I have this lens. I got it from MPB for £650.00 (Like new), and it was in amazing condition. Looks like I have found a bargain. This is a top, top lens. The new RF may be slighter sharper but once you cross a specific threshold, the rest is just almost meaningless. I love using this lens over F4 anyway. I normally underexpose images to save maximum detail in my raw files. This lens has so far nailed it for me time and time again for street photography and portraits in hot- sunny countries. The only poop thing is that I have to use the mount adapter which increases the weight.
I went with this lens versus the 2.8 given that depth of field for most landscape photos to me carries more import that getting the shallow depth of field 'blur'. I haven't dabbled in astrophotography yet but I'm hoping that the F4 will still be fast enough. 2.8 would be better I think but that's a pretty steep price differential for those few night shots I might take. Very happy with the image quality of the F4, Good review and your points are laid out nicely. In a perfect world 🙂, more sample pics though would have been nice
I recently bought canon 77d(apsc).. Im a hobbyist...Which is better sigma 18-35, sigma 17-50, canon 17-55 or suggest any other standard zoom lens..my purpose is events and weddings(mostly indoor), travel, and portraits. Image quality is key.....
I would definitely recommend the Sigma 18-35mm, especially if you’ve got an APS-C or Super 35mm sensor. it’s an amazing lens with a great aperture. definitely comes highly recommended. here is the link to the video review I made about this Sigma lens... ruclips.net/video/95YpG7w37N/видео.html
Hi What if they were both the same price or fairly close like a $100 difference which one would you pick? I have a opportunity to grab one of them(mark iii 2.8 or 4) but they are close to the same price which one would you recommend? I do photography mainly but I do want to get into video
2.8 is only needed when recording motion in low light. It doesn't have image stabilization and is larger, heavier, and uses larger filters. f/4 is better for most people.
So.... And interesting video. So what about s(h)owing us some images next time in low light conditions, which is also where it loss against the 2.8 L version. So... I look forward to another video using “so” many other linking devices or adverbials and not so... 👍🏼
I have this lens. I got it from MPB for £650.00 (Like new), and it was in amazing condition. Looks like I have found a bargain. This is a top, top lens. The new RF may be slighter sharper but once you cross a specific threshold, the rest is just almost meaningless. I love using this lens over F4 anyway. I normally underexpose images to save maximum detail in my raw files. This lens has so far nailed it for me time and time again for street photography and portraits in hot- sunny countries. The only poop thing is that I have to use the mount adapter which increases the weight.
I went with this lens versus the 2.8 given that depth of field for most landscape photos to me carries more import that getting the shallow depth of field 'blur'. I haven't dabbled in astrophotography yet but I'm hoping that the F4 will still be fast enough. 2.8 would be better I think but that's a pretty steep price differential for those few night shots I might take. Very happy with the image quality of the F4,
Good review and your points are laid out nicely. In a perfect world 🙂, more sample pics though would have been nice
Don't waste your time with astrophotography. Your photos won't compare with those from the Hubble space telescope.
Great video mate! Full of things I wanted to know. Ordered this lens, can't wait to use it!
Thanks mate. hope you enjoy it when it comes.
Great video can you pleas tell me if I purchase the same lens with 2.8 aperture Thanks keep the amazing work rolling.
I recently bought canon 77d(apsc).. Im a hobbyist...Which is better sigma 18-35, sigma 17-50, canon 17-55 or suggest any other standard zoom lens..my purpose is events and weddings(mostly indoor), travel, and portraits. Image quality is key.....
I would definitely recommend the Sigma 18-35mm, especially if you’ve got an APS-C or Super 35mm sensor. it’s an amazing lens with a great aperture. definitely comes highly recommended.
here is the link to the video review I made about this Sigma lens...
ruclips.net/video/95YpG7w37N/видео.html
@@PhotoFeaver Thanks a ton...
I have bought this lens this week and can’t wait to get home and try it out! Heard very good things about it and your video is very helpful and honest
Thanks for your comment! I’m glad I was able to help you pick out a lens! Hope you enjoy the lens 👍🏼
How much did it cost you? I saw it at like 900 dollars
@@guidofernandez9676 £650 good condition used
@@guidofernandez9676 it’s very sharp and lightweight.
Hi What if they were both the same price or fairly close like a $100 difference which one would you pick? I have a opportunity to grab one of them(mark iii 2.8 or 4) but they are close to the same price which one would you recommend? I do photography mainly but I do want to get into video
2.8 is only needed when recording motion in low light. It doesn't have image stabilization and is larger, heavier, and uses larger filters. f/4 is better for most people.
Would you recommend it for a Canon 80d? So for an aps-c? Or is it better the 2.8 version?
Thanks for your answer
Ja teilweise hast du recht.
nice
Harika inceleme olmuş 👍
So....
And interesting video.
So what about s(h)owing us some images next time in low light conditions, which is also where it loss against the 2.8 L version.
So...
I look forward to another video using “so” many other linking devices or adverbials and not so...
👍🏼