I’ll wait for the 24-70 f2 GM announcement first. This to me feels like a 35mm f1.8 with some breathing room to zoom a little in and out in some scenarios
@@gregorybeale it’s heavily rumored (by SAR / Andrea) that Sony will be announcing very soon an f2.0 24-70mm GM that will be about the same size and weight as Canon’s 28-70 f2.0 L lens, maybe fractionally even smaller and lighter. To me that lens would be an actual workhorse dream lens for event shooting and lowlight video applications. Even if f1.8 is 1/3 stop brighter, the range between 28mm and 45mm is really not that useful since they’re both so close to 35mm. For 1/3 stop darker at f2.0 you could get Sony’s 24-70, which is more useful in most practical situations. I can only see Sigma’s 28-45mm being useful towards videographers and photographers if it manually focuses well, is parfocal, zooms internally and doesn’t focus breathe. I predict that Sony’s 24-70 f2.0 will make a lot of trade offs to reach that brightness - lots of distortion before correction, heavy vignetting, not parfocal, lots of focus breathing, etc but will probably be very sharp wide open with ultimate sharpness corner to corner at f2.8
They’ve obviously done a fair amount of research about what’s needed…and what’s possible… Also to a certain extent this is a Noct lens, as well as being a useful lens for some specialist use cases… by which I mean this is sigma showing off what they can do… But honestly would be a dream lens for pro photographers doing more modern looks (85/50mm is not so much in vogue these days), and could avoid having to switch between primes… You’ve got a 28mm - high distortion environmental portraits 35mm - standard eye view 45 - slight separation/compression And everything in between… Not to mention people have been demanding a sequel to the original 18-35 and so they levelled it up a fair bit…
I agree with you… I shoot primes and my wide primes are usually 24mm or 35mm… then it’s 50mm or 85mm… Having a 24-35mm would have been a good one for my event work…
@@POVwithRC I can see from your comment history that you are a fantastic contributor to this channel, every single comment is packed with useful information…
Light gathering of a f/1.8 is the same on APS-C and Full Frame. It’s true that to get the equivalent bokeh, you need to multiply with the crop factor, but for light, 1.8 is 1.8 no matter in an iPhone or a medium format. And there will typically be more noise with APS-C vs FF sensor, but because of its smaller size.
@@NeonShores no one asks about the sensitivity of a sensor, what counts is your system's ability to capture light, i.e. the end result! For some people, it's painful that their f2.8 crop lens produces noisier images than equivalent full-frame f2.8 lenses.
Very nice, me and many other dont care if a lens is big, as long as its sharp and fast. Cant wait for Sony and Tamron to answer back with 1.8 zooms. The future looks bright!!
Happy that Sigma is pushing limits, but a bit disappointed with the focal length. Seems a bit very random. Could have dropped it to 20mm instead of 28mm. Would've given a much nicer wide option.
I think it's an excellent short focal range for quality/size purposes...A sort of 35mm with breathing zoom 🙄 f2.8 would have sufficed but now make the f4 pancake-ish version 😉
F/1.8 does not have different light transmission based on sensor size - it's the same on APS-C and full frame. What is different is how blurry the out of focus areas look.
It's basically an 18-35 1.8 focal equivalent for those who have "moved onto" full frame. Thats ptetty cool but I think the only people who'll see the use of it are those that have used the 18-35/(28-50) ...unless of coarse it will be sold at a crazy value like the 18-35 was. That said.. it makes me wonder if there'll be a 50-100 1.8 full frame equivalent, that seems likely tbh. (Idk if this was discussed srry lol) That might make people forget about a 24-70. (Means a cine zoom as well)
Thank you for sharing this leaked image. This is a great timing as I was contemplating of adopting the 18-35 f/1.8 Canon mount to the Sony FF camera in APS-C mode; however, the AF would be too slow for my need as an adapted lens. Combine FF + APS-C under 1.0 Kg, this would be a 28-81mm f/1.8 lens and "IF" AF-C is fast than it would work very nicely together with the Sony 135mm (202.5mm APS-C)GM f/1.8 82mm filtered lens for some of my need. Looking forward to the "EVEN MORE EXCITING LEAK" as you mentioned soon.
Why would anybody want to adapt 18-35 f/1.8 to a FF camera? Makes no sense. It's an 28-53/2.8 equivalent. There is a great (cheap) Tamron 28-75/2.8, which is much better on FF camera and smaller/lighter too.
@@ElementaryWatson-oxo Because Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (I had owned) is gathering light at f/2.8 with depth of f/2.8 and 18-35 f/1.8 is gathering light at f/1.8 with depth of f/2.7. My need is of the f/1.8, not as much importance on the depth.
@@Jeo-What you don't understand equivalence and that's why you are so misguided. As I said, 18-35 f/1.8 on APS-C is equivalent to 28-53/2.8 on FF in every respect, including light gathering.
@@ElementaryWatson-oxo Are you saying based on your "not misguided" understanding of photography equipment, light exposure and field of view😉, an APS-C f/1.8 lens when attached to a full frame sensor needs to factor into the crop factor (eg. 1.5x) to get the correct exposure (ISO 1,600 x 1.5 = ISO 2,400)? Have you ever physically put a same f/1.8 APS-C lens on both a full frame and APS-C body and see the readout of the ISO change when both are set to f/1.8? Answer correctly if you dear and "not so misguided"!!!🤣🤣🤣
@@Jeo-What a smart person learns from others (and there is plenty of information about equivalency), while a dumb person insists on his childish ignorant arguing. Your choice.
Surprised it was called too heavy to be practical for photography and more of a videocentric lens. I expected it to be at least around 1,5kg, because around 950g is still very manageable for photos. I think if it was more of a video lens it should have had the video gears instead of normal rings and be in T stops and not F stops. For me this looks more like a photo lens with some video applications and not the other way round.
I think if you carry a 35mm f1.8 or 1.4 prime you’d probably be happier with the weight savings. You can actually just take a step (or two) back or forward in most situations to achieve similar results at 28mm and 45mm. You could even go into APS-C mode on your FF camera with a 1.4 prime and get even tighter at a 50mm equivalent with the 35mm prime and achieve the same look of a 45mm at 1.8
Not crazy big. Looks about the same size as the 35-150, and if what you say is correct, lighter. I have travelled with that as a travel zoom. Let's see how the focus and sharpness is; including wide open.
@@ElementaryWatson-oxoit’s how we state the aperture value for photography lenses. From the number listed we can determine the approximate light gather capability and depth of field.
@@josephryan5448 no, f/1.8 simply means the physical aperture is 1.8 times smaller than the focal length. But I was actually asking not this, rather how it affects the image. And the answer, it means nothing. It only defines the illuminance, but that is meaningless of itself. What does have a meaning is the luminous flux over the surface of the image, which determines the total light and photon noise on the sensor surface, thus determining the signal-to-noise ratio. To calculate the luminous flux, you need to integrate the illuminance over the surface of the image. Ignoring vignetting, the surface integral is equal to the illuminance (proportional to t-stop) multiplied by the surface area. And that's how the crop factor enters the picture, no pun intended.
i still hope for the tamorn 25-50 f2. 1/3 stop is nothing and I can leave easly aperture ring and other buttons to save some grams. Thank sigma for this, but maybe too big and haavy form me looking the image
i don t think it is usefull enough to replace primes. the focal length of this is too small. And if it is too unconfortable to work with in an outdoor scenario tyhen how can it replace 2 primes?
Please don't calculate the light transmission capabilities of lenses based on the sensor format. If you want, conduct a test: take a 25mm f/1.8 MFT lens and a 50mm f/1.8 FF lens, and take photos with the same settings (ISO, aperture, shutter speed). The results will be indisputable. If you want, you can calculate e.g. the depth of field...
Completely wrong. Noise will be always and unavoidably 2 full stops worse on MFT. This is not a problem if there is plenty of light but terrible on low light.
@@Gnomistoteles Yes, it's the fault of the sensor, more specificality, of one feature of the MFT sensor - it's small size. It is also the fault of the lens because it does not produce image circle large enough to cover a full frame sensor. Equivalence is invented exactly to take account for the sensor size, in respect of both the DOF and the noise performance.
I can't think what this lens will be good for??? Great try but don't have a use for it. It's a great range for the street, but I can't imagine putting this lens in front of a person walking by me...
hmmmm...quite stupid: such a size for 1.8 instead of 2.0, and that is 1. not the real t-Stop and 2. only fast in the center part ... actually really a videographers toy
That's going to be a flop. Totally useless range and such a huge size/weight. Every normal person would just take 35/1.4 and have better pictures and much better experience at the same setting.
Obviously it's made for video. Like the Canon 24-105/2.8 RF lens.I would like Sigma to break the mould and go for something like a 20-50/2.8 and a 50-150/2.8...for those who want a holly couple instead of a holly trinity ...😊
I’ll wait for the 24-70 f2 GM announcement first. This to me feels like a 35mm f1.8 with some breathing room to zoom a little in and out in some scenarios
I'm thinking the same, the difference between 28 and 45mm is just a step forward or backward. Nothing you can't do with a 35mm prime.
This thing will be a brick... But most likely a very good brick. Also looking forward!
Didn't they release the GM 2 last year? What announcement are you talking about?
24-70 f2 gm @@gregorybeale
@@gregorybeale it’s heavily rumored (by SAR / Andrea) that Sony will be announcing very soon an f2.0 24-70mm GM that will be about the same size and weight as Canon’s 28-70 f2.0 L lens, maybe fractionally even smaller and lighter. To me that lens would be an actual workhorse dream lens for event shooting and lowlight video applications.
Even if f1.8 is 1/3 stop brighter, the range between 28mm and 45mm is really not that useful since they’re both so close to 35mm. For 1/3 stop darker at f2.0 you could get Sony’s 24-70, which is more useful in most practical situations. I can only see Sigma’s 28-45mm being useful towards videographers and photographers if it manually focuses well, is parfocal, zooms internally and doesn’t focus breathe. I predict that Sony’s 24-70 f2.0 will make a lot of trade offs to reach that brightness - lots of distortion before correction, heavy vignetting, not parfocal, lots of focus breathing, etc but will probably be very sharp wide open with ultimate sharpness corner to corner at f2.8
Before: Sigma
After: BIGMA
😂
FATMA;-(
Great to see this sort of tech, but the size and weight alone makes it this a no go for me
They’ve obviously done a fair amount of research about what’s needed…and what’s possible…
Also to a certain extent this is a Noct lens, as well as being a useful lens for some specialist use cases… by which I mean this is sigma showing off what they can do…
But honestly would be a dream lens for pro photographers doing more modern looks (85/50mm is not so much in vogue these days), and could avoid having to switch between primes…
You’ve got a
28mm - high distortion environmental portraits
35mm - standard eye view
45 - slight separation/compression
And everything in between…
Not to mention people have been demanding a sequel to the original 18-35 and so they levelled it up a fair bit…
This lens should have been 24-35/1.8, because now most people would need BOTH something wider and something longer for event photography.
Whatever you say, champ.
I agree with you… I shoot primes and my wide primes are usually 24mm or 35mm… then it’s 50mm or 85mm…
Having a 24-35mm would have been a good one for my event work…
@@POVwithRC I can see from your comment history that you are a fantastic contributor to this channel, every single comment is packed with useful information…
I see this lens is more for wide angle portrait, street photography.
Totally agree.
I’m sure I have this lens. I just call it the 200-600mm 😂
For such a short range and that lens lenght. Sure … have fun with the f1.8. Would be useful.
I’m surprised it’s up to a 45mm only. I would think a 65-70mm would be a more useful reach.
They should have made it F2 and save a few grams 😅
They should have made it 28-30/1.8 and save a few more grams 😂
Light gathering of a f/1.8 is the same on APS-C and Full Frame. It’s true that to get the equivalent bokeh, you need to multiply with the crop factor, but for light, 1.8 is 1.8 no matter in an iPhone or a medium format. And there will typically be more noise with APS-C vs FF sensor, but because of its smaller size.
Do crop sensors and full frame sensors produce the same amount of noise at the same exposure level: same f-stop, field of view and shutter speed?
@@80-80.No. Full frame will be more sensitive to light so it'll have less noise, but the amount of light reaching the sensor stays the same.
@@NeonShores it is perfectly fine to say that a large solar panel collects more light than a small solar panel of the same type.
@@80-80. Collecting more light or being more sensitive to light does not mean that more light reaches the sensor. 2 different things.
@@NeonShores no one asks about the sensitivity of a sensor, what counts is your system's ability to capture light, i.e. the end result! For some people, it's painful that their f2.8 crop lens produces noisier images than equivalent full-frame f2.8 lenses.
What is the use of such a combination of focal lengths even if it’s an f/1.8?
It's chonky, yet very beautiful!
The GOAT of leaks!
Very nice, me and many other dont care if a lens is big, as long as its sharp and fast.
Cant wait for Sony and Tamron to answer back with 1.8 zooms.
The future looks bright!!
Happy that Sigma is pushing limits, but a bit disappointed with the focal length. Seems a bit very random. Could have dropped it to 20mm instead of 28mm. Would've given a much nicer wide option.
I’m not sure everyone is realising how the physics of optics work. A 20-45 1.8 would have been huge!
Hopefully Sigma correct for close focussing sharpness too… they’re often bad on that.
Exciting lens… but difficult to choose this over a 35 f1.4.
So exciting, Sigma invented a replacement for 35/1.8 prime 🤪
@@ElementaryWatson-oxo Pretty much! 😆
I think it's an excellent short focal range for quality/size purposes...A sort of 35mm with breathing zoom 🙄
f2.8 would have sufficed but now make the f4 pancake-ish version 😉
Sigma 28-45 1.8 price sir
Thought Sigma went with smaller and lighter lenses since the last few lenses. But maybe no escaping it by making a F/1.8 zoom lens.
Is it 1.8 all the way ?
Whoa! Pretty big! But pretty light considering…
Any rumors on Lumix of when they will finish the zoom holy trinity? There is only 24-70 and 70-200.
Come with the 1.2 lens already :)))
Well, This is the perfect Zoom Lens for the Lumix S9 😂😂😂
F/1.8 does not have different light transmission based on sensor size - it's the same on APS-C and full frame. What is different is how blurry the out of focus areas look.
Do you understand the difference between the illuminance (measured in lux) and luminous flux (measured in lumens)? I don't think you do.
It's basically an 18-35 1.8 focal equivalent for those who have "moved onto" full frame.
Thats ptetty cool but I think the only people who'll see the use of it are those that have used the 18-35/(28-50)
...unless of coarse it will be sold at a crazy value like the 18-35 was.
That said.. it makes me wonder if there'll be a 50-100 1.8 full frame equivalent, that seems likely tbh. (Idk if this was discussed srry lol)
That might make people forget about a 24-70. (Means a cine zoom as well)
Thank you for sharing this leaked image. This is a great timing as I was contemplating of adopting the 18-35 f/1.8 Canon mount to the Sony FF camera in APS-C mode; however, the AF would be too slow for my need as an adapted lens. Combine FF + APS-C under 1.0 Kg, this would be a 28-81mm f/1.8 lens and "IF" AF-C is fast than it would work very nicely together with the Sony 135mm (202.5mm APS-C)GM f/1.8 82mm filtered lens for some of my need. Looking forward to the "EVEN MORE EXCITING LEAK" as you mentioned soon.
Why would anybody want to adapt 18-35 f/1.8 to a FF camera? Makes no sense. It's an 28-53/2.8 equivalent. There is a great (cheap) Tamron 28-75/2.8, which is much better on FF camera and smaller/lighter too.
@@ElementaryWatson-oxo Because Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (I had owned) is gathering light at f/2.8 with depth of f/2.8 and 18-35 f/1.8 is gathering light at f/1.8 with depth of f/2.7. My need is of the f/1.8, not as much importance on the depth.
@@Jeo-What you don't understand equivalence and that's why you are so misguided. As I said, 18-35 f/1.8 on APS-C is equivalent to 28-53/2.8 on FF in every respect, including light gathering.
@@ElementaryWatson-oxo Are you saying based on your "not misguided" understanding of photography equipment, light exposure and field of view😉, an APS-C f/1.8 lens when attached to a full frame sensor needs to factor into the crop factor (eg. 1.5x) to get the correct exposure (ISO 1,600 x 1.5 = ISO 2,400)? Have you ever physically put a same f/1.8 APS-C lens on both a full frame and APS-C body and see the readout of the ISO change when both are set to f/1.8? Answer correctly if you dear and "not so misguided"!!!🤣🤣🤣
@@Jeo-What a smart person learns from others (and there is plenty of information about equivalency), while a dumb person insists on his childish ignorant arguing. Your choice.
Any info on price?
the medium format simulator lens
Surprised it was called too heavy to be practical for photography and more of a videocentric lens. I expected it to be at least around 1,5kg, because around 950g is still very manageable for photos.
I think if it was more of a video lens it should have had the video gears instead of normal rings and be in T stops and not F stops. For me this looks more like a photo lens with some video applications and not the other way round.
I think if you carry a 35mm f1.8 or 1.4 prime you’d probably be happier with the weight savings. You can actually just take a step (or two) back or forward in most situations to achieve similar results at 28mm and 45mm. You could even go into APS-C mode on your FF camera with a 1.4 prime and get even tighter at a 50mm equivalent with the 35mm prime and achieve the same look of a 45mm at 1.8
Not crazy big. Looks about the same size as the 35-150, and if what you say is correct, lighter. I have travelled with that as a travel zoom. Let's see how the focus and sharpness is; including wide open.
I need 18 35mm 1.8 for apsc mirrorless version
I have the Tamron 28-75 and I find the focal length of 28 so annoying. I would much prefer 24 to 40??? 28 is not wide enough for modern Shooters
@Andrea F1.8 is a f1.8 on all sensors when talking about light gathering. Sensor size changes the depth of field.
What does f/1.8 mean?
@@ElementaryWatson-oxoit’s how we state the aperture value for photography lenses. From the number listed we can determine the approximate light gather capability and depth of field.
@@josephryan5448 no, f/1.8 simply means the physical aperture is 1.8 times smaller than the focal length. But I was actually asking not this, rather how it affects the image. And the answer, it means nothing. It only defines the illuminance, but that is meaningless of itself.
What does have a meaning is the luminous flux over the surface of the image, which determines the total light and photon noise on the sensor surface, thus determining the signal-to-noise ratio. To calculate the luminous flux, you need to integrate the illuminance over the surface of the image. Ignoring vignetting, the surface integral is equal to the illuminance (proportional to t-stop) multiplied by the surface area. And that's how the crop factor enters the picture, no pun intended.
Not interesting for me. I am waiting for the L-Mount large aperture standard-zoom as pronounced by Panasonic in their lens roadmap.
I’m still waiting for a 40-85mm f/1.4 😁.
They can save a few grams by making it 40-45/1.4 😁
i still hope for the tamorn 25-50 f2.
1/3 stop is nothing and I can leave easly aperture ring and other buttons to save some grams.
Thank sigma for this, but maybe too big and haavy form me looking the image
That is massive 😂
cant wait to pair this with the new Panasonic S9 for street photography lol
Another lens that won't balance well with that brain f*art Panasonic S9 ..
i don t think it is usefull enough to replace primes. the focal length of this is too small. And if it is too unconfortable to work with in an outdoor scenario tyhen how can it replace 2 primes?
F1.8!!!
That lens is not very small 😮
Please don't calculate the light transmission capabilities of lenses based on the sensor format. If you want, conduct a test: take a 25mm f/1.8 MFT lens and a 50mm f/1.8 FF lens, and take photos with the same settings (ISO, aperture, shutter speed). The results will be indisputable. If you want, you can calculate e.g. the depth of field...
Completely wrong. Noise will be always and unavoidably 2 full stops worse on MFT. This is not a problem if there is plenty of light but terrible on low light.
@@paul.barracuda it's not the lens's fault but the sensor's.
@@Gnomistotelesat the end of the day your crop results are going to be more noisy at the same f-stop, shutter speed, and field of view.
Another one who doesn't understand equivalence.
@@Gnomistoteles Yes, it's the fault of the sensor, more specificality, of one feature of the MFT sensor - it's small size. It is also the fault of the lens because it does not produce image circle large enough to cover a full frame sensor. Equivalence is invented exactly to take account for the sensor size, in respect of both the DOF and the noise performance.
I was expecting something Noct alike.
It is in that it’s a “look how clever we are” lens
Great news! Would be nice if they will also announce an updated E-mount version of the 18-35!
Unfortunately too big and heavy for me. Will stick to f1.8 primes.
wow
I can't think what this lens will be good for??? Great try but don't have a use for it. It's a great range for the street, but I can't imagine putting this lens in front of a person walking by me...
That's going to be a great alternative for 35/1.8 prime 😁
❤😮
Soemthing more exciting than this lens?
85 1.2 sigma....
Wow, it's so exciting, Sigma invented a replacement for 35/1.8 prime, and it's lightweight, under 1kg 😂
50-150 f1. 8 for ff would have been great😊
And 2.5 kg :)))
@@strippedlist Comparatively Sony makes lighter lenses. And there atleast we expect some innovation. 😊
Please please let be new fp.
hmmmm...quite stupid: such a size for 1.8 instead of 2.0, and that is 1. not the real t-Stop and 2. only fast in the center part ... actually really a videographers toy
That's going to be a flop. Totally useless range and such a huge size/weight. Every normal person would just take 35/1.4 and have better pictures and much better experience at the same setting.
it's for video
@@m22235 video lenses have precise geared focus and zoom rings, and aperture marked on T-stops. But realistically it's even more useless for video.
Huge lens, but I'll definitely be getting it if it isn't absurdly priced.
Obviously it's made for video. Like the Canon 24-105/2.8 RF lens.I would like Sigma to break the mould and go for something like a 20-50/2.8 and a 50-150/2.8...for those who want a holly couple instead of a holly trinity ...😊
Hello Tamron, where are you :))))
Tamron hasn't lost their senses, so far they managed to produce quite useful lenses.
Too chunky for me. I'll pass.
Historical evolution. Sigma - Bigma - Gigma / Fatma ;-((. a competitor for th 24-70 2.0 e.g. would have been much more useful
Obesema next 😁