I know while everyone is asking for that lens when it comes out all will be pissed! Why? Easy! That lens won't be small and light enough to be balanced good on an apsc body! You seeking for bokeh? Why dnt you try fullframe? I bet a budget ff body paired with sigma's own 28-70 f2.8 will cost you less both in price and weight than that imaginary 1.8 apsc lens in combination with an apsc body. If sigma makes a light weight 14-24 2.8 and a 50-150 2.8 crop lens then I'm all in!
@@networm64 i already use that lens with an adapter. I dont like ff, prefer aps-c. Just would prefer a native alternative. And c'mon, the cameras have almost the same size.
The Sigma 18-50 has become my vacation+walk around lens. I'm always pleased at how sharp it is. Of course the size and weight are major factors. I have other lenses with a similar range but they sit in the drawer as this little lens gets to go out and play.
@@waddoo1234 I'm wondering about this too... I have the 18-135 and appreciate its flexibility & compactness. The obvious tradeoff is light gathering & less ease of defocusing background than an f2.8 lens would have. I'd be interested in hearing for folks with practical experience using both of these 18-xxxmm lenses also.
This has turned into my favorite lens, I use it when I’m not sure what I’m going to be capturing because it’s pretty much ready for anything. The only lens I use more is a pancake because despite the review’s emphasis on how compact/light this guy is, it seems big and hefty to me.
I remember the old 17-50 we had on dslr, glad to hear its a proper improvement. While the 17-50 had stabilization the bokeh was horrendously onion ringed and the autofocus was very jumpy and inconsistent in video on my 80d. Worked fine for viewfinder shooting but that phase detect and it did not get along
Oh man, this is great! I've been using the old Sigma 17-50 f2.8 adapted to E Mount when I need a fast standard zoom but this thing is huge and heavy/cumbersome. This new lens is a perfect match for my a6300.
I've been pretty convinced that I should stay with my A6600 given the monstrous FF lenses. Also the A6600 arguably handles better for stills. But then Sony came out with the tiny trio (24, 40, 50 G) and I feel so torn again. And then Sigma just released this beautifully tiny 18-50 for APS-C. Now I'm so confused :D
I just got my first FF zoom after using only primes and boy is it big and heavy! Makes me want to switch back to aps-c for lenses like this. I never fully appreciated how much my enjoyment of cameras is strongly tied to their handling and portability. I hope that Sony will release a beast of a new aps-c camera soon that will have many people switching back.
I've been using a Nikon D7000 + 17-55 2.8f lens for many years, recently I changed to a Sony A6400 with this Sigma lens and I am so delighted with that combo, it's very light, very sharp and very fast focusing, great change.
@@ColinRobertson_LLAP I have that lens but to be honest never a really big fan of that… the corner sharpness is kinda disappointing and not to mention it’s actually more expensive than this sigma if you not buying it in a kit.
I expect this will be released for Fuji X as it's an easy cross over and Sigma have been hinting they're going to start offering Fuji X lenses. It would make a smaller WR option over the 16-55 and would eclipse the old Fuji 18-55.
Yeah, this is probably sharper than the 18-55 and with a constant 2.8 but the stabilization on that one is the reason it's such a beloved lens. At such a small size it's probably worth it, though.
Fuji shooter here - I'd be interested, but I'm not sure if it's worth ditching the 18-55 f/2.8-4 for most people. What I'd really love to see is a companion to this from Sigma - maybe a 16-50ish f/2.8 with stabilization and weather sealing. The Fuji 16-55 f/2.8 does not have stabilization, and is $1200.
Fuji shooter here… I doubt they will release this lens for Fuji any time soon, maybe in 5 years. We’re probably going to see a Tamron 35mm before we see this lens
@@AyeBeAPirate I have the 16 to 55 and it is an astonishing lens. It's my most used lens on Fuji. I also have the 16mm F1.4 WR, 55-200, 10-24 WR, 18-55 and a Viltrox 33mm F1.4. If you can afford the 16-55 it's absolutely the way to go. It's a big lens for Fuji but the quality is head and shoulders over the 18-55 which I think a lot of Fuji users over hype. The 18-55 is a decent lens but it's not outstanding. I'd take the Sigma 18-50 over the Fuji 18-55 in that price and weight segment if it came to Fuji X but I don't need as the 16-55 is perfect on my Xt1 and xt3. The smaller size would only matter to me If I had an Xpro or XE body. Which I don't. The ois on the 1855 is nothing special either. I'm also quite comfortable using a Sigma 24 to 70 Art on my Sony A7ii so I'm very tolerant for big glass. Your milage my vary.
One problem that is not mentioned - the zoom ring goes in the wrong direction compared to Sony lenses. It can be very annoying if you mix this lens with Sony / Tamron lenses.
I prefer a zoom lenses with a macro function in tele mode, like you said; it's a hassle to get close in wide angle mode and if you want to shoot insects they are gone right away.
I wish they would make an image-stabilized f1.8 version of this lens so we could get a true 24-70 2.8 full-frame equivalent. I find that after about iso 1600 my a6000 just falls apart so it would be great to get that zoom versatility with a wider aperture.
Wouldn't that be enormous though? I have the Tamron 17-70 and it's just ponderously large at only 2.8. The point of this is that it's so small. On a little body like an A6xxx this looks like a better idea.
I know it's a different system, but I'm surprised I haven't seen any comparisons of this lens to the Fuji 18-55... Sure it's aperture varies from 2.8-4, but it does have OIS and fantastic IQ. Loved it when I had one. I think I liked the range of it more than my 24-70 I use on my full frame camera now...
Wow, that focus breathing test! The image quality overall! The price seems reasonable. Hopefully they eventually release this for other mounts like Canon EF-M.
I would love if you guys created a scoring system for your review videos where at the end you would give your scores maybe from 1 to 10 or 1 to 5 explaining what each number means.
No kidding, E-mount APS-C is LONG overdue for some better zoom options, instead of being stuck with lenses like the overpriced & under-performing Zony 16-70 f/4. Glad Tamron and Sigma are finally showing up there.
@M Tech I never said it does not matter. My point was that it does not matter to everyone. Why did you buy the A6300 if it Does matter to you? Why did you not get the Pentax or Olympus instead? Why don't you get the A6500 or A6600 instead? It's not easy to figure out that a model with more features cost more - that is what my point. You just seem mad that you made a wrong decision in your purchase, which is only your own fault.
Tamron is slightly wider and longer @ ~115.5mm focal length. Has image stabe, but too big and heavy for most people. This sigma has the size and weight of typical dslr kit lens which is very very good for walkaround, everyday usages
I'd say Tamron 17-70 is a moderately-sized all-in-one event lens that means you don't need your long zoom for the occasional portrait, Sigma 18-50 is a light-weight walk-around travel lens that pairs well with a longer lens when zooming all the way in on landscape detail.
You keep saying that LOCA is hard to get rid of (on this and numerous previous lenses). Both ACR and Lightroom have easy and effective green and purple/red elimination controls. Nothing hard about it.
Since I own the Tamron 17-70 this would probably be an extravagance. However I really like the smaller size as I find the Tamron a little too bulky for general walk-a-around. The Sigma is almost like a prime with some range (normal wide to normal). The Tamron gives you normal wide to short telephoto.
great video, I would love to start to see some comparison now versus other zoom lenses; in fact, even though I know this lens to be more of a wide zoom it would be great to see a video against the TAMRON 11-20MM F/2.8. Thanks and keep up the great work.
I guess the main question here is if it's fun to shoot. If it is then it's good alternative for expensive sony kit lenses. Lack of IS throws me a bit off, but for 18-50 is not that important. Size is briliant here.
hi guys, how does the lens work with A6400 + Crane M3 in 4k 24p ? No slowmo. Rock stable ? No shake ? Or better to go for Weebill S and Tamron 17-70mm 2.8 VC? Thanks.
Well this does look like a compelling lens, I just wish that it was available in 2014 or 15 or 16. In Canada, they just stopped selling the original a6000. Ironic... Great review guys, you're going to have a great collection of pictures of your kids as they continue to grow!
Honestly, the 56 1.4 provides enough sharpness to crop ina bit, giving you a "fake" 70 mm. 😏 (I know that it does not affekt the viewing angle however...)
Awesome review..if you have SONY a6600 IBIS, which one u wish to buy? Tamron 17-70mm or Sigma 18-55mm? Not so important about focal length difference..
Nice video, as always 😉 A comparison I would like to see: lightweight always-on zoom lenses for cropped sensors: Panasonic 14-140, Olympus, the new Nikon APS Z Zoom.... Those are lenses for people that want a flexibility beyond smartphones without bulky and expensive gear, eg shooting family, holidays...
Chose the Tamron 17-70 because of the stabilisation and bit extra range for our sony a6100 (no ibis). We also have the sony 35mm 1,8 as a really nice portret lens. Now we have a good combination for really nice overal photo capabilities. Anyhow good to see some more really nice lenses for sony aps-c!! Full frame is getting out budget more & more. Much like the booming roadbike market 😂
I am torn between this and the Tamron 17-70mm. I have the sigma 16mm 1.4 already. I mainly do live streaming and wants to incorporate the versatility of Zoom lenses. Tamron has 20mm longer telephoto range advantage compared to Sigma.Please advise.
I have Sigma Contemporary Prime trios (16, 30, 56mm), and I'm disappointed with Tamron 17-70mm. Maybe I'm spoiled with Sigma image quality, but all Tamron photos look too soft to me, expecially at higher zoom. The reason I'll probably sell my Tamron and try this Sigma zoom lens.
They probably won’t release this lens for Fuji anytime soon, maybe in about 5 years? We’re going to get a tamron 35mm 0.95 among the other 10 different 35mm for Fuji
Please tell me they're going to make this with a micro four thirds mount like they did with their trio of f/1.4 primes and their trio of f/2.8 primes. This would offer a much better range of focal lengths for portraits than the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro!
For me, the real question is this… While shooting I honestly hate switching between my sigma trio lenses. I know the focal lengths are different between the trio and this zoom, but for all intents and purposes will this suffice as a one and done for photo and video without too much loss of quality?
Is it just me or were there no discernable difference in sharpness in the corners wide open vs stopped down? It seemed like vignetting was the only difference or at least the primary difference (would have to compare with vignette adjusted in post for the wide open image).
There wasn't a huge difference, but other reviews have shown corners to be quite poor wide open actually - perhaps, as DPRTV focuses the image on corner for corner sharpness test, the lens suffers from field curvature?
I really hope they release this for Fuji too. I was seriously considering getting the brick of a XF 16-55 to replace my pain in the ass primes but this lens would kill everything with its light weight and speed. How in the world did they manage to make it so small at 2.8?!
Probably by cutting 2mm off the short end (huge difference between 16 and 18) and 5mm at the long end (75mm equivalent vs 85mm equivalent). If you can tolerate the compromise, it's a good deal. Personally I might hold out for the Tamron 17-70 because I really like the focal range between 55 and 70 for portraits / events.
An interesting lens. Annoying for me on the a6400 as would still be great for photo but awful for video. I could imagine this being good with the a7c also.
Now finally some universal weight measurements that could be understood around the globe - drained human heart!
The moment when Chris goes Full Vampire on us.
Sorry we don't use the metric system here; I only understand drained crocodile hearts.
Metric system rules! Archer should know better
ruclips.net/video/gIWDVuHDpq0/видео.html
Nice to see the resurrection of the Aztec Empires universal weight unit. Excellent work , lads. 👌
Sigma should release a mirrorless version of the 18-35mm and 50-100mm f1.8.
that's it! with aperture ring, c'mon, they gotta do this.
I got ef version with mc11 adapter and it's my favourite lens :D
I know while everyone is asking for that lens when it comes out all will be pissed! Why? Easy! That lens won't be small and light enough to be balanced good on an apsc body! You seeking for bokeh? Why dnt you try fullframe? I bet a budget ff body paired with sigma's own 28-70 f2.8 will cost you less both in price and weight than that imaginary 1.8 apsc lens in combination with an apsc body. If sigma makes a light weight 14-24 2.8 and a 50-150 2.8 crop lens then I'm all in!
@@networm64 oh please. don't be so dramatic. and full of it...
@@networm64 i already use that lens with an adapter. I dont like ff, prefer aps-c. Just would prefer a native alternative. And c'mon, the cameras have almost the same size.
The Sigma 18-50 has become my vacation+walk around lens. I'm always pleased at how sharp it is. Of course the size and weight are major factors. I have other lenses with a similar range but they sit in the drawer as this little lens gets to go out and play.
Have you used an 18-135mm at all? Trying to cross comapre
@@waddoo1234 I'm wondering about this too... I have the 18-135 and appreciate its flexibility & compactness. The obvious tradeoff is light gathering & less ease of defocusing background than an f2.8 lens would have. I'd be interested in hearing for folks with practical experience using both of these 18-xxxmm lenses also.
Good option, but I'd still prefer the Tamron for the extra reach and stabilization.
This has turned into my favorite lens, I use it when I’m not sure what I’m going to be capturing because it’s pretty much ready for anything. The only lens I use more is a pancake because despite the review’s emphasis on how compact/light this guy is, it seems big and hefty to me.
Well this firmly plants me in the aps-c world. I already preordered and I’m looking forward to taking this for a spin
How do you like it?
anyone watching this cus of the RF-S 18-50mm announcement?
We're missing you on Cam A. Please at least come back and report in!🤗
I want this for Fujifilm!
Thank you for taking a thoughtful look at the new lens, fellas, and Happy Thanksgiving!
I just bought this lens and it is awesome. Small, lightweight and sharp! A game changer! The kit 16-50 is DOA!
@Hector Enjoy!
I remember the old 17-50 we had on dslr, glad to hear its a proper improvement. While the 17-50 had stabilization the bokeh was horrendously onion ringed and the autofocus was very jumpy and inconsistent in video on my 80d. Worked fine for viewfinder shooting but that phase detect and it did not get along
Oh man, this is great! I've been using the old Sigma 17-50 f2.8 adapted to E Mount when I need a fast standard zoom but this thing is huge and heavy/cumbersome. This new lens is a perfect match for my a6300.
Comprei hoje! Espero ficar satisfeito.
I've been pretty convinced that I should stay with my A6600 given the monstrous FF lenses. Also the A6600 arguably handles better for stills. But then Sony came out with the tiny trio (24, 40, 50 G) and I feel so torn again. And then Sigma just released this beautifully tiny 18-50 for APS-C. Now I'm so confused :D
I just got my first FF zoom after using only primes and boy is it big and heavy! Makes me want to switch back to aps-c for lenses like this. I never fully appreciated how much my enjoyment of cameras is strongly tied to their handling and portability. I hope that Sony will release a beast of a new aps-c camera soon that will have many people switching back.
I've been using a Nikon D7000 + 17-55 2.8f lens for many years, recently I changed to a Sony A6400 with this Sigma lens and I am so delighted with that combo, it's very light, very sharp and very fast focusing, great change.
Last I checked Canadian Tksgvg Day was on Oct 11th.. Chris!
What I really want is this lens comes to Fuji X and Canon M... especially Canon M, this mount is praying for a f2.8 standard zoom...
Yes, EF-M version please
Fuji has an excellent 18-55 already... with OIS. But I'm all for Sigma lenses finding their way onto other systems.
@@ColinRobertson_LLAP I have that lens but to be honest never a really big fan of that… the corner sharpness is kinda disappointing and not to mention it’s actually more expensive than this sigma if you not buying it in a kit.
I expect this will be released for Fuji X as it's an easy cross over and Sigma have been hinting they're going to start offering Fuji X lenses. It would make a smaller WR option over the 16-55 and would eclipse the old Fuji 18-55.
Yeah, this is probably sharper than the 18-55 and with a constant 2.8 but the stabilization on that one is the reason it's such a beloved lens.
At such a small size it's probably worth it, though.
Fuji shooter here - I'd be interested, but I'm not sure if it's worth ditching the 18-55 f/2.8-4 for most people. What I'd really love to see is a companion to this from Sigma - maybe a 16-50ish f/2.8 with stabilization and weather sealing. The Fuji 16-55 f/2.8 does not have stabilization, and is $1200.
Fuji shooter here… I doubt they will release this lens for Fuji any time soon, maybe in 5 years. We’re probably going to see a Tamron 35mm before we see this lens
@@AyeBeAPirate I have the 16 to 55 and it is an astonishing lens. It's my most used lens on Fuji. I also have the 16mm F1.4 WR, 55-200, 10-24 WR, 18-55 and a Viltrox 33mm F1.4.
If you can afford the 16-55 it's absolutely the way to go. It's a big lens for Fuji but the quality is head and shoulders over the 18-55 which I think a lot of Fuji users over hype. The 18-55 is a decent lens but it's not outstanding.
I'd take the Sigma 18-50 over the Fuji 18-55 in that price and weight segment if it came to Fuji X but I don't need as the 16-55 is perfect on my Xt1 and xt3. The smaller size would only matter to me If I had an Xpro or XE body. Which I don't. The ois on the 1855 is nothing special either.
I'm also quite comfortable using a Sigma 24 to 70 Art on my Sony A7ii so I'm very tolerant for big glass. Your milage my vary.
I would like to see video sigma 18-50 vs Tamron 17-70
That's some remarkably well controlled focus breathing
One problem that is not mentioned - the zoom ring goes in the wrong direction compared to Sony lenses. It can be very annoying if you mix this lens with Sony / Tamron lenses.
I prefer a zoom lenses with a macro function in tele mode, like you said; it's a hassle to get close in wide angle mode and if you want to shoot insects they are gone right away.
You then might try the Sony 70-350: That's reach !
I wish they would make an image-stabilized f1.8 version of this lens so we could get a true 24-70 2.8 full-frame equivalent. I find that after about iso 1600 my a6000 just falls apart so it would be great to get that zoom versatility with a wider aperture.
Wouldn't that be enormous though? I have the Tamron 17-70 and it's just ponderously large at only 2.8. The point of this is that it's so small. On a little body like an A6xxx this looks like a better idea.
I know it's a different system, but I'm surprised I haven't seen any comparisons of this lens to the Fuji 18-55... Sure it's aperture varies from 2.8-4, but it does have OIS and fantastic IQ. Loved it when I had one. I think I liked the range of it more than my 24-70 I use on my full frame camera now...
1 year later, your wish is granted.
Bought this for my Canon 90D last year. One of the best purchases I have made besides buying the camera.
Wow, that focus breathing test! The image quality overall! The price seems reasonable. Hopefully they eventually release this for other mounts like Canon EF-M.
I'm with you and I want a telephoto 2.8 zoom version and super wide angle 2.8 zoom
@mipmipmipmipmip Yes, now that the R50 exists that is pretty clear.
If your gonna get the A74 and shooting a good amount of 4k60p , this must be a good buy :)?
I would love if you guys created a scoring system for your review videos where at the end you would give your scores maybe from 1 to 10 or 1 to 5 explaining what each number means.
The sigma size is ideal for a walk around lens…Tamron was massive so it was sent back.
Not available for M4/3 and EF-M is quite a shame…
Since the F1.4 Trio was available in the 3 mounts.
just wait :)
If this comes to E-FM I will finally buy an m200 or m6ii.
This is the lens I will probably upgrade to in the future from the kit lens
This would have been perfect for me in 2017 when I owned the a6000. Likely would have kept me from moving full frame so quickly.
this lens makes apsc a much lighter f2.8 medium zoom + body combo, great for travel
@M Tech 6500 and 6600 has IBIS. No reason IBIS "should" be on every single camera. Not everyone wants it and wants to pay extra for it.
No kidding, E-mount APS-C is LONG overdue for some better zoom options, instead of being stuck with lenses like the overpriced & under-performing Zony 16-70 f/4. Glad Tamron and Sigma are finally showing up there.
@M Tech I never said it does not matter. My point was that it does not matter to everyone. Why did you buy the A6300 if it Does matter to you? Why did you not get the Pentax or Olympus instead? Why don't you get the A6500 or A6600 instead? It's not easy to figure out that a model with more features cost more - that is what my point. You just seem mad that you made a wrong decision in your purchase, which is only your own fault.
@M Tech Even that was years overdue. It also costs more than twice as much as this Sigma.
FINALLY!!! THE WAIT IS OVER!
Hope they do an m4/3 version. Good portrait lens range… 36 to 100 mm-e
I have the Tamron 17-70mm and wonder which is better. But probably i should just keep my lens
Tamron is slightly wider and longer @ ~115.5mm focal length. Has image stabe, but too big and heavy for most people. This sigma has the size and weight of typical dslr kit lens which is very very good for walkaround, everyday usages
probably, but depends on what you do, Tamron is much heavier so Sigma would be better for travel, but no stabilization
I'd say Tamron 17-70 is a moderately-sized all-in-one event lens that means you don't need your long zoom for the occasional portrait, Sigma 18-50 is a light-weight walk-around travel lens that pairs well with a longer lens when zooming all the way in on landscape detail.
I hope you two get your hands on the Tamron 35-150 2-2.8 soon too!
Sigma needs to start making their glass on Z-mount. Their glass is amazing
The Nikon 24-70 f4 is optically alot better and weather sealed. Only f4 tho.
You keep saying that LOCA is hard to get rid of (on this and numerous previous lenses). Both ACR and Lightroom have easy and effective green and purple/red elimination controls. Nothing hard about it.
What about EF-M??!!……Please do it! We really really need this lens🙏
I hope this comes out in ef-m mount!
As an EF-M user I second that. E-mount aps-c users are truly spoiled for having so many choices!
@@juehengzhu4495 Probably cause it's not a dead mount by its own manufacturer!
Since I own the Tamron 17-70 this would probably be an extravagance. However I really like the smaller size as I find the Tamron a little too bulky for general walk-a-around. The Sigma is almost like a prime with some range (normal wide to normal). The Tamron gives you normal wide to short telephoto.
I own both. Different use cases for me.
Sigma when guiding backcountry skiing, size and weight.
Tamron when hiking or casual walks.
@mipmipmipmipmip I have sold my Tamron ;-)
Couldn't have related more, torn here as well!
great video, I would love to start to see some comparison now versus other zoom lenses; in fact, even though I know this lens to be more of a wide zoom it would be great to see a video against the TAMRON 11-20MM F/2.8. Thanks and keep up the great work.
I have both! They're not really comparable, IMO, simply because they overlap for all of 2mm.
I guess the main question here is if it's fun to shoot. If it is then it's good alternative for expensive sony kit lenses. Lack of IS throws me a bit off, but for 18-50 is not that important. Size is briliant here.
Okay, so this is deeeefinitely a video lens. An amazing video lens!
This plus the ZV-E10 is basically a dirt cheap cinema machine, the likes of which has never been seen before. Amazing stuff.
What mice are you using?? It sounds so good
Can’t wait for sigma to release this lens for Fujifilm X mount.
How does this compare to the sigma 28-70mm contemporary? I loved the size but the image lacked a certain punch.
This is is just what I am looking for as it is cheap, sharp, AF is good and I will be using it on A6600 and NEX5R !
sigma 18-50mm or tamron 17-70mm? and why
Mainly because of weight and size factor. ...and stabilisation, if you are a video shooter without a inbody stabilized camera.
hi guys, how does the lens work with A6400 + Crane M3 in 4k 24p ? No slowmo. Rock stable ? No shake ? Or better to go for Weebill S and Tamron 17-70mm 2.8 VC? Thanks.
Well this does look like a compelling lens, I just wish that it was available in 2014 or 15 or 16. In Canada, they just stopped selling the original a6000. Ironic... Great review guys, you're going to have a great collection of pictures of your kids as they continue to grow!
Thanks a lot, i will buy this lens Sigma for Sony A6400. I come from Vietnam
If you has to choose between this and the Tamron, which would you buy?
Hey! GREAT video. Any idea if this lens will come out with an EF-M mount for canon?
Excellent video 😊!
The extra range of the Tamron arguably makes it worth the extra cost.
Great size for aps-c mirrorless. Nice affordable lens.
Excellent review, answered all my questions thank you!
Sigma PLEASE make this for this Canon EF-M and also get a telephoto version of this 50-140 ish.
Yes😍😍😍
And Fuji X also!
I wish sigma 17 50 f2.8 was available for mirrorless cameras cos that thing is awesome
@Tiago Cardoso thats the issue,it is a dslr lens,but it is a constant 2.8
I have Sigma 16 & 56 f1.4 primes, I'm happy with those 2 primes, though I wouldn't mind the extra reach of the tamron 17-70
Honestly, the 56 1.4 provides enough sharpness to crop ina bit, giving you a "fake" 70 mm. 😏
(I know that it does not affekt the viewing angle however...)
Great value 😊!
I suppose it would also work and be compatible with SONY 5100??
Can you only change the aperture in the settings not on the lens?
Awesome review..if you have SONY a6600 IBIS, which one u wish to buy? Tamron 17-70mm or Sigma 18-55mm? Not so important about focal length difference..
For me the Sigma is more interesting given the small size and fast aperture
@@rsmith02 Thank you, i was expecting this answer..
Great video! Am curious, what kind of wireless audio set up are you using? It's as solid as this lens!
Thanks for the review. Is it parfocal?
Should we get this or sigma prime? Any thoughts?
Traveling in Maine got to celebrate Canadian Thanksgiving on our Columbus Day. Camping in the snow, lol.
Coming out for Fuji too? Seems like it's going to be a killer!
Is any of these lenses coming for Fuji X mount? Heard sigma is gonna release some lens soon.
"I expected them to be dog ****." Classic Chris... please never change!
how much does it stack against the old sigma 17-50 for DLSR ? and why there is no new 18-35 f.18 ;)
WOW, thanks to Sigma, APS-C Sony after many years has usable basic zoom lens :-).
Tamron 11-20 and 17-70 is better it seems :)
@@kenspo Yes, but 17-70 is not basic zoom, it is premium (or extended) basic zoom :-).
That lens already has a date with my Leica CL.
Perfect for gimbal video. This thing is a bargain.
Nice video, as always 😉
A comparison I would like to see: lightweight always-on zoom lenses for cropped sensors:
Panasonic 14-140, Olympus, the new Nikon APS Z Zoom....
Those are lenses for people that want a flexibility beyond smartphones without bulky and expensive gear, eg shooting family, holidays...
Chose the Tamron 17-70 because of the stabilisation and bit extra range for our sony a6100 (no ibis). We also have the sony 35mm 1,8 as a really nice portret lens. Now we have a good combination for really nice overal photo capabilities. Anyhow good to see some more really nice lenses for sony aps-c!! Full frame is getting out budget more & more. Much like the booming roadbike market 😂
I am torn between this and the Tamron 17-70mm. I have the sigma 16mm 1.4 already. I mainly do live streaming and wants to incorporate the versatility of Zoom lenses. Tamron has 20mm longer telephoto range advantage compared to Sigma.Please advise.
I have Sigma Contemporary Prime trios (16, 30, 56mm), and I'm disappointed with Tamron 17-70mm. Maybe I'm spoiled with Sigma image quality, but all Tamron photos look too soft to me, expecially at higher zoom. The reason I'll probably sell my Tamron and try this Sigma zoom lens.
@@joomeestephaniekyler3966 Thanks for reply. Bought it today. I will test it on Sunday on our live streaming.
They probably won’t release this lens for Fuji anytime soon, maybe in about 5 years? We’re going to get a tamron 35mm 0.95 among the other 10 different 35mm for Fuji
Please try VIVO X70 pro + low light❤️😉😍
Great review as always. Thanks!
Is that a kid crying at 6:20 ? Otherwise very good review. 😂😂😂
I believe so. It makes for a disturbing soundtrack otherwise.b
@@niccollsvideo it goes very well with a Halloween themed video
Just what I need
I wish they released the same lens for Full Frame 24-70 is too narrow for me. Over 50mm is just an overkill for me
Can you review the tamrons apsc 18-300?
Please tell me they're going to make this with a micro four thirds mount like they did with their trio of f/1.4 primes and their trio of f/2.8 primes. This would offer a much better range of focal lengths for portraits than the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro!
It would be even better for closeups with the smaller sensor too.
For me, the real question is this… While shooting I honestly hate switching between my sigma trio lenses. I know the focal lengths are different between the trio and this zoom, but for all intents and purposes will this suffice as a one and done for photo and video without too much loss of quality?
Pretty much, just a bit slower. Autofocus should be better with this new lens as the STM motor and Sigma's autofocus has improved a lot on Sony E.
I wish they made a 12-40 2.8 for apsc.
Nice review! Thank you!
Is this a linear focus lens?
Quick question. Is someone use this lens in a full frame body? such as the Lumix S5.
Can you use it if you crop the sensor?
Does a lenses minimum focusing distance start at the front element of the lens or the sensor on the body?
Is it just me or were there no discernable difference in sharpness in the corners wide open vs stopped down? It seemed like vignetting was the only difference or at least the primary difference (would have to compare with vignette adjusted in post for the wide open image).
There wasn't a huge difference, but other reviews have shown corners to be quite poor wide open actually - perhaps, as DPRTV focuses the image on corner for corner sharpness test, the lens suffers from field curvature?
Contrast was the biggest difference I saw here
What about light falloff wide open?
wil it be better than sigma 1.4 16mm?
I really hope they release this for Fuji too. I was seriously considering getting the brick of a XF 16-55 to replace my pain in the ass primes but this lens would kill everything with its light weight and speed. How in the world did they manage to make it so small at 2.8?!
Probably by cutting 2mm off the short end (huge difference between 16 and 18) and 5mm at the long end (75mm equivalent vs 85mm equivalent). If you can tolerate the compromise, it's a good deal. Personally I might hold out for the Tamron 17-70 because I really like the focal range between 55 and 70 for portraits / events.
Is it parfocal?
An interesting lens. Annoying for me on the a6400 as would still be great for photo but awful for video. I could imagine this being good with the a7c also.
why awful for video?
@@LordLightheart No stabilization.
This and the fact sigma will start working with Fuji soon 🥰