and 70s were more or less all the same, plain glass, modern lenses are made from several different glass materials, different coatings and so on and it needs hours of complex calculations to find out which lenses work together in what way. Technology doesn't stop, never did and never will. Sure a lense from the 50s or 70s can still be used today. But in general they are worse in every aspect you can measure, including color, contrast, flare, chromatic aberration, bokeh (but taste plays a big role in bokeh too) and so on. The SIGMA 18-35mm F1.8 is stil amazing in 2021 becaue it is still the most current lense in this sector. When SIGMA will release an DN Version of that lense, it will be better than the 18-35mm in every aspect and at that point, the current 18-35mm is outdated. That doesn't mean its broken or something, its just no longer state of the art.

Sigma probably didn't want to put in more R&D after developing it. PChood Cinematics has already rehoused it to be 100% parfocal, for less than half the price.