Zeiss never made a 50mm 1.4 Otus. They made a 55mm 1.4. I used the Otus 55 1.4 and was amazed but when Sigma made a 50mm 1.4 Art..for the cost..I truly was amazed. And still today use the Sigma Art Line!

@@sickheadache9903 yes right, it was a 55!

it's not even 2x zoom.

@@k1k13004neither was the 18-35

​@k1k13004 may be, but another way to see it is three F/1.8 primes in one lens.

@@jeremytheoneofdestiny8691 come on ! 18-36 is quite closer. Here we need 11mm more to get the equivalent.

The 28-45 has more pincushion on the long end but less barrel distortion on the wide end. Overall the Full Frame image plus extra sharpness of the new lens is going to blow the old APS-C lens out of the water. Sigma needs to update the 18-35, I wouldn't hesitate to buy an updated model for my R7 if they did (and assuming Canon allowed Sigma to release such a lens on R mount).

35mm is my favorite, but the only lenses I have which cover it are Sony 24-105 f/4 and Tamron 35-150. Both are fantastic, but I'd be curious to see how this lens compares. A tad larger aperture than the Sony and a fair bit smaller than the Tamron.

I've noticed lately that some of his review tactics have been adopted by another reviewer.

@@swistedfilms who are you thinking of?

@@EverythingCameFromNothing Well, I don't want to say but it rhymes with Sony Sorthrup.

@@swistedfilms 🤔 i wonder who 😂

Lol, I the same thought.

Well, Tamron has been making a 35-150mm for about 5 years now when it released it fir DSLRs in early 2019. So either Sigma is a bit slow or has the reaction time of a sloth

@@CallMeRabbitzUSVIThese are two incomparable lenses. They have nothing in common beside being produced by the same brand and having the same range.

​@@CallMeRabbitzUSVI lens development takes time! Five years from conception to retail doesn't seem crazy, especially for a new design.

This Sigma lens don't even come close to the versatility of Tamron which is known for being good at making zooms anyway.

Would be bigger than their 70-200 2.8. It would be the coolest portrait focused lens, still bsrely wide enough for flexibility but with buttery bokeh and compeession at 135mm.

Yes! That would be the ultimate portrait lens, i will buy it no matter if it huge! Sometimes you gotta suffer for your ART!

I would settle for 35-105 if it made it smaller

Too heavy, too bulky and abnormal expensively. One glass breaks there goes lot of money :))))))

In line with tradition, Sigma should make something equally useful, like 45-65/1.8 lens next. 🤪

42-67mm aps-c

@michelecintramika8482 I mean on a full frame high resolution sensor where you can switch to apsc mode any time. On an apsc sensor alone it's a lot less interesting.

it's for people who mainly use 35mm 1.4 but wishes it was wider sometimes and narrower sometimes

Any Rumors of when the Tamron Lena will be released?

@@xenonsens Mid-2024-ish. Both Tamron and that f/2.0 Sony.

I agree. I also have the 28-70! I wish canon would release a 35-85mm f2 🤞

that's not serious. Even not 2x zoom. F1.8 vs F2 is not an argument, so sigma with this lens is quite far from the performance of canon 28-70

Yeah. Im considering getting the 24-105mm f4 just because its smaller and I tend to find 28mm to not be wide enough and 70mm not long enough. Not much point in a zoom if the focal range is so small.

Not at those focal lengths it’s not.

When you're ready, mirrorless will be here waiting. The higher end EVFs are ballin.

@@MattTrevett I have yet to use a nice nice new EVF, but I don't think it will be worth it to me. I have a couple mirrorless cameras, but it's not as fun to compose with!

There is the 18-35 f/1.8 for APSC, it’s just 13 years old

@@jmanig76 11 years

probably 45-65/1.8 next 🤪

28 Art is just a better and faster lens at half the price. Just switch between FF and crop mode.

@@frankfeng2701 Oh I do agree with that. And its also one of the best Sigma lenses ever made. Plus it has a mechanical MF.

@@frankfeng2701 Cropping loses you resolution, signal to noise ratio, and background separation over using a longer lens at the same aperture. It's most certainly not "better" as soon as you have to start cropping.

Meh, you'll miss the 46-70mm range which is quite a lot of range, but you can lower your ISO.

@jeroenvdw I shot with the 18-35 on my old 80D, so I'm familiar with the equivalent focal range. I've never found focal ranges past 50 and below 100 to be particularly compelling, so while a 24-120 is a great lens for me, a 24-70 is not. However, I love shooting between 24 and 50, and I want the low light and compositional advantages of a really bright aperture in that range. It'd be great for astrophotography.

I am pretty sure that he has tested most of those that were released in the last 10 or so years. Just type "frost [model name of lens]" in the KZfaq search bar

I don't think the Sony 24-50 2.8 can replace 3 good primes... A good F/1.4 or F/1.8 gives much better out of focus areas and you can lower your ISO a lot to get cleaner images.

@@jeroenvdw In order to minimize size and weight, I am referring to the newer series of primes with an F2.5 - 2.8 maximum aperture. The reviews suggest that the Sony 24-50 has image quality that equals or comes close to many primes, especially the newer, compact variety. So I wonder how this compares to the new Sigma 28-45, i.e. whether the Sigma is even better. A two pound Sigma zoom lens with a narrow range is inconsistent with my personal objective concerning size and weight, whereas the Sony lens serves that objective, as long as the IQ is excellent.

With 45mm you could still crop to about 70mm fov… with a 28mm prime you’d lose too much resolution by that point

You could get away with your smartphone as well, nobody would care.

You'd need a 28mm f/1.1 or so to get the same shallow depth of field as a 45mm f/1.8. The Sigma 28mm f/1.4 would get you an equivalent of 45mm f/2.2 or. So, yeah that lens is cheaper and a smidge lighter? Horses for courses I guess. This zoom seems good if you care about resolution, or are a photo & video shooter.

​@@Simoneisterf1.2 would do, like the Viltrox 27mm f1.2.

I can shoot everything one would shoot with that zoom with just one 35/1.8 prime and have a helluva better experience as well.

*24-35mm f/2

yeah, why didn't I think replacing my 20/1.8 and 24/1.4 with this one for astro 😂

After using it for a while, do you feel that it's still a lens worth buying today over primes? Is the focus accurate too?

Yeah this lens doesnt really make any sense

yeah, but you get more lbs per dollar with Sigma 😂

There's more to optical quality than just sharpness and this new Sigma lens is better than something like the Tamron 28-75 G2 in nearly every other way.

@@TechnoBabble apart from the build quality which should come with that price difference, according to actual tests of the lenses I disagree. If it wasn't a 1.8 you or any of these reviewers wouldn't even mention it. And that 1.8 seems overrated.

@@BorisZX6R according to actual tests of the lenses I can immediately say that it has less lateral and longitudinal chromatic aberration. Something that is much more important than perfect sharpness in the corners to most people. Also, what a completely asinine thing to say. Of course the f/1.8 aperture is important, that's the whole reason for the lens existing. What kind of statement is that? It's letting in over double the light of an f/2.8 soon, that's the whole reason to buy it.

@@TechnoBabble Not saying f1.8 is not important, just saying it is overrated if you have to step the lens down to get great results. If sharpness is not important to you, then that is fine. To me, I see sharpness issue coming up much more than lateral and longitudinal aberration.

@@BorisZX6R If you think this lens needs to be stopped down to get great results then there's no hope for you. It's very sharp wide open, sharper than anyone but the top fashion or product photographers in the world would need. You're nitpicking the sharpness in the far corners compared to a lens you likely already own so that you can justify your own purchase. I own a Sigma 40mm f/1.4, I can basically guarantee it's sharper wide open than any lens you own. And yet I can still see that the 28-45 is a sharp lens and can think of many use cases for it, imagine that.

Still not as serious as Tamron

The 18-35mm f/1.8 that tons of people used was equivalent to a full frame 27-52.5mm, not much of a difference.

@@TechnoBabble 18-35 can be used on full frame at 25mm using a hack. 25-52mm is quite a large range for such a fast lens. I'll personally be sticking with my 18-35 for video. This new sigma really only makes sense for photography.

@@davidpossien3061 Where are you getting 25-52? It's 25-35 on full frame, you don't just magically also get the APS-C crop equivalent.

@@TechnoBabble I'm glad you asked. Assuming you're shooting in 4k, in full frame mode, you get 25-35mm (the part of the zoom range without a vignette). In APSC mode you get 27-52mm equivalent (assuming a 1.5 crop factor). Add the two together, and you get 25-52mm. So using the full frame mode, it really only gives you an extra 2 mm of usable range...however the cool part is when using the e-stab on high on full frame mode, it gives you all the benefits of a full frame lens using the entire lens' zoom range. This of course works on the apsc mode as well, but that's not newsworthy. The newsworthy bit is that you maintain more field of view using the 18-35mm in full frame mode with e-stab. I've tried it. It works well, and it's free...since I already own it. Perhaps I should make a video to explain. Now, given what I've outlined above, and this new Sigma lens...which one do you think gives a wider field of view, assuming that is more desired?

@@davidpossien3061 well I never said anything about which one gives a wider field of view, nor did I or anyone else in this thread say anything about which is more desired. Using your same logic the new lens gives you a more telephoto field of view, so it's better if that's what's desired. Oh, and you're also making the assumption that the APS-C crop video on the camera being used is good quality or even still 4k, what about the A7S III/FX3/FX6? Also, it's free cause you already own it? Clearly your entire argument is from the point of view of someone that owns and is happy with the 18-35, nobody said you should upgrade. You're clearly just trying to defend your existing gear against... Nothing? Plenty of people don't own the 18-35 because they shoot primarily on full frame and a 24-70 f/2.8 makes more sense, so this is a cool lens for both photo and video.