They are planning the following ones SIGMA 16mm F1.4 DC DN | Contemporary SIGMA 23mm F1.4 DC DN | Contemporary SIGMA 30mm F1.4 DC DN | Contemporary SIGMA 56mm F1.4 DC DN | Contemporary
And now, with that lens, EOS R50 (as well as EOS R10 and R7) can now be turned into a proper vlogging camera! Also for landscapes, astrophotogrpahy, nature, etc...!
Sadly Canon doesn't allow the use of APSC lenses in Full Frame mode in full frame cameras. The Sigma 10-18mm covers the full frame at 12mm and with others focal length the vignette isn't that severe. So after you crop for stabilization in video the vignette is gone. The use of APSC lenses in full frame mode is one of the big reasons to go with Sony system instead of L Mount, Canon or Nikon
"Stopped down to f11, the whole image gets soft again, because of.. well.. you know" 😂😂 I'm crying, the best comeback line! I love your reviews, I watch them all, regardless the brand, focal length of the lens, and despite of the fact that I'm trying to rationalise my photograpy expenses:D 🎉🎉
People are misunderstanding your question, but I agree. The lack of something like a a 50-150/2.8-4 (i.e. playing the role of the 70-200 in FF) at this point in Sigmas aps-c development remains a bit of a mystery. It would seem that they don't feel there is enough market given the prevalence of the travel zoom, but maybe that will change.
Thumbs up for The Chemical Brothers on your Mini Disc! Also, great info. I saw your Sony review before, I figured all the same info applied for function and optics and such. I agree the price is a bit high, but as we have seen from the Sigma lenses in the past, the initial price is high, and later the instant rebates happen and they tend to run commonly for long periods of time. I would bet, at least here in the states, we will see it at 400 USD sometime late next year for seasonal pricing, and we will see it flux 50 or so dollars up and down depending on sale times. It is great to see this lens come to the RF system.
Hey Chris! Thanks for recently reviewing my favorite Fuji lens, the mighty 90mm F/2! Could you perhaps review the Fujifilm 14mm F/2.8? It's a first-party ultrawide lens that hardly ever gets any attention, maybe due to it's high price relative to it's lack of weather sealing and "slow" (not really) maximum aperture. I'm currently using it on my X-T5 and am loving what I'm seeing. I'd be curious what test results your man-cave would conjure up! Greetings from a brother in JC from Germany!
Can someone please explain what Chris means when he refers to the R7's 32.5MP sensor being "demanding"? He also refers to it as a "hungry beast" which "chews up [less-sharp] lenses" in another video (I think re: the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 on an R7). "The very high resolution 32MP sensor of the R7 is clearly a tough playing field for the Sigma lens." "If you're shooting on a 24MP camera, you really won't see any difference at all." (Why is this?) My question is mainly surrounding the relationship between a camera's MP count/sensor size(?) and a lens. Is there a way to know if a lens will "satisfy" a camera's sensor/MP count prior to buying a lens (outside of watching review videos like these, of course)? Thanks in advance!!
still can not beat 16mm f1.4 sharpness but 10-18mm is way more versatile, light and small. it is good to pair with 28-105mm f2.8 for complete travel camera lens.
This may be a dumb question but does shooting video with this lens on a Canon R7 make the sharpness any different as when shooting on this camera it uses less pixels?
I use the old ef-s 10-22. F2.8 might be useful but I don’t think it matters. I only want the wide angle for the occasional landscape or travel photo. Then F8 to F5.6 works for me. So there is no benefit for me. I would prefer the canon rf-s. Half the price and sharper
I have an older Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 EX which I currently use on my R7. I am wondering if this lens would be an upgrade in terms of image quality to justify purchasing?
I wonder if it'd worth it to trade in the Canon RFS 10-18 for this Sigma. I have the Canon, and it works nice. But f4.5-5.6 vs f2.8 throughout, the only downside is no IS. That tight aperture wasn't too big of a concern when I took it with me to Cuba. I wanted it mostly for those bright beach shots. But now, I have very little use for it, especially given how dark it is. I could find more use with an f2.8 aperture.
Honestly, if my 10-18mm was F8 max it would still be useful to me for everything I use it for. If you aren't shooting indoors with it, or using unusually fast shutter speeds with an ultra-wide, shooting video, and various other fairly specific reasons, most the time it's just not a requirement. Lenses this wide thrive on depth more than anything, so you would use it at narrow f-stops anyway for the reasons most use a lens like this. Slower shutter speeds are not a big deal in these cases, in fact a lot of the time you want that anyway. The IS, especially when combined with IBIS, is a far larger gain for shots that really don't need a wide aperture (I think Canon boast up to 7 stops). But! If you want to use the lens for say, events, then the faster aperture is a better idea. I always wanted a fast wide lens like this when I still shot with the 80D, when I started to shoot bands and do parties and such. I didn't have what I considered good options, as I didn't even know about the Tokina 11-16mm (which is just so-so) and the Rokinon 10mm F2.8 was full manual everything (but a cracking good lens otherwise). I ended up going into a full frame setup, which really was the better move for that sort of stuff anyway. I feel like this lens could pull that off though with an R7, R10, or R50 even. R100... eh.... For what it cost, you wouldn't be out much even if you eventually realized you didn't really need F2.8. Or you get an nice and wide F2.8 lens for a decent price after you sell/trade your other lens.
I sold my EF 16-35 f/4L after I bought RF 16 f/2.8. Wide aperture is really a big deal! Don't mind the loss in sharpness. Don't mind the loss in stabilization. Don't mind the wonky distortion. What I got was a big amount of cash to spare. I've both DSLR and a mirrorless (with IBIS) bodies.
How far from the test chart was the camera for the test at 11mm? Low contrast and diffraction setting in at lower than usual f-numbers sound like problems you encounter with macro photography!
There seems to be massive downgrade (sharpness and contrast) when compared to Sony A5100 version. Do you think this is mostly caused by sample variation or by having to resolve 35% more pixels on this 32.5mp sensor (compared to 24mp)?
I’m pretty new to cameras. I would really appreciate it if someone could answer this question for me. I’ve seen on multiple youtube videos that, if i use a full frame lens on a an APS-C camera, then the aperture changes. For example if a Canon full frame lens have a 1.8 aperture, i should multiply it by 1.6 if I use it on a Canon APS-C camera. Then what about f2.8 APS-C lens on an APS-C camera? Does the aperture stay the same(f2.8) on an APS-C camera or should I also multiply it by 1.6??
When they refer to aperture changes, they are talking about how it affects the depth of field (how much of your subject is in focus). However, the amount of light the lens allows in remains the same. In the case of an APS-C lens on an APS-C camera, you need to multiply the f-number by the crop factor to get the depth of field equivalent on a full-frame camera. This only affects the depth of field, not the actual amount of light or exposure.
@@driziabdelkaderaminewow, thank you so much for your explanation sir! Now I understand it 100%. Your explanation was very clear and easy to understand. Hope you have a great day sir! 😁
Here‘s a little bit of unwanted confusion 😋 Infact, the depth of field stays the same on both formats when using the same aperture. 1.8 on FF is 1.8 on crop. however, to get the same field of view on apsc you need to increase the distance to your subject, therefore widening the depth of field.
Such a shame that Sigma are focusing (no pun meant) on RF-S lenses for the time being... Would be perfect timing if they produced an Ultra Wide Angle RF lens
@@joeaddison Probably. Canon obviously has zero intention of making their own variety of APS-C lenses outside of their kit options, so allowing 3rd parties to make them won't take any of their non-existent marketshare. Allowing competition to FF lenses might sell more Canon camera bodies, but it'd kill their proprietary monopoly on lenses.
Perhaps but it’s speculation and I’m a little skeptical that the 8 extra mp makes that big a difference. Have there been any tests showing any RF lenses to be softer on the R7?
@@maggnet4829 not on a Canon. A sigma for Sony or Fuji doesn’t always have the same exact optics. I’ve heard 2 reviewers say the sigma 18-50 is sharper on other systems. Still waiting for their reviews on this lens to see what they say.
@@superstringsbro Long time ago that was the case, but I haven't seen any recent examples where the optics where different in such cases. Many, many, reviewers oversee, however, factors such as pixel density. With the higher pixel density the lens appears softer at 100%. Others overlook differences in low-pass (moiré) filters on the sensors (which is, however, low on the R7).
@@fotografalexandernikolishmm, there seems to be a pretty huge variation between sony and cannon models. He states that it is brilliantly sharp on sony but pretty bad here 😢
I have a Canon R7 and a Canon 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM EF-S lens so this new Sigma lens is very interesting to me. The Canon RF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM lens is not IMHO a worthwhile improvement over the 10-18 EF-S lens. The Canon RF-S 10-18 lens is about $300 and the Sigma RF-S 10-18 is about $650 here in the USA. The two extra stops of the Sigma lens almost negates the advantage of Canon lens' built-in OIS. I'd like to see a comparison between the Sigma vs the Canon EF-S and the Canon RF-S lenses, if you have the time! P.S. The upcoming Tamron 11-20mm f/2.8 Di III-A RXD lens also looks very interesting. Thanks!
With a few exceptions, I don't get the point of short range zooms. A centrally sharp 10mm or 11mm f1.8 prime can be cropped to get equal or better quality. Too many people overestimate the loss of detail from losing megapixels. (Sigma's 28-45, of course, is a huge exception)
What is the distortion of the lens in tight space Compare to Canon 10-24 RF F4 L lens for Stills and Video on APSC or Super 35? Im concern about a curvature look of the wall espercially for Real Estate work for video if I want to shoot 4K 60p RAW (Super 35) on Canon r5c, c70 or c80.
Why purchase this Sigma lens when you can get the Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM for next to nothing? What is the purpose of having an f/2.8 aperture if you need to close down to F5.6-8 to get some image quality that is the equivalent of the Canon EF-S lens at the same aperture and the sigma got no image stabilisation built in like the Canon lens?
@@sailorlog RF28, RF100-400 and the Yongnuo YN85 f1.8R ii. If you are insist on not using Speedbooster with EF L lenses. Sigma 18-50 is worth the money.
Comparing this with your video of the sony version, there are massive differences in image quality. The Canon version is horrible! Even the canon rf-s 10-18 is way better in image quality than this.
Chris says at the end that the lower MP Canon bodies should see better results, which makes sense. Bummer that it doesn't hold up as well on their "flagship" APS-C body. I was already leaning very heavily towards getting the Sony a6700, and this solidifies things even more.
@@planterz42 The Sigma lenses were made for the higher MP count. That’s why Canon’s 10-18 is sharper on an R7. That lens was made with 32 megapixels in mind
@@justinburley8659 that much of a difference isn´t possible, even with the sigma 18-50 there was almost no difference in image quality from sony/fuji to the canon version.
We need Sigma Primes!
They are planning the following ones
SIGMA 16mm F1.4 DC DN | Contemporary
SIGMA 23mm F1.4 DC DN | Contemporary
SIGMA 30mm F1.4 DC DN | Contemporary
SIGMA 56mm F1.4 DC DN | Contemporary
@@Lantit Thanks for the info and have a blessed day!
Q4 this year
@@Lantit they're all Aps; we also (or especially) need FF primes
@@ritrattoaziendale Yeah but that's Canon's decision to license or not.
Bring on the RF Sigma primes.
And now, with that lens, EOS R50 (as well as EOS R10 and R7) can now be turned into a proper vlogging camera!
Also for landscapes, astrophotogrpahy, nature, etc...!
Sadly Canon doesn't allow the use of APSC lenses in Full Frame mode in full frame cameras. The Sigma 10-18mm covers the full frame at 12mm and with others focal length the vignette isn't that severe. So after you crop for stabilization in video the vignette is gone. The use of APSC lenses in full frame mode is one of the big reasons to go with Sony system instead of L Mount, Canon or Nikon
That's wild. So many lenses work great on larger than intended systems.
"Stopped down to f11, the whole image gets soft again, because of.. well.. you know" 😂😂
I'm crying, the best comeback line!
I love your reviews, I watch them all, regardless the brand, focal length of the lens, and despite of the fact that I'm trying to rationalise my photograpy expenses:D 🎉🎉
When will Sigma release the last one of the APS-C zoom trio? Now we have 10-18mm and 18-50mm. We really need a ultra-lightweight telephoto!
They come next!
@@justinburley8659how do you know that?
@@scandier It’s on Sigma’s website from their initial announcement. All 4 primes are releasing on Canon RF
Sigma told me that they should be ready before the end of the year
People are misunderstanding your question, but I agree. The lack of something like a a 50-150/2.8-4 (i.e. playing the role of the 70-200 in FF) at this point in Sigmas aps-c development remains a bit of a mystery. It would seem that they don't feel there is enough market given the prevalence of the travel zoom, but maybe that will change.
Can't wait to see the Full frame lineup.
Thumbs up for The Chemical Brothers on your Mini Disc!
Also, great info. I saw your Sony review before, I figured all the same info applied for function and optics and such. I agree the price is a bit high, but as we have seen from the Sigma lenses in the past, the initial price is high, and later the instant rebates happen and they tend to run commonly for long periods of time. I would bet, at least here in the states, we will see it at 400 USD sometime late next year for seasonal pricing, and we will see it flux 50 or so dollars up and down depending on sale times. It is great to see this lens come to the RF system.
At last the R10 starts to look like the travel companion I was hoping for!
Hey Chris! Thanks for recently reviewing my favorite Fuji lens, the mighty 90mm F/2! Could you perhaps review the Fujifilm 14mm F/2.8? It's a first-party ultrawide lens that hardly ever gets any attention, maybe due to it's high price relative to it's lack of weather sealing and "slow" (not really) maximum aperture. I'm currently using it on my X-T5 and am loving what I'm seeing. I'd be curious what test results your man-cave would conjure up! Greetings from a brother in JC from Germany!
Can someone please explain what Chris means when he refers to the R7's 32.5MP sensor being "demanding"? He also refers to it as a "hungry beast" which "chews up [less-sharp] lenses" in another video (I think re: the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 on an R7).
"The very high resolution 32MP sensor of the R7 is clearly a tough playing field for the Sigma lens."
"If you're shooting on a 24MP camera, you really won't see any difference at all." (Why is this?)
My question is mainly surrounding the relationship between a camera's MP count/sensor size(?) and a lens. Is there a way to know if a lens will "satisfy" a camera's sensor/MP count prior to buying a lens (outside of watching review videos like these, of course)?
Thanks in advance!!
That’s something I’ve been wondering about, too…
We need this lens for Nikon Z aps camera!
C is your missing letter...
ETZ21 adapter
Great review as always, my wallet is relieved this lens isn’t great, so I can stick with my canon version which had treated me really well
still can not beat 16mm f1.4 sharpness but 10-18mm is way more versatile, light and small. it is good to pair with 28-105mm f2.8 for complete travel camera lens.
This may be a dumb question but does shooting video with this lens on a Canon R7 make the sharpness any different as when shooting on this camera it uses less pixels?
It won't really make a difference
Great review as always! I dont think upgrading for my efs 10-18mm is worth it for me tho.
I use the old ef-s 10-22. F2.8 might be useful but I don’t think it matters. I only want the wide angle for the occasional landscape or travel photo. Then F8 to F5.6 works for me. So there is no benefit for me. I would prefer the canon rf-s. Half the price and sharper
I have an older Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 EX which I currently use on my R7. I am wondering if this lens would be an upgrade in terms of image quality to justify purchasing?
I wonder if it'd worth it to trade in the Canon RFS 10-18 for this Sigma. I have the Canon, and it works nice. But f4.5-5.6 vs f2.8 throughout, the only downside is no IS. That tight aperture wasn't too big of a concern when I took it with me to Cuba. I wanted it mostly for those bright beach shots. But now, I have very little use for it, especially given how dark it is. I could find more use with an f2.8 aperture.
Honestly, if my 10-18mm was F8 max it would still be useful to me for everything I use it for. If you aren't shooting indoors with it, or using unusually fast shutter speeds with an ultra-wide, shooting video, and various other fairly specific reasons, most the time it's just not a requirement. Lenses this wide thrive on depth more than anything, so you would use it at narrow f-stops anyway for the reasons most use a lens like this. Slower shutter speeds are not a big deal in these cases, in fact a lot of the time you want that anyway. The IS, especially when combined with IBIS, is a far larger gain for shots that really don't need a wide aperture (I think Canon boast up to 7 stops). But! If you want to use the lens for say, events, then the faster aperture is a better idea. I always wanted a fast wide lens like this when I still shot with the 80D, when I started to shoot bands and do parties and such. I didn't have what I considered good options, as I didn't even know about the Tokina 11-16mm (which is just so-so) and the Rokinon 10mm F2.8 was full manual everything (but a cracking good lens otherwise). I ended up going into a full frame setup, which really was the better move for that sort of stuff anyway. I feel like this lens could pull that off though with an R7, R10, or R50 even. R100... eh....
For what it cost, you wouldn't be out much even if you eventually realized you didn't really need F2.8. Or you get an nice and wide F2.8 lens for a decent price after you sell/trade your other lens.
I sold my EF 16-35 f/4L after I bought RF 16 f/2.8. Wide aperture is really a big deal! Don't mind the loss in sharpness. Don't mind the loss in stabilization. Don't mind the wonky distortion. What I got was a big amount of cash to spare. I've both DSLR and a mirrorless (with IBIS) bodies.
I bought the RF-S 10-18mm for just above $300 used. I simply couldn’t wait to pay over 2x for a larger aperture without IS.
How far from the test chart was the camera for the test at 11mm? Low contrast and diffraction setting in at lower than usual f-numbers sound like problems you encounter with macro photography!
There seems to be massive downgrade (sharpness and contrast) when compared to Sony A5100 version. Do you think this is mostly caused by sample variation or by having to resolve 35% more pixels on this 32.5mp sensor (compared to 24mp)?
This, really... I'm now considering whether I should buy this lens for my A6700 :(
I always loved that wide zoom range but the aperture was always too slow (per my EF-S and EF-M mount). This changes everything!
Pricey!
I’m pretty new to cameras. I would really appreciate it if someone could answer this question for me. I’ve seen on multiple youtube videos that, if i use a full frame lens on a an APS-C camera, then the aperture changes. For example if a Canon full frame lens have a 1.8 aperture, i should multiply it by 1.6 if I use it on a Canon APS-C camera. Then what about f2.8 APS-C lens on an APS-C camera? Does the aperture stay the same(f2.8) on an APS-C camera or should I also multiply it by 1.6??
When they refer to aperture changes, they are talking about how it affects the depth of field (how much of your subject is in focus). However, the amount of light the lens allows in remains the same.
In the case of an APS-C lens on an APS-C camera, you need to multiply the f-number by the crop factor to get the depth of field equivalent on a full-frame camera. This only affects the depth of field, not the actual amount of light or exposure.
@@driziabdelkaderaminewow, thank you so much for your explanation sir! Now I understand it 100%. Your explanation was very clear and easy to understand. Hope you have a great day sir! 😁
Here‘s a little bit of unwanted confusion 😋
Infact, the depth of field stays the same on both formats when using the same aperture. 1.8 on FF is 1.8 on crop. however, to get the same field of view on apsc you need to increase the distance to your subject, therefore widening the depth of field.
"diffraction" - you say it the most times on earth, lol
Got here as fast as i could 😆
WE NEED FULL FRAME RF LENSES SIGMAAA!
You need to talk to Canon, they are the ones stopping it
What I wouldn’t give for the newer sigma emount 14-24 2.8 on rf mount
Shit, i need this lense for full frame. Bruuuuuuh😩
Such a shame that Sigma are focusing (no pun meant) on RF-S lenses for the time being... Would be perfect timing if they produced an Ultra Wide Angle RF lens
I think Canon is limiting them to crop lenses only, at least for the time being
@@joeaddison Yeah that really wouldn't surprise me
@@joeaddison Probably. Canon obviously has zero intention of making their own variety of APS-C lenses outside of their kit options, so allowing 3rd parties to make them won't take any of their non-existent marketshare. Allowing competition to FF lenses might sell more Canon camera bodies, but it'd kill their proprietary monopoly on lenses.
@@planterz42seems like canon is struggling to get lenses designed and into production..
A lens with the effect of beautiful stars, which are rather weaker on Canon newer optic formulas.
Chris weren't you planning on getting a 24mp Canon? I feel this 32 mp sensor isn't doing these lenses justice.
Especially when most Canon apsc shooters aren’t on an R7
As Chris mentioned in the video, he reviewed it already on a 24Mp sensor.
Perhaps but it’s speculation and I’m a little skeptical that the 8 extra mp makes that big a difference. Have there been any tests showing any RF lenses to be softer on the R7?
@@maggnet4829 not on a Canon. A sigma for Sony or Fuji doesn’t always have the same exact optics. I’ve heard 2 reviewers say the sigma 18-50 is sharper on other systems. Still waiting for their reviews on this lens to see what they say.
@@superstringsbro Long time ago that was the case, but I haven't seen any recent examples where the optics where different in such cases. Many, many, reviewers oversee, however, factors such as pixel density. With the higher pixel density the lens appears softer at 100%. Others overlook differences in low-pass (moiré) filters on the sensors (which is, however, low on the R7).
Excited for this one. got the 18-50 and it's great, this fits nicely for the wide end of things. Thanks for the vid!
Review the Fuji version please!
Why? It's literally the same. All info here and in the Sony review apply to Fuji as well
@@fotografalexandernikolishmm, there seems to be a pretty huge variation between sony and cannon models. He states that it is brilliantly sharp on sony but pretty bad here 😢
@@GK-dd5ci There is some sample variation in general unfortunately, even within units for the same mount. I've seen it in other tests too.
@@fotografalexandernikolis seems like a huge variation to me
I have a Canon R7 and a Canon 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM EF-S lens so this new Sigma lens is very interesting to me.
The Canon RF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM lens is not IMHO a worthwhile improvement over the 10-18 EF-S lens.
The Canon RF-S 10-18 lens is about $300 and the Sigma RF-S 10-18 is about $650 here in the USA.
The two extra stops of the Sigma lens almost negates the advantage of Canon lens' built-in OIS.
I'd like to see a comparison between the Sigma vs the Canon EF-S and the Canon RF-S lenses, if you have the time!
P.S. The upcoming Tamron 11-20mm f/2.8 Di III-A RXD lens also looks very interesting. Thanks!
With a few exceptions, I don't get the point of short range zooms.
A centrally sharp 10mm or 11mm f1.8 prime can be cropped to get equal or better quality. Too many people overestimate the loss of detail from losing megapixels.
(Sigma's 28-45, of course, is a huge exception)
What is the distortion of the lens in tight space Compare to Canon 10-24 RF F4 L lens for Stills and Video on APSC or Super 35? Im concern about a curvature look of the wall espercially for Real Estate work for video if I want to shoot 4K 60p RAW (Super 35) on Canon r5c, c70 or c80.
lol, try the Rockstar 10mm F8 now
Why purchase this Sigma lens when you can get the Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM for next to nothing? What is the purpose of having an f/2.8 aperture if you need to close down to F5.6-8 to get some image quality that is the equivalent of the Canon EF-S lens at the same aperture and the sigma got no image stabilisation built in like the Canon lens?
After sigma 28-105, really nothing will impress from canon
Well, Canon has a 24-105 F2.8!
really think leave canon, all te lens s..k
No, you just didn’t do your research right
@@zegzbrutalcould you enumerate some? I feel lost with my r7, without breaking the Bank
@@sailorlog RF28, RF100-400 and the Yongnuo YN85 f1.8R ii.
If you are insist on not using Speedbooster with EF L lenses. Sigma 18-50 is worth the money.
Comparing this with your video of the sony version, there are massive differences in image quality. The Canon version is horrible! Even the canon rf-s 10-18 is way better in image quality than this.
The Sony version was done on a lower megapixel camera. They don’t have a high megapixel apsc camera
Chris says at the end that the lower MP Canon bodies should see better results, which makes sense. Bummer that it doesn't hold up as well on their "flagship" APS-C body. I was already leaning very heavily towards getting the Sony a6700, and this solidifies things even more.
@@planterz42 The Sigma lenses were made for the higher MP count. That’s why Canon’s 10-18 is sharper on an R7. That lens was made with 32 megapixels in mind
@@justinburley8659 that much of a difference isn´t possible, even with the sigma 18-50 there was almost no difference in image quality from sony/fuji to the canon version.
@@christof4105 I noticed a big difference in his test charts with the R7 versus the A5100 for the 18-50mm. Maybe you should check again
Sigma must be pretty miffed with Canon and Nikon...zero full frame lenses!