I think the focal length is too strange and the zoom range too short to make this a big seller. Just like the 24-35/2.0. If this lens was a 35-85/1.8 this lens would fly of the shelves.
@@brianhoag3872 The 24-35 is basically glued to my FX6 at this point 😅 It's been my go to lens for years now. Beautifully sharp, but not clinical. Loads of character, but not optically weird in any way. And the AF is shockingly good on the FX6 with Sigma's MC-11 adapter. I always feel like it behaves more like a prime than a zoom, in regards to how it renders the image. Just love that lens.
Thanks for the review. Detailed and informative as usual. For that size and weight, I’d want for a bigger zoom range. Would a 35mm/1.4 be close enough to both zoom ends, while saving you weight?
@@DustinAbbottTWI I can't imagine any situation where I wouldn't be able to shoot with 35/1.4 where I could shoot with this zoom. The opposite is easy to image.
During your hand test, it looks like the camera is prioritizing keeping your eyes in focus. I noticed it only focused on your hand when both your eyes were obscured.
@DUSTIN - thank you for another great review. I was ready to very quickly dismiss this lens, given its 80% ish of the 35-159 weight but I think you hit the nail on the head with the Zeiss comparison. The tote has bags (pun intended) of character and the colour / contrast is Fantastic in the shots. Would you confirm those shots aren’t heavily edited with contrast / saturation? How much do you develop when testing? Thanks again, first stop after seeing it announced was your channel hoping you had it in hand!
It seems to be - as expected - an excellent lens but for a limited niche. The zoom range is limited S& as per the laws of physics significant heavier than carrying a 20mm & a 50mm. Perhaps for cinematic purposes, studio work & use on a tripod. Sigma does differentiate between its art and contemporary line up. And its art fixed prime lens line up gets in even more light upto 1.2. Somehow the 50mm f1.2 attracts me more but that is a subjective choice
@@DustinAbbottTWI I’m seeing a lot more people consider candid portraiture street photography now, shooting with very long lenses. One of the reasons I haven’t given up the rx1 yet is as bad as the experience of zone focusing is, as long as I’m active it works, and zone focusing will beat all AF - but we aren’t doing that at 85 1.4!
Thank you for the excellent review. Personally I place the instantaneous lock-on AF-C acquisition accuracy and speed as #1 priority for all my lenses so the hesitation it currently displays would not be an interest for me lens unless Sigma will be able to resolve it fully in the firmware update. Based on its weight (understandable with a f/1.8 zoom), price and the need of swapping to another lens during events, I will continue to stay with the Tamron 35-135mm f/2.0-f/2.8 and utilize the FF 35-39mm + APS-C 52.5-58.5mm (35-38.5mm) @ f/2.0 for now. If it was a 24-45mm f/1.8 than that would be more attractive and versatile to fill the gap for me. I like the direction Sigma is going with this lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI besides the abrupt video focus you have demonstrated, I have also seen different reviews on the same day and other reviewers mentioned about the AF can not keep up fully with fast walking people when shooting photos so that is what I was talking about.
I feel like with the exception of working a candlelight lit event, that I don’t see myself needing anything more than the new, more versatile and amazingly compact 24-50/2.8 G
@@DustinAbbottTWII really want you to review the 16-25 and 24-50. The problem I see with both is that they’re just more very capable very sharp lenses that cost a lot and lack anything particularly interesting. Clinically good is basically every Sony lens, for 99% of people. This lens otoh seems to have decent rendering. Maybe I need to buy more sigma art lenses (or gm primes)
Your daughter is 20 years old now?! I have been watching your channel for a long time I guess, so I remember her as a very young teen. Where did the time go?!
28-45mm plus a fast ultra wide or short tele, and this could be the start of a two lens lowlight kit. The Lumix 18 and 85 f/1.8s could complement this.
Wish it were smaller/lighter but also moee expensive to compensate. 24-70 GM II or the new Sigma 24-70 really falls in a sweet spot unless one has very specific needs. Still great job Sigma!
The apsc 18-35 1.8 is a classic. It was only a Contemproary series lens, but the rendering was amazing and better than some of my primes at the time oprically. Was my main lens for an Australia road trip. The AF was a bit hit and miss though and boy is it front heavy. We've beem waiting a long time for a successor. Seems sigma is more focussed on plastic and light for apsc though, which is a shame.
Frankly I wouldn't mind a smaller, lighter version of the 18-35mm for APS-C, even if it were plasticky. I didn't find the AF very reliable in the original 18-35mm, unfortunately.
Hi Dustin! Which of the two lenses will be sharper and more detailed - Sony 24-70 2.8 GMII vs Sigma 28-45 1.8 Art ? Thank you in advance for your response!
Exceedingly high resolution and contrast from those 18 elements. From nature to astro but just some distortion at the "long" end. What engineering, certainly exceeding their nice older DSLR 24-35mm f2.
Fascinating lens, but I wouldn't want to carry it around. I want an optically excellent 28mm f1.8 G lens that weighs 1/3 of this lens. I would use it mostly on the A7cR in the full frame 26mp RAW mode, or in Aps-c mode, as a 42mm equivalent, also @ 26mp.
I kinda don't get it. Who is it for? For me I think, why would I carry this around when I can get the smaller, lighter, better Sony 35mm f1.4 GM for cheaper? Maybe videographers so they can zoom a tiny bit?
Although it seems like a great zoom, nice and fast too; 1.8 I just don't see the 17mm zoom range being worthwhile for the money it costs. If you didn't already have primes, it can be more justifiable, but man, who doesn't want a few primes too?
I think this lens is a little range starved; would have preferred to see it go out to 24mm, but is otherwise excellent value and surprisingly lightweight for the optical performance.
I've learned that engineering all the way to 24mm makes for some extreme compromises. The lens would have had to be much bigger and heavier, there would have been a lot more distortion at the wide end, and it probably wouldn't have been as sharp optically.
I think they should have just went 24-50mm 1.8 and said screw the weight, size and price. This way those would need a lens like this would have just had something, worth having. It's got to be primarily for video anyway, so it's going to be on a tripod. A 24mm 1.4 and 35mm 1.4 prime (and everyone and their brother already has an affordable 50mm prime of course) combo is far more realistic for photography over this. The small 17mm zoom range, just isn't going to have mass appeal. If you can't move around for 17mm range for photography, then you're going to be reaching for a real zoom anyway.
@@DustinAbbottTWI BTW : it wouldn't heurt Sony to not just do better and smaller and lighter, but also convince with niche lenses like GM f1.2 75mm f1.2 42mm f1.2 28mm ..although true, I'wouldn't care much about a GM Tilt-Shift-Macro 65mm ...hmm..although..
I find this lens pointless at the moment(two f 1.8 primes are still cheaper than this) but this will pave the way for other 1.8 zoom lenses in the future. The future look good. Imagine a 24-70 1.8 or even a 70-180. That would a be a sports photographers dream.
Obviously, it is made for the video world. Sigma has to make a 45-105/1.8 to give this lens it's other half. As for the photographers Sigma can easily produce a 20-45/2.0 and a 45-135/2.0 to give us a superb all-purpose duo based around the 45mm golden standard focal length.
Sigma makes a 105mm T/1.5 prime lens. It's a cine lens (manual focus). It weighs 1835 g. Are you REALLY sure you want to hang that much weight on a neck strap?🤣🤣🤣
Thinking of dumping my 35gm for this 🤔🤔 would love you to compare it the gm for me😂 weight is not a factor im totally jacked. Anyone complaining about this lens in anyway is just rude and ungrateful. What an accomplishment
I can't guarantee any comparisons. I have about seven lenses, two cameras, and a variety of other pieces of gear on my desk for review right now already!
the lazy people's lens. i appreciate its novelty and the impressive image quality it produces as a zoom lens but honestly for its range most of the time one 35mm prime would suffice.
There's an argument to be made from that perspective, though the zoom is going to provide some framing options from a single location that a prime simply won't.
Yeap, Dustin's review matching the opinion and results of very credible people like Christopher Frost. Yet, PetaPixel (yeah who cares, but..) tested this lens and found it to be soft and lacking contrast all across the board! Bad lens? Sample variation? Bad testing? BS? Anyway, go figure..
This video is sponsored by Fantom Wallet. Visit store.fantomwallet.com and use code DUSTIN20 to get 20% off
Happy 20th birthday to your daughter. Here's to many more years of being an excellent model for her father's lens reviews.
Thank you very much!
Always the best review from Mr. Abbott
Thanks!
This should definitely be a kit option with the two Blackmagic L-mount cameras
Impressive lens frlm Sigma, was actually surprised by the rendering.😊
Me too.
Seems perfect for indoor event photography in a tight space where you wouldn’t zoom too much any way
Exactly.
I think the focal length is too strange and the zoom range too short to make this a big seller. Just like the 24-35/2.0. If this lens was a 35-85/1.8 this lens would fly of the shelves.
That would be a pretty huge lens!
That 24-35 was a nice lens when I owned it a few years ago.
@@brianhoag3872 The 24-35 is basically glued to my FX6 at this point 😅 It's been my go to lens for years now.
Beautifully sharp, but not clinical. Loads of character, but not optically weird in any way. And the AF is shockingly good on the FX6 with Sigma's MC-11 adapter.
I always feel like it behaves more like a prime than a zoom, in regards to how it renders the image. Just love that lens.
Have you used this lens ?
Thanks for the review. Detailed and informative as usual. For that size and weight, I’d want for a bigger zoom range. Would a 35mm/1.4 be close enough to both zoom ends, while saving you weight?
I don’t think 35 is close enough to 45 for that, but 28, just about. Just my £.02
yes, 35/1.4 would be a better choice, but you get more lbs per $ with Sigma. 😁
The prime approach would work for some shooters, but some will really benefit from the zoom.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I can't imagine any situation where I wouldn't be able to shoot with 35/1.4 where I could shoot with this zoom. The opposite is easy to image.
During your hand test, it looks like the camera is prioritizing keeping your eyes in focus. I noticed it only focused on your hand when both your eyes were obscured.
That's true, though I did find that it stayed too sticky on other subjects as well.
@DUSTIN - thank you for another great review. I was ready to very quickly dismiss this lens, given its 80% ish of the 35-159 weight but I think you hit the nail on the head with the Zeiss comparison. The tote has bags (pun intended) of character and the colour / contrast is Fantastic in the shots. Would you confirm those shots aren’t heavily edited with contrast / saturation? How much do you develop when testing? Thanks again, first stop after seeing it announced was your channel hoping you had it in hand!
That is SOOC - no editing at all.
Thank you for this deep review 📷
My pleasure!
It seems to be - as expected - an excellent lens but for a limited niche. The zoom range is limited S& as per the laws of physics significant heavier than carrying a 20mm & a 50mm. Perhaps for cinematic purposes, studio work & use on a tripod. Sigma does differentiate between its art and contemporary line up. And its art fixed prime lens line up gets in even more light upto 1.2. Somehow the 50mm f1.2 attracts me more but that is a subjective choice
That's a fair take.
OMG this is a streetphotography dream lens!
I do street photography and this is certainly not my dream lens. It's too big and heavy, people are going to notice you, and I don't often need f1.8.
Obviously people's idea of street photography differ...and that's fine.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I’m seeing a lot more people consider candid portraiture street photography now, shooting with very long lenses. One of the reasons I haven’t given up the rx1 yet is as bad as the experience of zone focusing is, as long as I’m active it works, and zone focusing will beat all AF - but we aren’t doing that at 85 1.4!
I am happy to see Sigma made an another beast, hope 18-35 mark 2 is on the way😋
Interesting thought
Thank you for the excellent review. Personally I place the instantaneous lock-on AF-C acquisition accuracy and speed as #1 priority for all my lenses so the hesitation it currently displays would not be an interest for me lens unless Sigma will be able to resolve it fully in the firmware update. Based on its weight (understandable with a f/1.8 zoom), price and the need of swapping to another lens during events, I will continue to stay with the Tamron 35-135mm f/2.0-f/2.8 and utilize the FF 35-39mm + APS-C 52.5-58.5mm (35-38.5mm) @ f/2.0 for now. If it was a 24-45mm f/1.8 than that would be more attractive and versatile to fill the gap for me. I like the direction Sigma is going with this lens.
I'm not sure what hesitation you are referring to. This is an amazingly fast focusing lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI besides the abrupt video focus you have demonstrated, I have also seen different reviews on the same day and other reviewers mentioned about the AF can not keep up fully with fast walking people when shooting photos so that is what I was talking about.
I feel like with the exception of working a candlelight lit event, that I don’t see myself needing anything more than the new, more versatile and amazingly compact 24-50/2.8 G
That's fair, though that doesn't change the value of this lens for someone else.
@@DustinAbbottTWII really want you to review the 16-25 and 24-50. The problem I see with both is that they’re just more very capable very sharp lenses that cost a lot and lack anything particularly interesting. Clinically good is basically every Sony lens, for 99% of people. This lens otoh seems to have decent rendering. Maybe I need to buy more sigma art lenses (or gm primes)
I have 2 Sigma lens and love it...but really wish it was wider at 16 or 18mm.
Fair enough, though this would have been MUCH bigger and more expensive if that were the case.
Looks like it's a fantastic lens. Unfortunately my bank account isn't as heavy as this lens.
That's fair.
Your daughter is 20 years old now?! I have been watching your channel for a long time I guess, so I remember her as a very young teen. Where did the time go?!
Hard to believe, isn't it
28-45mm plus a fast ultra wide or short tele, and this could be the start of a two lens lowlight kit. The Lumix 18 and 85 f/1.8s could complement this.
Exactly.
Wish it were smaller/lighter but also moee expensive to compensate. 24-70 GM II or the new Sigma 24-70 really falls in a sweet spot unless one has very specific needs. Still great job Sigma!
Unfortunately doing smaller and lighter with a constant aperture of F1.8 is much, much harder than anyone realizes.
The apsc 18-35 1.8 is a classic. It was only a Contemproary series lens, but the rendering was amazing and better than some of my primes at the time oprically. Was my main lens for an Australia road trip. The AF was a bit hit and miss though and boy is it front heavy.
We've beem waiting a long time for a successor. Seems sigma is more focussed on plastic and light for apsc though, which is a shame.
Frankly I wouldn't mind a smaller, lighter version of the 18-35mm for APS-C, even if it were plasticky. I didn't find the AF very reliable in the original 18-35mm, unfortunately.
@@DustinAbbottTWIyou can say that again. I switched to manual focus a lot of the time to get a higher keeper rate!
Hi Dustin! Which of the two lenses will be sharper and more detailed - Sony 24-70 2.8 GMII vs Sigma 28-45 1.8 Art ? Thank you in advance for your response!
Good question. I'd lean towards this lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you. Dustin!
Would love to see comparison between this & Sony G 24-50 f/2.8, Sony is a few hundred cheaper & millimeters wider. But also 1.3̅ stops slower.
I kept two Sigma f1.8 zoom lenses and the who F mount system. My wait is over for an FF version
Exactly!
Exceedingly high resolution and contrast from those 18 elements. From nature to astro but just some distortion at the "long" end. What engineering, certainly exceeding their nice older DSLR 24-35mm f2.
It's a very impressive lens.
Fascinating lens, but I wouldn't want to carry it around. I want an optically excellent 28mm f1.8 G lens that weighs 1/3 of this lens. I would use it mostly on the A7cR in the full frame 26mp RAW mode, or in Aps-c mode, as a 42mm equivalent, also @ 26mp.
This approach isn't for everyone, but others will love the versatility of this lens.
I kinda don't get it. Who is it for? For me I think, why would I carry this around when I can get the smaller, lighter, better Sony 35mm f1.4 GM for cheaper? Maybe videographers so they can zoom a tiny bit?
Videographers will be the top option.
Although it seems like a great zoom, nice and fast too; 1.8 I just don't see the 17mm zoom range being worthwhile for the money it costs. If you didn't already have primes, it can be more justifiable, but man, who doesn't want a few primes too?
I see your point, but the fact is that the 18-35mm F1.8 became a very popular lens, and this is a MUCH better lens.
I think this lens is a little range starved; would have preferred to see it go out to 24mm, but is otherwise excellent value and surprisingly lightweight for the optical performance.
I've learned that engineering all the way to 24mm makes for some extreme compromises. The lens would have had to be much bigger and heavier, there would have been a lot more distortion at the wide end, and it probably wouldn't have been as sharp optically.
wow..its a special lens.
It is that.
24mm would have been better
I think they should have just went 24-50mm 1.8 and said screw the weight, size and price. This way those would need a lens like this would have just had something, worth having. It's got to be primarily for video anyway, so it's going to be on a tripod. A 24mm 1.4 and 35mm 1.4 prime (and everyone and their brother already has an affordable 50mm prime of course) combo is far more realistic for photography over this. The small 17mm zoom range, just isn't going to have mass appeal. If you can't move around for 17mm range for photography, then you're going to be reaching for a real zoom anyway.
I agree
It's basically a 35mm 1.8. What a weird zoom range.
I won't be trading in my Sony 35mm f/1.8, to get it.
It's much bigger a zoom range than the 24-35mm F2 they released for DSLRs.
@@DustinAbbottTWI besides the F2, That's probably the better range though. It goes through two standard primes at least
Strong rumore :
GM f/ 1.8 24-70mm
in coming (?)
That would be a monster weighing around 2Kg! Most likely a false rumors...
Oh, my aching back! Hard pass.
I'm very skeptical of that. That's a huge optical design challenge.
@@DustinAbbottTWI
BTW : it wouldn't heurt Sony to not just do better and smaller and lighter,
but also convince with niche lenses like
GM
f1.2 75mm
f1.2 42mm
f1.2 28mm
..although true, I'wouldn't care much about a
GM Tilt-Shift-Macro 65mm
...hmm..although..
I find this lens pointless at the moment(two f 1.8 primes are still cheaper than this) but this will pave the way for other 1.8 zoom lenses in the future. The future look good. Imagine a 24-70 1.8 or even a 70-180. That would a be a sports photographers dream.
And a chiropractor's dream, too.
For some it is pointless; for others it will be their dream lens.
Obviously, it is made for the video world. Sigma has to make a 45-105/1.8 to give this lens it's other half. As for the photographers Sigma can easily produce a 20-45/2.0 and a 45-135/2.0 to give us a superb all-purpose duo based around the 45mm golden standard focal length.
I would say that 45-105mm would be a stretch at F1.8. You would be lucky to get to 85mm, I would say.
I’m voting for a 20-105mm with constant aperture of F1.4, internal zoom, under 800 grams and less than $1000,-
OK, it might not be very realistic 😂😉
don't forget stabilized! 😆
You guys have no understanding of the physics of optic 🤔 F1.4 at 105mm would be HUGE and HEAVY!
@@xmj6830 /whoosh
Sigma will probably make something like 45-70/1.8 to complement this lens 😂
Sigma makes a 105mm T/1.5 prime lens. It's a cine lens (manual focus). It weighs 1835 g. Are you REALLY sure you want to hang that much weight on a neck strap?🤣🤣🤣
Thinking of dumping my 35gm for this 🤔🤔 would love you to compare it the gm for me😂 weight is not a factor im totally jacked.
Anyone complaining about this lens in anyway is just rude and ungrateful. What an accomplishment
I can't guarantee any comparisons. I have about seven lenses, two cameras, and a variety of other pieces of gear on my desk for review right now already!
Not ungrateful. Just not interested in funding our chiropractors' kids' Ivy League college tuition.
the lazy people's lens. i appreciate its novelty and the impressive image quality it produces as a zoom lens but honestly for its range most of the time one 35mm prime would suffice.
There's an argument to be made from that perspective, though the zoom is going to provide some framing options from a single location that a prime simply won't.
Yeap, Dustin's review matching the opinion and results of very credible people like Christopher Frost. Yet, PetaPixel (yeah who cares, but..) tested this lens and found it to be soft and lacking contrast all across the board! Bad lens? Sample variation? Bad testing? BS? Anyway, go figure..
That's very surprising. That wasn't my experience at all.