where were you when Sigma bent laws of physics once again?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Photographer AMockus Image-Specific Properties:
>>2772969
>not f1.8 - 2.8 letting us have 50-250m
other than that, fucking magical
price?
>>2772969
Wow. Almost 135mm f/2 equiv fov/bokeh on APS-C, finally. And it's a goddamn zoom. A bit too long to be comfy without stabilization but it's still an extremely unique and compelling lens for crop babies.
>>2772976
oh fuck i didnt think of this
does the bitch support AF? is it going to sport an emount?
fucking love my pentax f2.8 135m (i know that's technically like 150 but you know what i mean)
i finally found a fucking lens i need
>>2772976
Yeah, the lack of IS will be lame, but considering the size of the stuff inside in order to get a f/1.8 zoom that long, I imagine that an IS system would be prohibitively large.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:02:19 18:09:22 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1498 Image Height 435
>>2772969
Fuji X Mount when?
>Crying because I know when. Never is when.
>>2772991
never probably. sad though. id totally buy some fuji mount glass from them
>>2772975
A lot. But considering this lens has no direct competition its ok. rumored around. $1500
>>2773078
Right? The Sigma 35 art was my favorite lens on full frame, for its contrast and detail rendition, and it was very painful to sell it when moving to Fuji. I'd buy it again if they made it work on X mount without the huge adapter.
And the 50-100 thing, obviously.
>>2773094
If you had full frame with sigma art lenses and moved to fuji for no external reason like your gear getting stolen or broken, you are simply retarded.
>>2773094
the fuji 35mm 1.4 is pretty good though.
>>2773102
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Model HTC6525LVW Camera Software 3.4.0-ga9a3f03 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 0 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:05:31 15:11:17 Exposure Time 1/12 sec F-Number f/2.0 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 500 Lens Aperture f/2.0 Brightness -1.7 EV Exposure Bias -1 EV Metering Mode Other Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 3.82 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2688 Image Height 1520 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Soft Saturation Low Sharpness Hard
>>2773105
Oh it's very good. That's why I didn't hesitate to make the switch. Plus, the 23mm is great as well. But it doesn't have quite the same "zing" to it in the contrast. For some reason, just straight out of the camera, things from the sigma 35 were just really polished looking. Other lenses can get that way too, it just takes a bit of editing which I'm okay with doing.
They also announced a 30mm f1.4 DN and some weird adapter that can accept both Canon EF and Sigma SA lenses and adapt them to E-mount
>>2773137
i read it as they made one mount that comes in two options
each version can only adapt one i think
>>2773106
Why is there a chinese toy camera next to that DSLR?
>>2772976
FoV yes, but Bokeh will probably be more like a 2.8. When I switched from DX to FX, I found that my 70-200 2.8 at 135 on FF produced very similar results to my 85 1.8 on crop.
If you want a 135 f/2 analog, I'd say an 85 1.4 would be the way to go. Sigma needs to hurry up and come out with an 85 1.4 Art already, right now the only good affordable one is the Rokinon and it'd be a bitch to focus through an APS-C viewfinder.
>>2773185
85 1.2 on crop ==> 135 1.7??
>>2773190
In theory, pretty much, but in practice I'm not sure.
I'm gonna go do some quick test shots to see if I can get a decent FX vs DX comparison.
>>2773200
OK, this is the best I could do to compare 85 on DX vs 135 on FX. Camera was on a tripod in exactly the same spot, and I cropped the 85 shot to approximate DX.
Bokeh looks very similar, so something similar should hold up with an 85 1.4 vs 135 f/2 test. I wish I had a 135/2 so I could try it.
>>2773185
>FoV yes, but Bokeh will probably be more like a 2.8. When I switched from DX to FX, I found that my 70-200 2.8 at 135 on FF produced very similar results to my 85 1.8 on crop.
That's due to the larger field of view on FF.
Imagine you are shooting FF and crop at the exact same resolution, with the same lens, at the same focal range.
You have two ways to get the same composition:
1) You change your distance to the subject depending on the camera.
2) You crop the image.
In case 1) the dof changes with your distance. As you have to get closer with FF the Bokeh behind your subject will be smoother.
In case 2) everything is exactly the same but the resolution will be lower due to the that fact you had to crop the image.
Holy shit they DID IT. I've been waiting for this lens for ages.
>>2772969
bent the laws of physics? they have done no such thing.
>>2772969
>2016
>APS-C babies still trying to get the same FoV and DOF of 70-200mm f/2.8 lens
Except it's not even that long. And it's almost as expensive as a 1st-party 70-200 f/2.8.
You are literally retarded if you think this is a smart buy. Newsflash babies: FF is cheap as chips now and you can find second-hand lenses for less than new 3rd-party lenses sell for.
>>2773330
>Second hand is cheaper than New
O RLY
Can't wait to see the terrible sharpness and disgusting chromatic aberrations!
>>2773331
>totally missing the point
moron
>>2772969
Holy fuck if the 18-35mm version is a bit heavy then I might carry a monopod all day if I bought this since it doesn't even have OS (optical stabilizer)
Maybe this would be good for the A7s ii on APS-C mode with 5 axis stabby
>>2773483
I need a tripod to use my 18-35 but its so heavy I'm afraid it will rip the bayonet mount right out of the body and cause an earthquake when it hits the ground
>>2773484
The 18-35 operates perfectly well handheld and without IS though. The focal rage is too short for it to be a problem.
Did someone say its only for crop?
>>2773525
Yes. "DC" = "crop" in Sigma's terms.
>>2773483
>it doesn't even have OS
Put it on a Pentacks or A7II.
>>2772969
>50-100mm
>no is
lol
>>2773483
>cropping a 12megapickle sensor
>>2773533
you meant pentax only? right?
>>2773169
lol
>>2773397
>the only reason to go with aps-c is size
and price. remember this costs half as much new as a name brand ff 70-200 2.8, and less still than any usably decent third party.
>>2773541
it's for vidio buddy, although due to how the cam works in 1080p resizing the 12m image I don't think the f1.8 on crop is much benefit for low light..
>>2773809
Is that true? I'm doubting that price. The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 can be had for $1,250 USD brand new. I seriously doubt this new monster will be under $700
>>2773822
that would make it the same price as it's stable mate, 18-35 1.8.
>>2773330
i mean, i dont think this will be as useful for photogs, this is a game changer for like, a c100
>>2772969
Sounds like a sensible complement for the 18-35.
>>2773541
A lot of people use crop mode on their A7s to further zoom in and reduce rolling shutter
>>2774919
>crop
>zoom
poeple should seriously stop using these two terms together
>>2774933
when you make juicy claims like this you've got to provide a reason
>>2773211
both look creamy smooth hnghh
>>2777327
I'm always a bit surprised at just how damn nice the bokeh I get from the 70-200 is. I think I spent too many years on crop and forgot just how good a long 2.8 on FF can be.
>>2773211
i favor the 85mm here if only because the background distortion on the 70-200 is horrendous
>>2777406
>Swirls
>Being worse than the same old bokeh from god knows how many other lenses
>>2777327
Seriously? They both look pretty bad in my opinion.
>APS-C
>>2777403
true.8, as I like to call it.
Incredible. I remember back when Sigma made dogshit lenses and were known to be the cheapo shit manufacturer.
Now they have a reputation that surpasses almost any other lens manufacturer.
*CLAPCLAPCLAP*
>>2777526
You know, I feel the same way. I can't believe I have a Sigma in my bag, much less that I paid almost a grand for it, and even less that despite having 6 good lenses, it's responsible for more than 60% of my recent shots.
If it wasn't already obvious, I'm blown away by Sigma and my 35 Art.
>>2777533
The 30 Art is pretty good too...
Funny how sigma is the reason I stayed with Nikon crop system, this will complement my 18-35 nicely. Meanwhile Nikon hasnt ANY passable crop lenses at all. Inb4 their 17-55 2.8, this shit is way slower, optically worse, even bulkier and here in Europe almost double the price of the 18-35.
FE smegmas W H E N
>>2772969
Shillma threads are the worst.
>>2777549
Just buy a metabones adapter.
>>2777583
just buy the sigma adapter.
where were you when fuji is kill?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi
>>2777589
It only works with select Sigma lenses.
I'm not sure it's worth it for the supposedly better AF performance.
>>2777590
>2 times longer than the equivalent fuji
>still no OS
I don't think so.
>>2777593
You're forgetting that this lens doesn't cost an arm and a leg like every fuji lens yet still performs just as good if not better.
>>2772969
>bent laws of physics
More like attached a speed booster to a FF lens. The thing is fucking huge and heavy.
>>2777603
>there are people this stupid on this board
2.8 covering ff or 1.8 covering apsc have to be more or less the Same size, thats how optics work you giant faggot.
>>2777601
>this lens doesn't cost an arm and a leg like every fuji lens
Fuji costs $500, Sigma costs $340. Some people would pay extra just for smaller size and/or aperture ring.
>still performs just as good if not better.
Go back to your time machine, faggot, there are no tests for this one yet. And the old 30/1.4 DC was unimpressive.
>>2777612
>Comparing new god tier sigma to old sigma.
>Caring about over priced and underperfoming systems from fuji.
All that shmeet glass won't matter when your camera can't even focus. Such is the life of the fujicuck.
>>2777615
Fuji is just such a meme, the MacBook of cameras, without Being good, its just a lifestyle product.
>>2777615
>>2777616
Wait, I thought m43 was the meme shit system du jour?
>>2772969
OH GOD.
I want this on my E-M1 with a speedbooster attached. f/1.2 70-140 with 5 axis IS anyone?
>>2777623
M4/3 is actually very powerful and useful. Best system for video. Best system for low light hand held (except fast action sports), best system for portability, best system for high res landscapes and product photography, short of medium format.
>>2777632
Care to elaborate?
>>2777634
GH4 offers amazing 4k at an amazing price...
Olympus' 5 Axis IS offers 5 stops of stabilization, and when combined with a fast prime or speedboosted fast prime or fast zoom, you have more low light capability than even the best full frame, except fast action sports. Base ISO in the dark, hand held anyone?
M4/3 is super portable. They make bodies that go from small point and shoot size up to small DSLR size. Just get the one that works best for you. Lenses are tiny for their aperture range and focal focal lengths.
Olympus' high res shot mode makes 63MP images on the E-M5II, and 80MP images on the Pen-F, in RAW. The primes and PRO zooms are sharp enough to resolve this, especially since it is made with a sensor shift method instead of super high density photosites.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:06:10 15:24:09 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1742 Image Height 716
>>2777630
Nope, this is an Apsc lens, too close to the size of ยต4/3. It doesn't work like this.
>>2777635
>Olympus' high res shot mode makes 63MP images on the E-M5II, and 80MP images on the Pen-F, in RAW.
Isnt that similar to pentax's pixel shift?
>>2777639
But it does. People have been speedboosting the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 since it was released. You only get teeny bits of vignette at the far corners when you zoom all the way to 18mm, since the speedbooster over-reduced the focal length just a bit.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D200 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 778 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 75 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2014:01:31 05:11:05 Exposure Time 1/40 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1500 Image Height 1004 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2777641
Yes, but it works very fast, and I'm not sure if Pentax's does 8 shots to cover every color, which reduces moire.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:02:05 16:12:00 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 651 Image Height 853
>>2777641
yes its exactly the same
>>2777635
Please explain this more light than fullframe thing, the overall light the Sensor receives is the same when using a speed booster and Sony ff also offers IS
>>2777661
Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 has more light density than a 24-70 f/2.8 by 1/3rd of a stop. If you speedboost it to M4/3, it becomes f/1.2. In 'equivalent' aperture, it is an f/2.5 when compared to 135 format. This means 1/3rd stops more light and shallower DoF. Combine this with the fact that Canon's 24-70 2.8 doesn't have IS, you are 5 and 1/3rd stops behind M4/3 at that point, in hand held low light capability.
>>2777635
>more low light capability than even the best full frame, except fast action sports. Base ISO in the dark, hand held anyone?
yeah, if you don't shoot things that move. fast action sports isn't the only type of photography that involves moving things
>>2777665
This is why sony kicks ass. No gimmicks. Pure performance.
>>2777664
I said Sony offers IS, dont get me wrong, I own a 18-35 1.8 myself, love it, but smaller Sensors cant surpass bigger, at best get even. Also, 1.8 and 2.8 are 1 stop apart, which ofsets the difference in Sensor size exactly.
>>2777672
f/2 is exactly 1 stop faster than f/2.8.
f/1.8 is 1 and 1/3rd stops faster than 2.8.
>>2777674
Lol my bad, however, a ff Sensor has 2.5 times the Sensor area compared to crop, while 1,3 stops gains you 2.5 times the light.
>>2777664
The 18-35mm's AF is not great. It's loud, slow, and inaccurate compared to the canikon 24-70 f2.8. Also not weather sealed, and involves sketchy and/or expensive adapters to work properly on m4/3. I actually own the lens for Nikon and using center point AF-C on D7100, the thing missed focus about 80% of the time with just a 3yro kid running towards me on a sunny day. I have fine tuned the lens.
Plus the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 has VC. And using gigantic lenses on tiny bodies feels awful and looks ridiculous.
>>2777747
Lucky me the I guess, 18 35 on d7100 AS well, af is fast and accurate.
>>2777747
>loud
It isnt
>>2777583
>Paying $300-400 more for the same lens
>>2777844
Well, that's if you only have on EF lens. If you have five, you're only paying $60 more for each.
>>2773397
>moonrunes
Not in my freedomland you don't.
>>2772969
>fixed aperture
wat
>>2777867
what's confusing you?
>>2777867
The aperture isn't fixed, it's constant across its focal length. Which is fucking impressive.
>>2777867
let's all assume this guy is an idiot. he clearly was just impressed at the constant maximum aperture
