Bro more of this man...this video not only got me on the lens but the behind the scene was spectacular. The explanation on the ranges and the footage stupid bad ass
Answering the REAL questions we wanted to know! Some high value, practical insight here. I'd love a video comparing this to the 24mm/35mm/50mm 1.4 primes in terms of practical use cases and quality (if you have them on hand and have the time of course). A big thanks from someone considering investing in this or a combination of the primes mentioned above.
Renting it right now and I like the versatility that it brings. Yes it's 1.8 and based on my eyes the quality is very close to the GM primes. I find myself using 45 more often and "forget" that it's a zoom (internal zoom is awesome). What's great is that to me it feels like it's a 45mm prime that can "clear image zoom out" to 28mm. The size and weight isn't a problem. Most folks who say that a lens is too big or bulky are the same ones who rig up their cameras to the max.
Just got mine today! I mainly use a 50mm gm all day and I experience the same issues you have so this is going to exciting to use tomorrow in my wedding!
The way to look at this is a prime lens that can cover 28-45. Easily justified by its price and when you dont want to deal with readjusting yourself all the time. That range sounds bad in paper but good in practice.
I can tell you from my experience for the use case I need I'm mostly in 35mm and few times at 28mm and for some product shots 50mmm. I was at first like 28-45 not enuff until I realised 80% of my video shoots is at that range. Great explanation.
28 for places, 45 for faces: either way you're zooming with your feet, but you're getting two different looks. I'm a long way from buying this lens (it's probably number 4 on my to-buy list currently) but I can definitely see the use. Heck, just getting an extra stop of light for 120fps basketball filming would make this fun. Plus it's real and who knows if that mythical 24-70 F2 is ever going to be announced.
Well said. People are out here living in fantasy worlds waiting on equipment that might never come. “It’s coming next” said by somebody two years ago. And if it does come these same people will complain about it in some form.
That’s is why I love that tamron 35-150 as a photographer. Weight be damn cause I got it on a z9. To zoom out to 35 and then zoom I to something like 75 and then 135 is crazy talk. Does it give me as man “magical” shots as the 50mm 1.2. I would argue almost with that close focus. 1.2 light never tho. I shot events with that thing with no flash which should not even be possible. As a black man my back has been use to the weight since around 12 years of age!!!
I get what you are trying to say with the versatility! It makes sense I’m still having the same debate because I love the 35 f1.8 but I’m looking into this lens a lot…now my only issue is the two pound!! I will rent it first for my next wedding to get a feel for it!
Vu...I had absolutely no interest in this lens until I watched your videos on it....thought it's heavy, the fact that is an internal zoom makes it much more intriguing....much more so than the Tamron 35-150 (which I have tried), I can't imagine that on a gimbal....thanks...any NDs used by chance?
I do not have the mentality of just use a prime. I know there is differnece. My question would be how to choose this or 24-70 f2.8 if you are one man shooter and want use one lens for most of the day. That is hard descion. Personally I still lean toward 24-70 f2.8.
The f1.8 alone... Is enough for me. I usually need slightly wide than tighter. I like 50mm. So being able to have 1.8 50 but also go to 35 and 28 in a second. Works great. I'd love a 24 but I can def make do with 28
I’ve had zero interest in ff since I moved to mf. But the cine version of that lens looks perfect for my video work, what a killer idea from sigma. Killer footage and color grading man. Your skin tones are always amazing
Another reason why this lens doesn't get its credit for being a f/1.8 short heavy zoom is because of a lot of cheaper and lighter FF alternatives on Sony: Tamron 17-50 f/4 (under $600 new; slow, slight, most versatile gimbal lens) Tamron 20-40 f/2.8 (under $600 new; fast, light, versatile) Sigma 24-35 f/2 (under $600 used; another ultra fast internal zoom) Sigma 28 f/1.4 (under $600 used; even faster on wide end and take advantages of the different crops modes on hi-res bodies, e.g. A1, a7R5, a7IV) ...
I would argue that if 28 is not enough it’s been my experience that 24 is not enough. And it’s also been my experience that 24 and lower is only used for under 10% of shots.
Another Great video. So I’m a hobbyist photographer that also likes to shoot video. I have the kit lens for my A7IV and 35MM gmaster is it worth trading to the 18-45 “Dear valued customer, I wanted to express my sincere gratitude for choosing Uber Eats and for trusting me to deliver your meal. Thank you again, and I hope you enjoy your meal! Warm regards, James in advance
Its simplynot enough and i believe it's sony thst stopped sigma from making the focal length get to 50mm so as not to threaten their primes and 28-70. The apsc 18-35 reached legendary status because of the performance and focal length.The apsc is technically 28-52mm,this falls short of that.
Clear image zoom aint God mode my guy. I'm a Sony fanboy like the next one and I don't mess around with clear image zoom unless I'm desperate. And I carry that shit around
Bro more of this man...this video not only got me on the lens but the behind the scene was spectacular. The explanation on the ranges and the footage stupid bad ass
Lol thanks
Just bought this and got it delivered today. Your review helped me feel better about the purchase. Appreciate your videos man 👊🏼
💯
Not random for the people who need to see a review on this lens. Thank you man! Love the content that came out today
👍👍
Great breakdown video. Very informative. Thank you 🙏🏽
I just love and appreciate your honesty. It's down to earth and it's what we all think/question. Thx Bro.
🙏
Answering the REAL questions we wanted to know! Some high value, practical insight here.
I'd love a video comparing this to the 24mm/35mm/50mm 1.4 primes in terms of practical use cases and quality (if you have them on hand and have the time of course).
A big thanks from someone considering investing in this or a combination of the primes mentioned above.
👍
This type of videos we need.
Renting it right now and I like the versatility that it brings. Yes it's 1.8 and based on my eyes the quality is very close to the GM primes. I find myself using 45 more often and "forget" that it's a zoom (internal zoom is awesome). What's great is that to me it feels like it's a 45mm prime that can "clear image zoom out" to 28mm. The size and weight isn't a problem. Most folks who say that a lens is too big or bulky are the same ones who rig up their cameras to the max.
Right
Just got mine today! I mainly use a 50mm gm all day and I experience the same issues you have so this is going to exciting to use tomorrow in my wedding!
👍
The way to look at this is a prime lens that can cover 28-45. Easily justified by its price and when you dont want to deal with readjusting yourself all the time. That range sounds bad in paper but good in practice.
👍
Good on paper but bad in practice.
@@frankfeng2701 I think it is great on paper and great in practice.
I can tell you from my experience for the use case I need I'm mostly in 35mm and few times at 28mm and for some product shots 50mmm. I was at first like 28-45 not enuff until I realised 80% of my video shoots is at that range. Great explanation.
28 for places, 45 for faces: either way you're zooming with your feet, but you're getting two different looks. I'm a long way from buying this lens (it's probably number 4 on my to-buy list currently) but I can definitely see the use. Heck, just getting an extra stop of light for 120fps basketball filming would make this fun. Plus it's real and who knows if that mythical 24-70 F2 is ever going to be announced.
💯
Well said. People are out here living in fantasy worlds waiting on equipment that might never come. “It’s coming next” said by somebody two years ago.
And if it does come these same people will complain about it in some form.
@@jamesjackson4264 of course... You know the 28-70 f2 Canon lens is 3 LBS and $3,000? I know Sony does amazing things but 24-70 f/2 ? 💀
@@nVuFilms yea it’s a pipe dream.
nice review! I will try the combination of sigma 28-45 F/1.8 and samyang 35-150 F2-2.8
That’s is why I love that tamron 35-150 as a photographer. Weight be damn cause I got it on a z9. To zoom out to 35 and then zoom I to something like 75 and then 135 is crazy talk. Does it give me as man “magical” shots as the 50mm 1.2. I would argue almost with that close focus. 1.2 light never tho. I shot events with that thing with no flash which should not even be possible.
As a black man my back has been use to the weight since around 12 years of age!!!
I get what you are trying to say with the versatility! It makes sense I’m still having the same debate because I love the 35 f1.8 but I’m looking into this lens a lot…now my only issue is the two pound!! I will rent it first for my next wedding to get a feel for it!
Another banger!
🙏
I totally agree but I just bought a 50 1.4 and a 35mm 1.4 both gm. So I can't justify it!
If Sony came out with a 24-70 F2.0 zoom that was similar to Canon's 28-70mm f2.0, do you think you would use that instead of the Sigma 28-45mm f1.8?
Not sure. Would have to try it for a day. Probably gonna be massive, 3lbs + $3,000
I mainly shoot photos and yeah the range isn't enough. But the way you explained it for video totally makes sense 👍🏽.
Vu...I had absolutely no interest in this lens until I watched your videos on it....thought it's heavy, the fact that is an internal zoom makes it much more intriguing....much more so than the Tamron 35-150 (which I have tried), I can't imagine that on a gimbal....thanks...any NDs used by chance?
Freewell versatile system
Try Sigma 24-35 f/2. A lot cheaper.
I do not have the mentality of just use a prime. I know there is differnece. My question would be how to choose this or 24-70 f2.8 if you are one man shooter and want use one lens for most of the day. That is hard descion. Personally I still lean toward 24-70 f2.8.
The f1.8 alone... Is enough for me. I usually need slightly wide than tighter. I like 50mm. So being able to have 1.8 50 but also go to 35 and 28 in a second. Works great. I'd love a 24 but I can def make do with 28
@@nVuFilms That is an interesting take on it.
Is the tamron 20-40 not a lens you’d use over the 24 and 35gm? Would love your thoughts on this compared to 28-45
F1.8. period.
Aside from f1.8, the sigma is sharper, better overall image quality, AF , etc
I'd go with 20-40, which is a great lens for most people.
I’ve had zero interest in ff since I moved to mf. But the cine version of that lens looks perfect for my video work, what a killer idea from sigma. Killer footage and color grading man. Your skin tones are always amazing
Thanks bro
Sigma 28-45 f/1.8 was a great cinematic Video lens
💯
Another reason why this lens doesn't get its credit for being a f/1.8 short heavy zoom is because of a lot of cheaper and lighter FF alternatives on Sony:
Tamron 17-50 f/4 (under $600 new; slow, slight, most versatile gimbal lens)
Tamron 20-40 f/2.8 (under $600 new; fast, light, versatile)
Sigma 24-35 f/2 (under $600 used; another ultra fast internal zoom)
Sigma 28 f/1.4 (under $600 used; even faster on wide end and take advantages of the different crops modes on hi-res bodies, e.g. A1, a7R5, a7IV)
...
Is a constant 1.8 and it zooms
@@nVuFilms Don't think my client would notice the 1/3 to 1 stop of difference, but my arm, back, and wallet definitely would.
@@frankfeng2701 to each his own. A little bit of extra weight for that nice mid distance subject separation I'll take 1.8 all day
Thank you very much.
Odd focal (too short and not wide enough) but the image looks great !
I would argue that if 28 is not enough it’s been my experience that 24 is not enough. And it’s also been my experience that 24 and lower is only used for under 10% of shots.
Hi bro does the lens make acceptable noise I really like to know plz advise thanks
Silent
@@nVuFilms thanks a lot
The focal length is weird. It needed the 60-70mm. My 35mm is literally 1 step back or forward to cover 28-45.
It makes a difference 35-45.
Ciao! cosa consiglieresti per un Videomaker di Matrimoni, tra Sigma 24-70 f2.8 Mark II vs Sigma 28-45 f1.8?
(faccio uso di focali 24-28-35-50mm)
Lol I'm surprised you not trashing the lens.. keep up the good Vibe 👍 👌 😅
while i shoot 75% on a 35mm. and i appreciate that this lens exists, i would prefer a lighter/smaller 25-50~ F2 or F2.2 over this one weighting 1kg.
Sure
I have Sony zv e1, which gimbal do you recommend for the Sigma 28-45 dji rs 4 pro ore rs 4? Thank you
Either one
sorry, my English isn't that good. Do you mean the former, the DJI RS4 pro? or is the smaller RS4 enough?
How's the gimbal balancing on this w an A7S3?
Solid
Another Great video. So I’m a hobbyist photographer that also likes to shoot video. I have the kit lens for my A7IV and 35MM gmaster is it worth trading to the 18-45 “Dear valued customer, I wanted to express my sincere gratitude for choosing Uber Eats and for trusting me to deliver your meal. Thank you again, and I hope you enjoy your meal! Warm regards, James in advance
If you are just shooting for fun .. 35mm so much lighter might be a bit much to lug around 28-45
@@nVuFilmsthank you
If you shooting for fun I would argue that the 20-40 2.8 or whatever lens that is would serve you very well.
This lens looks absolutely perfect if you love using a 35mm prime
Or 50
lens is almost same price as 24-70 gmii, would you prefer that or the 28-45 if you had to choose one and keep one?
Is my math off? $800 is a pretty big difference in price to be "almost" the same price
@@nVuFilms 24-70 gmii is actually cheaper by $40 AUD in Australia major retail stores. The sigma is $2464 and gmii is $2421, hence my question
Primes just wayyy better. 24 and 50 all i need. Will get 35 soon for certain applications but i cant use anything but primes these days
Its simplynot enough and i believe it's sony thst stopped sigma from making the focal length get to 50mm so as not to threaten their primes and 28-70.
The apsc 18-35 reached legendary status because of the performance and focal length.The apsc is technically 28-52mm,this falls short of that.
50 mm doesn't do anything to threaten it. Sigma just couldn't do it without making the lens bigger
lol 35mm 1.4 prime all day. Clear image zoom to 50mm. 1kg for a lens is craziness lol who carries that shit around
Clear image zoom aint God mode my guy. I'm a Sony fanboy like the next one and I don't mess around with clear image zoom unless I'm desperate.
And I carry that shit around
CIZ takes away all the focus modes and tracking on sony fx3/a7s3. bah
Myemteo ❤
Personally I’d prefer a 24-50 f/2. But can still appreciate Sigma for pushing the boundaries with this lens
The short answer is no, it is not enough reach. I need more range than a 24-70 not less
Obviously ceremony and speeches you need longer lens. But not prep, portraits etc
If it was 20-45mm it would be legendary. But 28-45mm? Meh...
sorry, 2470 it’s the best lens for me
Don't say sorry to me. Everyone has their preferences.
@@nVuFilms you are the man , love your channel