one thing I love about Manny's shots is that his location spotting is super super on point. I'm starting to really see his photo style at least for these outdoor shots, but one thing is that those backgrounds look industrial and clean and his angles are amazing New York is beautiful to shoot as well, but it's just a lot more messy
I have that lens too. Super good. Just kinda tanky haha. I think for weddings and other events. The versatility can not be outdone. But if Im doing specifically portrait type of shoots. I think I'd like a couple primes. 35 and 85 like he mentioned just for reduced weight and size, and that extra prime pop look
@themondoshow The sharpness is incredible even wide open and in the corners, and things like CA are controlled very well! GM quality! The only two downsides I can see on the Tamron is the weight and quite a bit of ghosting when shooting towards the sun/ bright light.
thank you for being honest on the viability of this lens and use cases. Most youtube reviewers just gushes about the lens and not talk about the weight/chunk. Hanging off a neck, it's a drain after a few hours. Gave you a thumbs up.
35-85 would have done it for me. Even if it was an f/2.8. It's getting to the wide-normal on the wide-end and the portrait FL on the long-end, that makes it really useful. I used to have the 35-150 Tamron in the past, but it was a big/dense lens and I felt it to be unwieldy, and got rid of it. But if it is a choice between that lens and this lens, I would opt for the 35-150.
I've noticed that as well now that I own the lens but it does pretty good and for weddings it does a great job. I have my other camera with the Tamron 70-180mm F2.8 for weddings so it works nicely. I found that I don't normally go wider then that at weddings unless it's a big group and at that I use my tamron 20-40mm F2.8 which will be shot at about F4.
The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 was a 2x zoom. This 28-45mm f/1.8 is a 1.6x zoom. At some point, we tend to pick which focal length, of 'close' ones, we prefer, such as 28 vs 35 or 35 vs 50mm. If someone really likes the 28 and 50, they often also like lenses which are small and unobtrusive. Basically if someone really cares about specific focal lengths, this doesn't reach enough to be worth it. And if someone mildly cares about specific focal lengths, they probably want the benefits of a 24-70 or 24-120. This lens suits an extremely small portion of photographers.
This lens seems like an amazing concert or wedding reception tool. A 24-70 f/2.8 for daytime seems more useful and flexible. For that matter, a constant f/4 would be lighter and more practical for strobe driven daytime shots. But at a wedding reception with small flash. Seems like an incredible combo. The fast aperture would make focus easier and also allow a light touch with flash.
Nice one Manny💪🏿💪🏿 there's something refreshing about your videos: honest, chilled, thoughful. I dont want hyper-wassup in my face and I dont want motormouths (although I'll make an exception for the Smell Test Dude🤭). On this lens for video: it very much depends what types of video. I shoot docs and am happy with f2.8. Anything less and dof is too shallow. I really like the 24-70mm GMII. Great size, reach, sharpness, AF etc & by the time I've added a Ninja, mics, rig etc the setup (on A1) is just right.
@@TerraThink 28mm is not wide enough for a zoom, especially when using inside. I rather use a 35 1.4 and call it a day. So much lighter too. Also I rather carry a 50 1.2/1.4 + 35 1.4 over this.
this lens with crop mode is the answer. you can get from 28-67mm after 45mm, you're looking maybe a 2.5 equivalent with a little loss resolution. But it's great if you never want to switch lenses.
Great and honest review! I personally would have prefered a 35-60mm 1.8 lens because it would be more versatile as a single lens. With 28-45mm, as you mentioned, you kinda allways have to carry a longer lens aswell. But all depends on the individual use case.
Thanks for the video Manny. Another very interesting lens from Sigma. But one of my favorites for portrait photography is still the Sigma Art 1.4/40. It has been replacing the 1.4/35 and the 1.4/50 for years and is still unsurpassed for me. My other favorite for portrait photography is the Sigma Art 1.4/105. Both are simply SUPER in terms of optics, image effect and bokeh (especially the 1.4/105)! I usually work with aperture 1.4. Of course, both are large and heavy lenses, but optically they are uncompromising. I use both with my Nikon D850 and also on my Nikon Z8 using an adapter.
I would suggest looking at the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 before looking at buying this lens. 28-45 is almost no change in focal length. If bokeh is the goal, you'll get more from a tighter lens at a higher aperture. Now what this lens does excite me for is the possibility for a 50-100mm replacement. The 18-35 + 50-100 was an amazing combo on super 35 sensors (video). If they made a FF version of the 18-35 I suspect at 50-100mm replacement is not far off. It'd be somewhere in the 75-150 range would be my guess.
hey i just have a quick question, why is a 28-45 considered almost no change in focal length but the 18-35 is considered great despite also having exactly the same 17mm in change in focal length?
@@kevenaso2 it's not a huge change in focal length. 28-45, 18-35 no matter how you slice it it's not much of a punch in. While it'll be pretty having more focal range allows you to get more coverage and sometime more impactful shots. Depending on your line of work this may or may not be important. For my line of work the 35-150 is far less limiting.
i see for portraits shooting but hard for other style bro. i love your videos and keep up good work. also your right i would tell people to test or rent this lens first before you buy. what i tell people rent to test lens first if not sure if it will fit your needs
Would have preferred an f/2 aperture but with a more versatile focal range because I can't see any real world difference, as far as bokeh goes, between a 1.8 vs a 2.0......yes Sigma had the 24-35 f/2 but I think a 24-40 f/2 can be done
A flawless 24-50 would always be my choice. There's a huge difference between a boring 28mm and a dynamic 24mm. That lens flaring in direct sunlight is definitely a bummer, but it might just be a Sigma thing-it's always been like that. I remember having a Sigma 15-30 back in the day... shooting with a light source in the frame always gave you some very unpleasant flare.
@@ilaion11 the lens can replace 1.8 prime, but it still can't get a 1.4 prime look. i would prefer using 24 1.4 and 50 1.4. And sony 24-70 f2 is on the way with less than 1kg
Sigma always had a full frame version of the 18-35 F1.8 APS-C. It's the 24-35 F2. Yes, it was a wider on full frame as the equivalence of the 18-35 on APS-C. But nobody seems to remember. At least nobody mentions it.
I agree 100% this is more a video lens, if they made a 35-70 or 35-125 F2-2.8 that's smaller than the Tamron 35-150, perhaps with Internal zoom like most 70-200s
This would really work in my low light videos cause of the f1.8. But the size is bit too much. Lil too much extra hassle. But good informative video, thanks!
they already have 28-70 mm, this lens is more for events and run and gun situation and can be good for anything (wedding, clubs), 45 is good enough and can get close to the subject by moving close, Manny sounded so disappointed like what do you expect? 28-105 1.8?
Its just not long of enough of a zoom range for me to justify the size and weight over using small and light primes. especially if you are using f1.8 primes. personally I would like to see a 35 to 85 portrait zoom. and it would have to be allot smaller and lighter than the Tamron 35 to 150 f2 - f2.8. for it to make sense.
I feel could walk out with just one lens with the Canon RF 28-70 F2 I use it all the time but still love to grab my RF primes 35 50 85 135 but definitely great when you need to run and gun
I like your gear reviews! Reason I followed you a few years back, but I've also watched your RUclips influencer reflection videos; so understand if you need to stop :)
Oh come on Manny. You're not selling your 1.4s and 1.2 for this short zoom 1.8. this lens makes no sense, but I got to give it to sigma for making it. The canon F2 makes perfect sense with a longer zoom.
It makes sense a lot for wedding shooting etc. I usually use Sigma DG DN 1.4 lenses 24mm, 50mm and 85 mm on second camera body. So this replace without problem my 24mm and 50mm lenses and I can work more easily without changing 24/50mm lenses on camera body and it is finally possible leaving one lens for whole day on every camera body. Also I can have only one mist filter and other filters without needing to switch them between 24mm/50mm lenses or buying 2 filters for these lenses. In many scenarios is this lens really superb but it is not for everyone. I have used before 50mm 1.2 GM and also on Canon R6 that I had before I had RF 50mm 1.2 that was pretty big and heavy beast so I'm comfortable with size of this 950g lens.
I had 16-35 f4 35 1.8 50 1.8 90 2.8 70-200 4 now just tamron 35 150 and 24 GM. And I feel like i have everithing I need. I will change the tamron just for a lighter version, because is so good for every work I do
Give me a break! You paid by Canon to be a disgrace for Sigma! Because 28 is the most used wide angle prime after the 35. Maybe not nowadays since there are a huge number of 24s that replaced the 28 of the classic era photography, but there is no way you didn't know this. And on top of that, this lens really renders like a set of primes, unlike the Canon 28-70 f2. Another point, have you ever heard of the saying "horses for courses"? Why on earth would you f ask a 45mm 1.8 lens to behave like a 70mm? The whole point of this lens is to have a tool that replaces your wide to normal primes in your bag. You need more reach, get an 85 alongside or a 24-70 2.8 or the Canon 28-70 2! It is that simple. This lens has a more reserved zoom range because it retains the optical qualities of prime lens with more fidelity than a wider range zoom. It is that simple.
@@MannyOrtiz because is hilarious how people are trying to find problems for every solution and that is pissing me off! You're just not the first to criticize this lens for what it is not and it never proposed to be. I would choose this over the Canon 28-70 any day just because it renders beautifully and in fact, it renders better than most 1.8 primes. I never quite need 1.4 or 1.2 and never would I complain about 28 instead of 24 for portrait work, and I mean, I use a lot of wide end for environmental portraiture where I also need speed of reaction to change a focal length, so this lens really covers me incredibly well. In fact, I would also enjoy a 58-100 1.8 so I could do everything with just 2 bodies. I am tired of constantly changing lenses or use a 2.8 zoom. Am not in any way Sigma affiliated, but really, reviewers need to be more comprehensive of others needs if they really want to stick. Plenty of photographers I know are drooling over this lens and all of them are wedding photographers. You're a portrait photographer that does not really justify a zoom like this, but don't forget not everyone is like you or shooting like you, man. And I really, really appreciate your work and enthusiasm, but as I will never use a 200mm lens for portraiture because I find it pointless, that doesn't mean no one should do it. Some portrait photographers like to be closer to the subject in order to relate well and communicate well. My top end focal length is 105 for mature people and 135 for children. This lens deserves a few rounds of applause, and I hope you don't take this personal, but as a reminder that some people have different views than you and by ignoring them, it doesn't mean other possibilities do not exist.
Same old paid AD... a 2.8 lens makes you sell the 1.2 lenses? :D Why these BS titles? We know you have to tell nice things about it, cause it is paid... but c'mon.
Forget the lens the photos were fire! 💥
one thing I love about Manny's shots is that his location spotting is super super on point. I'm starting to really see his photo style at least for these outdoor shots, but one thing is that those backgrounds look industrial and clean and his angles are amazing
New York is beautiful to shoot as well, but it's just a lot more messy
best review of this lens ive seen so far. straight to the point, good insights, and fire photos af
For portraiture, the Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 does everything I'll ever need... I got no need for primes with that one 💪
I have that lens too. Super good. Just kinda tanky haha.
I think for weddings and other events. The versatility can not be outdone. But if Im doing specifically portrait type of shoots. I think I'd like a couple primes. 35 and 85 like he mentioned just for reduced weight and size, and that extra prime pop look
would you say its professional level quality?
I’ve seen nothing but good things about the Tamron and I think it will be my next purchase.
@themondoshow The sharpness is incredible even wide open and in the corners, and things like CA are controlled very well! GM quality!
The only two downsides I can see on the Tamron is the weight and quite a bit of ghosting when shooting towards the sun/ bright light.
Sounds like a very interesting lens
thank you for being honest on the viability of this lens and use cases. Most youtube reviewers just gushes about the lens and not talk about the weight/chunk. Hanging off a neck, it's a drain after a few hours. Gave you a thumbs up.
35-85 would have done it for me. Even if it was an f/2.8. It's getting to the wide-normal on the wide-end and the portrait FL on the long-end, that makes it really useful.
I used to have the 35-150 Tamron in the past, but it was a big/dense lens and I felt it to be unwieldy, and got rid of it. But if it is a choice between that lens and this lens, I would opt for the 35-150.
A 35-85 F1.8 would almost never leave my camera.
@@philcupper it would weigh 10lbs
I've noticed that as well now that I own the lens but it does pretty good and for weddings it does a great job. I have my other camera with the Tamron 70-180mm F2.8 for weddings so it works nicely. I found that I don't normally go wider then that at weddings unless it's a big group and at that I use my tamron 20-40mm F2.8 which will be shot at about F4.
That's a pretty big lens. I'd rather take the Tamron 35 150. It's way more versatile if you're looking for a 1 lense solution
1.8 is not the same like 2-2.8
@@Muellermediagroup 1.8 and 2 are the same.
The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 was a 2x zoom. This 28-45mm f/1.8 is a 1.6x zoom. At some point, we tend to pick which focal length, of 'close' ones, we prefer, such as 28 vs 35 or 35 vs 50mm. If someone really likes the 28 and 50, they often also like lenses which are small and unobtrusive. Basically if someone really cares about specific focal lengths, this doesn't reach enough to be worth it. And if someone mildly cares about specific focal lengths, they probably want the benefits of a 24-70 or 24-120. This lens suits an extremely small portion of photographers.
As someone who shoots 28/35/50 95% or the day for weddings I think it’s perfect.
(1) Is adding blur in post as pleasing as real optical blur? Close?
(2) How do you like the Tamron 28-70mm f/2.8 G2?
With the latest versions of lightroom and photoshop, the adaptive blur is actually pretty good
This lens seems like an amazing concert or wedding reception tool. A 24-70 f/2.8 for daytime seems more useful and flexible. For that matter, a constant f/4 would be lighter and more practical for strobe driven daytime shots. But at a wedding reception with small flash. Seems like an incredible combo. The fast aperture would make focus easier and also allow a light touch with flash.
Sigma should pair this with a 50-90 f1.8 to cover the second half of the portrait focal length.
Nice one Manny💪🏿💪🏿 there's something refreshing about your videos: honest, chilled, thoughful. I dont want hyper-wassup in my face and I dont want motormouths (although I'll make an exception for the Smell Test Dude🤭).
On this lens for video: it very much depends what types of video. I shoot docs and am happy with f2.8. Anything less and dof is too shallow. I really like the 24-70mm GMII. Great size, reach, sharpness, AF etc & by the time I've added a Ninja, mics, rig etc the setup (on A1) is just right.
As for the flare issue, wouldn't the lens hood helped? I notice you didn't have it on.
Possibly
Looking forward to testing this out! Loving the 24-70 2.8 Art II
This is a dope lens. I shoot between 28mm and 50mm. 45 mm is actually the closest to the human eye. I can’t wait to pick it up.
The question is just if you want this or just a 35mm f1.4 & then take a step back or a step forward to get something similar to 28mm & 50mm.
@@TerraThink I’d rather have this.
@@TerraThink 28mm is not wide enough for a zoom, especially when using inside. I rather use a 35 1.4 and call it a day. So much lighter too. Also I rather carry a 50 1.2/1.4 + 35 1.4 over this.
this lens with crop mode is the answer. you can get from 28-67mm after 45mm, you're looking maybe a 2.5 equivalent with a little loss resolution. But it's great if you never want to switch lenses.
How do u blur out the background in post as you mentioned in the video?❤
Lightroom
i love the golden hour color on here face. Amazing color!
Great and honest review! I personally would have prefered a 35-60mm 1.8 lens because it would be more versatile as a single lens. With 28-45mm, as you mentioned, you kinda allways have to carry a longer lens aswell. But all depends on the individual use case.
I think if Sigma made a 35-85 1.8/2.0 would be DOPE! I don't need internal zoom.
It will weight 2kg
@@hikari_ray 🤣🤣🤣
@@hikari_ray who cares … it’s not for you
That would be so sick
@@hikari_raythat’s not true. A Sony 300/2.8 only weights 1.742 kilograms.
Thanks for the video Manny. Another very interesting lens from Sigma. But one of my favorites for portrait photography is still the Sigma Art 1.4/40. It has been replacing the 1.4/35 and the 1.4/50 for years and is still unsurpassed for me. My other favorite for portrait photography is the Sigma Art 1.4/105. Both are simply SUPER in terms of optics, image effect and bokeh (especially the 1.4/105)! I usually work with aperture 1.4. Of course, both are large and heavy lenses, but optically they are uncompromising. I use both with my Nikon D850 and also on my Nikon Z8 using an adapter.
I believe there's a 24-70 f/2 Sony on the way. Same size as the Canon 28-70 f/2. If/when that arrives, i will pick it up.
Very interesting! Do you have a link to a source for this? Thanks for sharing!
You are correct. A 24-70/2.0 makes more sense from Sony plus there is no limitations on the camera.
I am really really looking forward to getting my hands on this lens soon.
I would suggest looking at the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 before looking at buying this lens. 28-45 is almost no change in focal length. If bokeh is the goal, you'll get more from a tighter lens at a higher aperture. Now what this lens does excite me for is the possibility for a 50-100mm replacement. The 18-35 + 50-100 was an amazing combo on super 35 sensors (video). If they made a FF version of the 18-35 I suspect at 50-100mm replacement is not far off. It'd be somewhere in the 75-150 range would be my guess.
hey i just have a quick question, why is a 28-45 considered almost no change in focal length but the 18-35 is considered great despite also having exactly the same 17mm in change in focal length?
@@kevenaso2 it's not a huge change in focal length. 28-45, 18-35 no matter how you slice it it's not much of a punch in.
While it'll be pretty having more focal range allows you to get more coverage and sometime more impactful shots. Depending on your line of work this may or may not be important. For my line of work the 35-150 is far less limiting.
i see for portraits shooting but hard for other style bro. i love your videos and keep up good work. also your right i would tell people to test or rent this lens first before you buy. what i tell people rent to test lens first if not sure if it will fit your needs
Mannys video drops, immediately click play 🎉
They used to have two versions of that lens. My guess is that they will come out with a portraiture length version.
If one buys the presets twice by mistake you still get to be charged a second time?
Would have preferred an f/2 aperture but with a more versatile focal range because I can't see any real world difference, as far as bokeh goes, between a 1.8 vs a 2.0......yes Sigma had the 24-35 f/2 but I think a 24-40 f/2 can be done
A 24-50/2.0 would be ideal.
How do you have your 360 cam mounted?
He uses a Go-Pro. There’s a whole bracket setup that Anthony Gugliotta details on his channel
You could pair it with the Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8 too. I know there is some overlap but you're getting that f1.8
Question where did you get the bended light stand for the diffuser?
That’s his camera distorting the lines. It’s a regular light stand.
Already own the Sigma 24mm F1.4 DG DN. Would much rather grab 50mm F1.2 next. They're very close in price.
Can we have one for the RF mount ? @sigma
I'll go with the tiny 35/1.8. It'll be easier for me to walk back and forth than carry this 1kg lens all day long.
My primes are 1.4, 20-35-85. I see no use for a 28-45 1.8. I do have the Sigma 28-70 2.8. It’s my everyday lens if I had to pick one zoom.
A flawless 24-50 would always be my choice. There's a huge difference between a boring 28mm and a dynamic 24mm. That lens flaring in direct sunlight is definitely a bummer, but it might just be a Sigma thing-it's always been like that. I remember having a Sigma 15-30 back in the day... shooting with a light source in the frame always gave you some very unpleasant flare.
I'd rather carry a couple of primes than his lens. In my opinion Sigma missed the mark with this focal range.
100% agree
close but no quite enough on the telephoto end
It’s like I’d rather have 24mm idc for 50 I’d be good with 40 even but to be in the middle as a ranged 35 is annoying
100% disagree with you! This lens performs better than any set of 1.8 primes on the market, apart from the Leica f/2 APOs.
@@ilaion11 the lens can replace 1.8 prime, but it still can't get a 1.4 prime look. i would prefer using 24 1.4 and 50 1.4. And sony 24-70 f2 is on the way with less than 1kg
Sigma always had a full frame version of the 18-35 F1.8 APS-C. It's the 24-35 F2. Yes, it was a wider on full frame as the equivalence of the 18-35 on APS-C.
But nobody seems to remember. At least nobody mentions it.
I love that lens (24-35 f2). when I went mirrorless I sold it. I want it back !!!
I need this for my a6700 ❤❤❤
It will work for video and photography on the a6700.
I agree 100% this is more a video lens, if they made a 35-70 or 35-125 F2-2.8 that's smaller than the Tamron 35-150, perhaps with Internal zoom like most 70-200s
Why was your exposure knob on +3? :O
Probably remapped to something else
A7cII + 24-50 F2.8 + 85 F1.8 = my ideal small bag carry. (assuming that you don't care much for an ultrawide)
Oh man, if sigma had’ve done a 24-40 f1.8 and a 40-150 f2-2.8 they would win over 95% of Aussie Wedding Togs I reckon. 2 lenses and done!
I am fine with my 24mm GM 1.4 and with the Sigma DG DN 70-200 E mount...
This would really work in my low light videos cause of the f1.8. But the size is bit too much. Lil too much extra hassle. But good informative video, thanks!
they already have 28-70 mm, this lens is more for events and run and gun situation and can be good for anything (wedding, clubs), 45 is good enough and can get close to the subject by moving close, Manny sounded so disappointed like what do you expect? 28-105 1.8?
its because 28-45 length is too short, better use 35 1.4
Its just not long of enough of a zoom range for me to justify the size and weight over using small and light primes. especially if you are using f1.8 primes. personally I would like to see a 35 to 85 portrait zoom. and it would have to be allot smaller and lighter than the Tamron 35 to 150 f2 - f2.8. for it to make sense.
I feel could walk out with just one lens with the Canon RF 28-70 F2 I use it all the time but still love to grab my RF primes 35 50 85 135 but definitely great when you need to run and gun
It'll be a great video lens and that's about it ..
It doesn't replace a 50mm because it doesn't zoom to 50mm
My favorite afpc lens was the Sigma 50-100mm f1.8 art. Shooting at 100mm all day long gave creamy bokeh.
I wish it would do 20m-50mm even f2 is fine or 35mm-75mm is fine too
I like your gear reviews! Reason I followed you a few years back, but I've also watched your RUclips influencer reflection videos; so understand if you need to stop :)
Weird focal length. That's why I'm returning my Sony 24-50. I feel so limited by that lens. I get why it received the criticism.
Almost* ahahaa. Great focal range at 1.8 but I'm going to stick with my 24-70 GII for size size I mostly shoot video
What huge trigger is this one? And why so big lol
Get a gym membership
I carry a 28 Zeiss f2
I see it as a Video and Corporate environmental portrait lens.
keeping my tamron 35 150
Why don't you use the lens hood against the sun? You would not have that flaring, I think.
He's shooting straight into the sun. A good makes no difference. Would need an assistant with a flag
28-50 sounds better tbh alhough it's not that big of a diffrerence
The Tamron or Samyang 35-150mm is better
Will be selling my 24mm and 35mm 1.4 for this 😅
The lens I needed for my A7R5 .In crop mode up to 70-ish mm and paird with my 135 1.8 GM feels just prefect for me! 24-70 GM II has been sold ...
It`s good for video, but too heavy.
Oh come on Manny. You're not selling your 1.4s and 1.2 for this short zoom 1.8. this lens makes no sense, but I got to give it to sigma for making it. The canon F2 makes perfect sense with a longer zoom.
It makes sense a lot for wedding shooting etc. I usually use Sigma DG DN 1.4 lenses 24mm, 50mm and 85 mm on second camera body. So this replace without problem my 24mm and 50mm lenses and I can work more easily without changing 24/50mm lenses on camera body and it is finally possible leaving one lens for whole day on every camera body. Also I can have only one mist filter and other filters without needing to switch them between 24mm/50mm lenses or buying 2 filters for these lenses. In many scenarios is this lens really superb but it is not for everyone. I have used before 50mm 1.2 GM and also on Canon R6 that I had before I had RF 50mm 1.2 that was pretty big and heavy beast so I'm comfortable with size of this 950g lens.
Never sell my 35mm sigma f 1.2 lens for this
I had 16-35 f4
35 1.8
50 1.8
90 2.8
70-200 4
now just tamron 35 150 and 24 GM. And I feel like i have everithing I need.
I will change the tamron just for a lighter version, because is so good for every work I do
Wish Sigma made a M43 lens.
This lens did not almost make you sell your primes but youtube clickbait, views, money, sponsorship, I get it lol
Give me a break! You paid by Canon to be a disgrace for Sigma! Because 28 is the most used wide angle prime after the 35. Maybe not nowadays since there are a huge number of 24s that replaced the 28 of the classic era photography, but there is no way you didn't know this. And on top of that, this lens really renders like a set of primes, unlike the Canon 28-70 f2.
Another point, have you ever heard of the saying "horses for courses"? Why on earth would you f ask a 45mm 1.8 lens to behave like a 70mm? The whole point of this lens is to have a tool that replaces your wide to normal primes in your bag. You need more reach, get an 85 alongside or a 24-70 2.8 or the Canon 28-70 2! It is that simple. This lens has a more reserved zoom range because it retains the optical qualities of prime lens with more fidelity than a wider range zoom. It is that simple.
Hey man why so much hostility?
@@MannyOrtiz because is hilarious how people are trying to find problems for every solution and that is pissing me off! You're just not the first to criticize this lens for what it is not and it never proposed to be. I would choose this over the Canon 28-70 any day just because it renders beautifully and in fact, it renders better than most 1.8 primes. I never quite need 1.4 or 1.2 and never would I complain about 28 instead of 24 for portrait work, and I mean, I use a lot of wide end for environmental portraiture where I also need speed of reaction to change a focal length, so this lens really covers me incredibly well. In fact, I would also enjoy a 58-100 1.8 so I could do everything with just 2 bodies.
I am tired of constantly changing lenses or use a 2.8 zoom.
Am not in any way Sigma affiliated, but really, reviewers need to be more comprehensive of others needs if they really want to stick. Plenty of photographers I know are drooling over this lens and all of them are wedding photographers. You're a portrait photographer that does not really justify a zoom like this, but don't forget not everyone is like you or shooting like you, man. And I really, really appreciate your work and enthusiasm, but as I will never use a 200mm lens for portraiture because I find it pointless, that doesn't mean no one should do it. Some portrait photographers like to be closer to the subject in order to relate well and communicate well. My top end focal length is 105 for mature people and 135 for children.
This lens deserves a few rounds of applause, and I hope you don't take this personal, but as a reminder that some people have different views than you and by ignoring them, it doesn't mean other possibilities do not exist.
seriously that dude is triggered! I can’t believe how worked up people get over a lens or camera review.
Good Bye Manny!
Almost 😅
Same old paid AD... a 2.8 lens makes you sell the 1.2 lenses? :D Why these BS titles? We know you have to tell nice things about it, cause it is paid... but c'mon.
The title is clearly an irony, train your sense of humor.
@@jamesf3382 I don't think it's irony..
@@iammz81 you dumb,it is 1.8
Ghosting
why do they always make heavy lenses？ use plastic， i'd happy to buy a new lense when it break in 6 to 8 years, just make it light light light light.
It’s just massive,way too big……
Primes, for me, are a thing of the past.
I’ve never have rocked a third party lens.
First comment
Oh sorry for me my is second😅
this video almost made me cancel my subscription
You wanna sell your primes for this? WTF 🤡🤦🏻♂️
First comment
This comment is not sponsored by esquarespace😅