Sigma Lenses

[Joachim Hoge]

Does anyone have experience with Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM?
What I like about it is apart from the range, is that it has image stabilisation.
I am also considering the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS because of the stabilisation and constant F2.8 aperture.
The Sigma is roughly half price but I am prepared to buy the Canon if it has superior optics and stabilisation?
I already have a set of Zeiss CP.2 primes but I like the idea of stabilisation for some hand held shots.
Does anyone know which lens, the Canon or Sigma would be closer to Zeiss rendering?
Thanks for your help.

I have used the 17-70 on my Epic and it works ok. It seems more steppy and jumpy when changing aperture than other lenses.
Ive had both the previous version and the latest.

The Canon is ok, but I hate that the zoom and focus ring has swapped places

got my Raven today, but only tried the 18-35

 

[Prahlad Strickland]

The Sigma ART primes are superior in every image category. Better sharpness, less chromatic aberration, and faster. The ART primes are sharper wide open than the Milvus at their slower f stop.

this adds a curveball as I was going to order a set of duclos milvus lens. Would love to see some comparisons. I understand based on what u said. They r sharper and less ca. But what about image character. Bokeh etc. the milvus r distagon lens like the old contax glass and they r have such a nice vibe to the image. carrion looked amazing too.

But u got me thinking. Would love to see some tests. A lot of times a better image to me may have technical problems but I'd still take the better image.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Just go with a set of ART primes. As still lenses with internal motors they are the best and fastest you can get. Otherwise go for Leica-Rs, they have very little breathing, but no internal motors though.

 

[Prahlad Strickland]

Just go with a set of ART primes. As still lenses with internal motors they are the best and fastest you can get. Otherwise go for Leica-Rs, they have very little breathing, but no internal motors though.

u recommend them over the milvus? both leica r and sigma art?

 

[Prahlad Strickland]

The Milvus from specs seems to have a longer focus throw, that's pretty big for follow focus.

 

[Matt Ryan]

this adds a curveball as I was going to order a set of duclos milvus lens. Would love to see some comparisons. I understand based on what u said. They r sharper and less ca. But what about image character. Bokeh etc. the milvus r distagon lens like the old contax glass and they r have such a nice vibe to the image. carrion looked amazing too.

But u got me thinking. Would love to see some tests. A lot of times a better image to me may have technical problems but I'd still take the better image.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=998&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=941&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1002&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=997&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1005&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Again, for the non 1.4 Milvus lenses, the Sigmas ART primes are sharper even at their faster 1.4 aperture. Just look at the sharpness, contrast, and chromatic aberration. Sigma just needs the 85 now...

 

[Matt Ryan]

The Milvus from specs seems to have a longer focus throw, that's pretty big for follow focus.

Actually for a single operator having a shorter throw is better (you can only turn your wrist so far). If you use a wireless focus, the range gets remapped anyways so you get the best of both worlds. Having the internal motors is great too.

 

[Richard Williams]

Does anyone have a good suggestion for a lens 18-50 mm or so that is parfocal?
Ideally I would also like image stabilisation but parfocal is more important.
I tried the Sigma 17-70 on a friends Scarlet and found it does not hold focus at all as soon as you start to zoom.
I like to be able to crash zoom in, set focus, then zoom out with confidence that the lens will be in focus.

 

[Patrick Grossien]

Does anyone have a good suggestion for a lens 18-50 mm or so that is parfocal?
Ideally I would also like image stabilisation but parfocal is more important.
I tried the Sigma 17-70 on a friends Scarlet and found it does not hold focus at all as soon as you start to zoom.
I like to be able to crash zoom in, set focus, then zoom out with confidence that the lens will be in focus.

The Sigma 18-35 rehouse from GL Optics should be parfocal. Don't know about their QC though. They used to have issues where you would need to have it collimated after arrival. Could be gone now, been a while.

 

[Michael Lindsay]

http://pstechnik.de

I would trust these guys to deliver... Only played with the conversion ...it was lovely.

M

Does anyone have a good suggestion for a lens 18-50 mm or so that is parfocal?
Ideally I would also like image stabilisation but parfocal is more important.
I tried the Sigma 17-70 on a friends Scarlet and found it does not hold focus at all as soon as you start to zoom.
I like to be able to crash zoom in, set focus, then zoom out with confidence that the lens will be in focus.

 

[Richard Williams]

http://pstechnik.de

I would trust these guys to deliver... Only played with the conversion ...it was lovely.

M

Thanks for putting me onto P&S Technik, I like how you can change the mounts PL to EF. I little pricey for me at the moment $8000 Au but I would be interested if anyone who has a Sigma 18-35 1.8 EF if it is parfocal out of the box?
I tested a few of my friends Canon lenses yesterday
EF 16-35 f4 L IS is pretty good as far being par focal
EF 17-40 F 4 L not so good - goes out mid range
EF 24-70 2.8 Mark 11 Not tue par focal, goes slightly out focus middle of the range but certainly better than some zooms
Nikon 24-70 f2.8 with EF Novaflex adaptor. Not Parfocal, goes out middle of the zoom range
EF 70-200 F4 L Not par focal, maybe the 2.8 version would be better?

 

[jordan levy]

i wonder what that 35-70mm anamorphic lens started as, wow!

 

[Clayton Arnall]

now the new 50-100mm is a total fail in my opinion, i returned after testing it for an hour, it literally looks like it zooms while focusing.
im still looking for a replacement.

Dissapointing to hear about the 50-100. I still wonder if it has a place though. Like in interviews where you're not pulling focus during the shot. To be able to pop in really quick for an intimate moment would be really useful sometimes. I do that a lot with the 18-35, but otherwise I only have primes in the medium to telephoto range, and I miss being able to zoom. That being said, here's another test video I saw, I don't think anybody's posted it in this thread yet, but he's panning while focusing and the breathing is much less noticeable I'd say?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV1iZDsjYBQ

 

[jordan levy]

a few people that do interviews do say its useful, especially being parfocal. though i would probably use a more full range zoom if i did that a lot for a living, not much in this price range though.

 

[Richard Williams]

I tested a Sigma 18-30 f1.8 and unfortunately found the version that I tested in store was not parfocal.
I was returning a Sigma 17-70 that I had brought but was not even close to being parfocal, so was hoping to make an exchange.
The store had a 2nd hand Canon 16-35 f2.8 that seemed to be pretty good as parfocal so I went with that.
I figured f2.8 is plenty fast enough for a wide and it has the advantage of being full frame so can go on my stills camera as well.