There are 2203 words in this article.

Post navigation

I present to your attention an article on choosing an inexpensive wide-angle zoom lens, which our colleague in arms, Alexander Minin, suffered and wrote.

Justification of the article

Hello dear blog readers! My name is Alexander Minin, I am an ordinary amateur photographer who has just mastered the basics of technology, but has not yet achieved noticeable creative success. Let me bring to your attention a non-professional lens review for a cropped DSLR, atypical for this resource Canon.

Is amateurish reasoning appropriate in a professional photoblog? I'm sure yes! Over time, a successful professional photographer finds his specialization and selects a fleet of high-end equipment for it, inevitably moving away from the typical problems of an amateur beginner who has just picked up a DSLR and frantically chooses “the best lens”. Moreover, reading a high-quality technical review of the “best lens” will not solve, but rather exacerbate the problem: three years ago, having found out why there was a mirror in the “reflex camera”, I also closely examined the resolution graphs, thought about the value, calculated the pixel density - but instead of a clear picture my fragile head was filled with some kind of indistinct techno mess, only making it difficult to choose the right equipment. Lack of experience does not allow a beginner to correlate technical characteristics with the final quality of a photograph. And this is normal - it is no coincidence that one of the first comments on the clear and logical article by A. Shapoval (radojuva com.ua) “Choosing an amateur camera Nikon and a lens to it” called out: “I broke my whole head, please advise what to buy ...”. The reaction of the blog owner, who has been forced to answer the same questions for several years, speaks of extraordinary endurance and psychological stability.

Reading less literate, but emotional and peremptory “comments” on the Internet can completely powder your brains: people who bought a “DSLR” for the first time share their enthusiasm after the first day of use, fans foam at the mouth defend their systemic choice, multi-enlightened photo gurus relaxedly advise buying fixes L-series (preferably five at once, and several L-zooms).
Sellers of large chain stores are often distinguished by technical illiteracy and a lack of interest in the displayed goods, their secret answers are worthy of being included in the annals of photo humor: these are the search for parallax in “mirrorless” cameras (apparently, in the list of options), advice on choosing a “more wide-angle fifty dollars” (in Canon 50/1.4 USM viewing angle is much wider than Canon 50/1.8 II) etc.

Skilled photo shop salesmen can quickly assess the buyer and, if he is unsure, turn technical knowledge to the benefit of the commercial interest. I personally observed how a competent seller in "Photosklad" in response to the standard question of a timid but wealthy amateur "what lens would you recommend for shooting portraits, landscapes and everything else" dictated (in the literal sense - the buyer carefully wrote down) a list of the necessary top fixes on system Nikon from wide angle to portrait and macro. It’s strange that he didn’t recommend a couple more top-end flashes ... From the point of view of photographic equipment, the seller was right, only the buyer himself did not know what he needed.

The purpose of this review is not a specific recommendation (there is no answer to the question of “the best lens for portraits and landscapes”), but the formation of a line of reasoning that will allow you to make the right choice, taking into account the needs of a novice amateur photographer. Therefore, the text will contain a lot of psychological digressions and generalizations about photographic equipment in general (however, beginners need more not technical, but psychological support), to test the technical parameters, I handed over the lens I bought as a result to D. Evtifeev, so at the end there will be numbers and professional comments. The photos for the review are not test ones - I processed them to my liking and posted them to illustrate not so much the capabilities of the lens as some of my reasoning.

The beginning of the way

Reasoning about choosing a quality staffer for an amateur crop camera implies some kind of background. Although DSLRs Nikon attractive with a “graphic” letter N and a more solid execution, I made my “system choice” in favor of Canon: better combined with still vague thoughts about the old manual optics, which, after reading the relevant resources, I really wanted to try, and most importantly, the interface and ergonomics of amateur DSLRs Canon I personally found it more thoughtful and convenient (a simple and clear menu, one-click access to the main parameters using the buttons; Nikon a beautiful animated menu makes it somewhat difficult to use, it is you who need to turn to it more to configure the basic parameters). Despite the empty pixel count, I did not find any technical differences between the systems that affect the quality of photos (the same technologies within the same cost), Canon just seemed more comfortable. Of course, in order to make an informed choice, it is necessary to console the inflamed consciousness with work - whispering with aspiration the words “correct skintone” and “wide dynamic range”, you need to carefully recalculate all effective pixels, their area and volume, not forgetting the color bit depth and - and then, throwing the paper covered with formulas and numbers into the garbage chute, go and buy the camera that seems more convenient for you, optics and accessories will be more accessible, the service center is closer. You can turn the camera in your hands in the store, to get acquainted with the features of the interface, I recommend reviews on the onfoto.ru resource. I bought Canon 600D complete with whale Canon EF-S 18-55 / 3.5 - 5.6 IS II and fix Canon EF 50/1.8 II. On the background 650D The “old model” came at a big discount, yielding more in video capabilities (for photos, only a different autofocus module and processor). After some time, it was the whale zoom that became a candidate for replacing the “good staffer”.

Sort into shelves

To evaluate the properties of a whale lens, it is necessary to make a small digression about marketing. Despite thoughtful reasoning about the mission and cult of the kaizen representatives Canon, Nikon, Sony, Sigma, Fuji and other predominantly Japanese firms founded by selfless photo samurai, it should be remembered that the mission of all manufacturers is to obtain the maximum possible profit. This goal is financially opposed to the desire of consumers to get a fusion of quality and innovation for a reasonable price. Since the manufacturer can squeeze the maximum profit in the tempting segment of the "mass premium" - the magical photo kingdom of magic letters and multi-colored rings, then the marketing policy pushes the buyer to the right choice. To do this, the budget line will always contain technical, constructive, ergonomic and other shortcomings that the manufacturer, who knows perfectly well how to make an excellent lens or camera, will specifically preserve for many years. An example is the Canon or Nikon fifty-kopeck line. Moreover, the free movement of capital, especially speculative capital, during the corporatization of large corporations, forces producers to compete in savings - today, obtaining less profit threatens to ruin due to the flight of capital to a competitor. No one will give us too much quality.
However, the budget kit zoom has a special function - it serves as a pass to the world of the selected system, full of more expensive optics. On the one hand, it should not scare away, on the other hand, the user must be led to a more expensive segment. In this regard, the whale Canon- masterfully calculated lens ( Nikon at first he overdid it and, with an eye on the competitor, was forced to remove the expensive low dispersion lens). Let's look at the optical design and graphs of the MTF from the site lens-club.ru:

11 elements in 9 groups, including 1 hybrid element (glass-based plastic), an optical stabilizer unit with the declared 4 stops of exposure compensation (actually closer to two) - everything is quite modern and no worse than the others. Modern whale from Canon — Canon EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS STM made according to a more complex scheme - 13 elements in 11 groups with 1 hybrid aspherical.
MTF charts also look pretty decent for this segment:

On covered apertures, everything is fine, on open ones (even F 5.6) blurring of the edges of the frame and average sharpness in the center are declared.
What's the catch? Why do many already, when buying their first DSLR, talk about the upcoming replacement of the whale? And why did I myself come to a similar idea after 2 years?

Constructive

Moderately flimsy plastic construct that does not promise longevity. But no one is counting on a whale for decades of intensive use, a plastic mount on a light (only 205 g) lens cannot be accidentally broken. There were no noticeable backlashes on my copy, although when the zoom was rotated, the movement of plastic on plastic certainly spoiled the “tactile sensations”. But I am not a fan of touching lenses sweetly, so the design of the whale did not cause irritation. The zoom ring is wide and rubberized, while the thin focus ring is for occasional use by dainty fingers. Its rotation during autofocus somewhat changes the algorithm for using the polarizer - you must first focus, then rotate the polarizer.

autofocus

He worked confidently, quickly enough and with a toy buzz, which neither shocked me nor frightened those around him. The set I bought was adjusted in the official service under warranty (the fifty dollars had a slight back focus, but just in case I took everything). There were no complaints about accuracy (at first there were errors of the “focuser”, but then I adapted).

sharpness

SHARPNESS - as the main measure of optical quality. In fact, the optical quality of the lens is more multifaceted: this is detail, and contrast, and, and pattern. As far as detailing, I had no particular complaints.

On a covered aperture (F10), the whale is quite suitable for landscapes.

Shooting flowers on F5.6, you can even get some ...
However, even at 55 mm and F 5.6, it will not work to separate the main object from nearby secondary ones:

But let's look at a city photograph taken in the usual gray weather around the Baltic Sea:

There is detail, but what happened to the color? And the tiles on the roof of the town hall turned into mush. There is a drop in contrast, which is a consequence of the shortcomings of the optical design with the absence of low dispersion elements (not by chance, and 3.5. - 5.6), and most importantly - the budget option of enlightenment. Canon not Zeiss, which is for the entire line Zeiss Conta x dealt a quality T*-. Although the release states super spectrum, but it is obvious that different coating options are intended for budget optics and the L-series. The whale is picky about light and editors will not be able to correct the situation: noise will come out and the color will acquire an unnatural hue, while the overall gray coating on the photo will remain.

On a fast fix, even with budgetary enlightenment, things are better:

I really enjoyed shooting in old Tallinn on Canon EF50/1.8II, but the EGF 80 mm on the crop created certain difficulties.
Try Canon EF 40/2.8 STM showed that Canon hard as a rock and there will be no high-quality enlightenment on budget optics. And then I came across this wonderful site...

As a regular fix, I bought c/y.

Zeiss is true to the ideas of minimalism, precise calculation and good glass - only 6 elements in 6 groups - a simple and bright scheme. And branded T*- enlightenment.

MTF charts:

An average resolution by modern standards is declared in the center with blurring of the edges - but mostly outside the cropped matrix. According to the schedule, the 30-year budget fix is ​​somewhat superior to the modern whale. In reality, they simply cannot be compared.

Despite the traditionally gray sky, the sharpness and all the colors are in place. Good micro-contrast provides smooth tonal transitions, which increases the illusion of volume.

And for comparison, locks again (F. 2.8):

Zeiss wants to shoot wide open. If with a whale I tried to cover the entire object, then with Distagon 35/2.8 I often choose fragments on the contrary:

But a regular fixed with 56 mm EGF is not convenient for all tasks: cityscapes, portraits, portraits against the backdrop of a landscape turn out great, but for travel I would like more versatility - you need a universal standard zoom, because after Zeiss the whale no longer delivered former joy.
What to choose? The correctness of the choice is determined by correctly formulated criteria, and the use of a whale zoom with universal focal lengths (EGF 29-88 mm; even on lenses for crop, the true value is always indicated and the equivalent must be recalculated in accordance with the crop factor), and fast fixes made it possible to accumulate some experience.

As already mentioned, the main complaint about the whale was poor contrast and sluggish color reproduction - you need to look for a lens with well-corrected aberrations and high-quality enlightenment. Travel zoom Canon EF-S 18-135 / 3.5 – 5.6 IS STM dropped due to enlightenment. In difficult conditions, the picture will be covered with a gray veil. The owners of crop cameras, dreaming of a real full frame, often buy "for future use" universal L-series zooms (the most popular is Canon EF 24-105 /4L IS USM). But since I am not planning a full-frame transition in the coming years (I am convinced that the capabilities of technology should be correlated with the capabilities of the user), it was necessary to clearly define the scenes and focal lengths.

With plots, everything is simple - probably everyone likes to take pictures of their loved ones against the background of various sights, flowers, lanterns, signs, etc. when traveling. (desirable aperture), beautiful landscapes, including urban ones (sharpness and contrast). Since all this can be shot at any focal length from 15 to 300 mm, I decided to analyze my photo album for the most popular focal lengths. The result is the following picture: about half of the photographs were taken in the range of 18-21 mm (EGF 29-33 mm), in second place - 30-35 mm (EGF 48-56 mm), in the third - 50mm (EGF 80 mm), then - 8 mm (EGF 13 mm; Samyang 8 / 3.5 fisheye) and very little - 135 mm (EGF 216 mm; Jupiter 37A 135 / 3.5). It turned out that I didn’t need a spread of 18-135 mm. Having decided on the focal ones, I found it extremely inconvenient to buy promising electrics of the 24-105 or 24-70 class.

As a result, the choice was reduced to three options: surprisingly fast aperture Sigma 18-35/1.8, landscape Canon EF 16-35/4L IS USM and the updated Canon EF 16-35 / 2.8 L USM announced by the fall of 2016. Since F2.8 is not enough on the crop in difficult conditions, I didn’t want to wait six months, I went to test Sigma and Canon EF 16-35/4L IS USM. Viewing the results on a home computer showed that both candidates are quite worthy for the role of a staff lens (focal points, sharpness, contrast, color reproduction that are convenient for me), but a significant difference in aperture ratio emphasized the initially different purpose of these lenses. Canon EF 16-35/4L IS USM designed as a landscape wide-angle zoom for a full frame and on a crop it acts as a high-quality, but not interesting staff member. When I go to full frame and whether I need a wide-angle zoom is a big question.
Sigma 18-35/1.8 designed for crop and it frankly pleased - also sharpness, contrast and color, plus the ability to blur the background and shoot at low ISO. The portrait of the seller at 35 mm and the maximum open aperture on the elk turned out at ISO 800, at Sigma- ISO 150. Interestingly, during testing, I missed the Elka's autofocus. In the end, I decided that for me personally, two stops of aperture will bring more pleasure than two millimeters of focal length. So in my hands was a white and black box with (Canon EOS).

S-series

As always, let's look at the diagram:

17 elements in 12 groups, including 4 cast aspherical lenses and 5 low dispersion lenses - a complex, expensive modern scheme. Obviously, the designers wanted to correct all possible aberrations as much as possible in order to ensure that aperture 1.8 would work at 2x zoom. On the other hand, the abundance of optical elements reduces the effective aperture, and the correction of aberrations affects the picture.

ITF charts confirm the high claims of modern Sigma:

Excellent sharpness is declared in the center with some reduction towards the edge of the frame (and this is at F1.8!), On a covered aperture - everything is just fine. Considering that Sigma, according to the most Sigma, only slightly inferior to the electric version Super Spectra, then from the point of view of optical characteristics - Sigma 18-35/1.8 Art- great choice.

But it's time to move from graphs to practice, especially since there is no technique without flaws. On the contact page vk.com/sigma_russia not only laudatory reviews are posted, but when choosing a lens from a third-party manufacturer, I was tormented by vague doubts ...

1. Appearance, weight and design immediately give a feeling of quality, and when you see a shiny letter A, you understand that the premium itself asks for a hand.

Seriously, everything is done very carefully: internal focusing and zooming, even the rear element moves only a few millimeters (remember Sigma 17-50/2.8 with protruding microcircuits); comfortable wide rubberized rings with a very smooth "weighty" move; seems to be metal power elements (remember Sigma 24-70/2.8 with a metal bayonet bolted to a plastic base) - obviously Sigma has learned from the past. Whether the application for an external quality factor promises greater reliability - time will tell, Sigma should have saved somewhere. I do not count on the mechanical quality of the elek, although I hope for a long service life of this lens. There is no dust and moisture protection, but no one promised it. The distance window is available, but it is not convenient to use it, it would be better to mark it on the case. The package bundle is rich - in addition to the covers there is a lens hood, unfortunately, according to modern fashion with a bayonet mount - after Zeiss Contax it is inconvenient to use a polarizer: with the old Zeiss, you can twist the hood screwed into the filter, with Sigma, you must carefully operate with your fingers inside the hood. The kit includes a solid case, but for a staff member who usually lives on the camera, this is not relevant - it is stored in a Sigma case Jupiter 37A.

2. Premium letter BUT many users Sigma associated not with premium and not with art. Autofocus is the most popular and ominous word on the sigmoid forums. After reading the relevant comments about the operation of lenses Sigma on different cameras, I made the following, purely subjective conclusions:

a) electromechanics is not the strongest side Sigma(buggy even on native cameras), it is she who does not let this manufacturer into the tasty mass premium segment.

b) savings on materials (annular ultrasonic autofocus motor) and design (a very economically made stabilizer block that experiences alternating shock loads) lead to the degradation of mechanisms.

c) compatibility issues with cameras of different systems and generations, making customization difficult. I am not a conspiracy theorist, because Sigma without that there are enough problems: Canon and Nikon different algorithms for communicating between the camera and the lens, the processor, software, autofocus module change in each generation - Sigma does not have time to adjust its optics to the evolution of other people's cameras. Autofocus problems can also be on Canon and on Nikon(standard remark by A. Shapoval when reviewing any lens Sigma- autofocus errors are caused by the peculiarities of the operation of a particular lens on the system Nikon), the most critical was the transition Canon per processor Digital V and a hybrid autofocus system (most comments on working with cameras Canon 5D Mark III and Canon 70D). The seller in the "Photosklad" admitted that he could not set up Sigma 18-35/1.8 Art on his Canon 760D. In testing, both available specimens were prone to misbehavior, I chose the one that showed stable and small front focus at only 18mm (the second instance focused quite arbitrarily at different distances and focal lengths). Official service Sigma in our vast country there are only in Moscow and Yekaterinburg. A docking station was also purchased for the lens - I sincerely and standing applaud marketers Sigma for the desire to shift some of the company's problems onto the shoulders of the consumer for very little money - well, who among us does not want to play lens adjuster? In addition, the presence of a docking station should affect loyalty to Sigma in the future - good will not disappear. In any case, you should check the autofocus on your camera at different distances. A particularly critical case is unsystematic autofocus errors, constancy gives a chance for correction. Maybe Sigma should have continued negotiations with Canon, if not on a takeover, then at least on an association, like Tamron With Nikon? (although probably Tamron With Nikon reconciled through Sony which controls both firms).

3. Sigma Optimization Pro- a special program that must be downloaded from the official website Sigma(weird it's free) for home lens setup. The games with the docking station took me two evenings, and the applause could well turn into very motivated aggression. Outwardly, everything is simple: we take a tripod, a tape measure, a camera, a lens, a docking station and a computer, as a target we used a bottle of deodorant (small letters) at short distances and a box from the lens at long distances. At Sigma 18-35/1.8 Art You can set 16 autofocus settings (4 focal lengths at 4 distances). I went from, driving 4 focal lengths at the same distance. Everything was simple on the MDF (I drove it, looked with magnification on the camera screen, removed the lens and connected it to the docking station, corrected it, recorded it, put the lens on, drove it, looked, understood which way to correct ... and so on until an acceptable result is achieved ). It's tedious, but you can live. Problems started around 2 meters. Firstly, I'm tired, secondly, autofocus Sigma inclined to make mistakes at the first opportunity, it was necessary to align the target box so that at all focal points the central point fell on a contrasting black strip, thirdly, it was at this difficult distance that the adjustment at one focal length knocked down the parameters at the other (in the range of 18 - 28; at 35 mm focus behaved decently), and fourthly, at 18 mm it was very difficult to catch corrective changes. In general, the "professional optimization" was clearly delayed, all participants in the process needed rest. It was not until the next day that I finally adjusted the wide angle (requires patience and small steps when adjusting). Then I checked everything again. With a sense of accomplishment, the now-hated docking station was put away in the box until some next update. In general, after all the manipulations, there are no complaints about autofocus - it works accurately, quickly, after the whale it struck with noiselessness (at the first focusing in the store, I didn’t even understand whether it was focused or not, without hearing the usual whack, then I got used to it and began to distinguish a barely perceptible rumble). Of course, I focus carefully and accurately on open apertures, which is facilitated by the JVI Tenpa 1 * 1.36 magnifier, experience with Canon EF 50/1.8 II and with manual optics. I consider the lack of a stabilizer in the Sigma version as the absence of a potential problem.
I'm happy with my choice Sigma 18-35/1.8 Art occupied the niche of a regular travel zoom that was defined for her, remained in the role of a light staffer for walking in parks and in the urban landscape. But the space for autofocus fifty dollars has sharply narrowed Canon EF 50/1.8 II. Traveling Sigma usually dressed for the camera, and with the addition Samyang 8/3.5 fisheye and Jupiter 37A 135/3.5, allows you to feel confident in any situation. Compared to the whale, the approach to choosing standard apertures has changed somewhat.
On covered (F 7.1) you can shoot bright colorful landscapes, which is facilitated by sharpness, contrast, vivid color reproduction and a polarizer B+W:

Color and contrast are preserved at a wider aperture (F3.5) even without a polarizer:

If you cover the aperture to F9 - 11 - its nine petals turn the sun into an elegant 18-petal star (you can close it as much as possible to F16, you don’t need more on a modern crop):

As you can see, there is a green highlight, but unlike the whale, the feeling is rather pleasant - the frame is covered not with gray, but with a yellow-green “sunny” veil, which creates the effect of filling with light.
The absence of a stabilizer finally prompted me to take the right step and take a tripod with me on a trip - a miniature Manfrotto MT-PIXI Mini(of course, I have a large tripod, but the accessory that was at hand at the right time is valuable). Despite its small size, it, mounted on the parapet, withstood the camera with heavy Sigma 18-35/1.8 Art, giving the first experience of night photography while traveling:

On open apertures (it is unusual to open the aperture at zoom up to F 1.8, and cover it up to F 5.6), you can get a smooth blur (F1.8):

As you can see, the circles are neat (F2):

Aperture again encourages looking for fragments, which brings a pleasant variety to the standard series of travel photos, for example, examining the ruins of another Byzantine fortress (F 2.8):

Or, just in the local souvenir shop F2):

I do not undertake to describe the blur in technical terms, for the zoom Sigma it is very good, but with bokeh Carl Zeiss Distagon 35/2.8 c/y but my view is prettier (F2.8):

Can the lens be considered Sigma 18-35/1.8 Art the best fast standard crop zoom? Undoubtedly, he is close to it. If you achieve compatibility with your camera. It's interesting that Sigma(due to autofocus, small focal range and large aperture) changes the approach to photography. I see it as a kind of link in the movement from zooms to fixes.
Is it justified to decorate the case Sigma 18-35/1.8 Art letter BUT? I think that Art hiding in the head of the photographer. Sigma gives more interesting opportunities to discover which you should learn. In general, users of crop DSLRs received a kind of analogue of full-frame fast zooms (in the equivalent of 29-56 / 2.8 - the size of the matrix, of course, does not change the lens aperture, but in order to get a picture comparable to a full frame, we need to increase the distance, and hence). To get away from associations with autofocus, I would decorate the lens with the letter S - since its main purpose is to be a regular zoom, and the main outstanding characteristic is sharpness as a combination of detail and contrast.
In what cases should you look at Sigma 18-35/1.8 Art? For professional use in commercial reporting, you should rather pay attention to native autofocus optics, because for reporting, the main thing is convenience and reliability in work. For amateur use - an excellent choice. But you should not buy the first camera immediately bundled with Sigma 18-35/1.8 Art. It is most rational to take the first camera with a whale 18-55/3.5-5.6 . The kit will allow you to get the first experience, to understand whether photography fascinates you (if not, then you will have a super soap dish in your hands), to decide on your preferences in focal lengths. Maybe a travel lens that is convenient for you is a superzoom or vice versa a couple of fixes. If your range is 10mm, 50mm, or a constant spread of 18-135mm, then this Sigma will be a painful purchase. It is most convenient to try aperture ratio with a simple fifty dollars, for example Canon EF 50/1.8 STM- You will gain skills in focusing on an open aperture, you will understand whether you need high-aperture optics at all. Then, after a year or two of using a DSLR, look at your photos, determine what you lacked to make this frame more interesting. Maybe you will come to Sigma 18-35/1.8 Art.

The main thing is that all your lenses are involved, and working with them is a pleasure. My set of lenses is complete. There is one optional Wishlist left, but this is for D. Evtifeev (T*).
As a parting word to beginners - do not be afraid of anything. Think, photograph, master the technique, try to shoot beautifully. On my own I will say that the complexity of the technical side of the issue is greatly exaggerated. Even I rarely make glaring technical errors, the main drawback of my photographs is errors in composition, lighting, etc. The creative part is much more difficult, but it is there that we will succeed. Good luck, thanks for your attention.

Blog author's comments, tests

Today I am in the role of supplementing the review, so I will allow myself a little “gag”. I hope it won't be boring :)

Alexander kindly agreed to visit my studio and provide a lens for testing. We also walked down the street a little to take a couple of test shots and at that moment lightning suddenly struck the neighboring building! From us only 25-30m! (in the photo it’s just this building shot on the “fisheye”, I shot it a second earlier, before the lightning strike)

So testing lenses can also be a dangerous thing :)

To be honest, I am skeptical about fast zoom lenses. I have already done many tests and at an open aperture they are usually disappointing. But, this zoom lens attracts with its aperture. In the end, plus or minus 20-30% resolution is not so important if you can take a clear picture where others simply cannot.

In order not to be prejudiced, I made up my mind only on tests and did not read other reviews in advance (and now I read it and was even surprised how this lens is praised).

What do we have? First, it surprises completely working 1.8. It's unusual. I was waiting for a complete "soap", and here it is quite a working resolution.

I am attaching pictures of the photoworld so that you can judge the resolution for yourself. For me, a review without specifics is not a review or a test at all. You can draw any table in Excel and call it a test. Therefore, by laying out the test materials, we (testing the lens) check ourselves once again and give others the opportunity to check our tests. NONE of the reviews I have seen on this lens (very well-known and respected sites: dpreview, photozone, lenstips) contain crops of the photoworld, but only numbers! Think about it! Once again, numbers without a testing methodology say NOTHING about the lens. Close and forget until the moment of laying out a comparison with another lens or crops of the photo world.
It was enough for me to “stab” like that once, believing the results on photozone, and I never do this again. Each test must be confirmed by real comparison pictures or snapshots of the photo world. This is the scientific approach. At least something close to it...

Many of you, dear readers, studied at the institute and there they require you to put links at the end of your coursework or diploma - sources to literature. In this case, their role is played by additional materials for the test. Otherwise, you get articles that flood the Internet ... Today: "British scientists have found that coffee is unhealthy!". Tomorrow: "British scientists have found that coffee is very good for health!". You show these scientists! Give them a link and I'll see for myself what they installed, when and on the basis of what ... But no!

It was all a "painful digression" from the topic, "boiled".

So, I used a large photo world.

It always hangs on my wall in the studio. I illuminated it with white light from a studio flash connected to a Broncolor generator, which allows you to control the color temperature of the light that the flash lamp produces.

Not everyone knows, but tests should only be done in white light, as the company previously wrote. Carl Zeiss in each of its leaflets with graphs, which was attached to the lens.

Our light is pulsed, the flash “freezes” the object, so shutter speed is not very important. I always have 1/125sec.
Focus by live view to the center of the target by 10x. The main graphic elements for testing are concentrated there.

Test Sigma AF 18-35/1.8 DC HSM Art

35 mm

To begin with, we set the camera at a distance of 50 focal lenses, taking into account the crop factor, so that the image scale was correct and the thickness of the lines corresponded to the legend of the photo world. Those. 2.5 m

Aperture 1.8

No compression, no sharpin, no noise reduction.

Aperture 2.8

As you can see, at 2.8 the resolution of both lenses is the same. The lines at the letter D are readable, but C is no longer readable (C is 56 lp / mm).

Those. one side Sigma AF 18-35/1.8 DC HSM Art behaves remarkably at an open aperture, but does not show miracles in resolution, it is at the level of a 50 mm fixed lens ten years ago.
The crop scale is different here. the cameras are different (600D for Sigma - Alexander's camera and Canon 5DsR I have a Canon 50 / 2.5 lens), but, as you can see, put any camera, but you can’t pull it out from Canon 50 / 2.5 anymore.

Aperture 4

Surprisingly, the situation on F4 has not improved. The picture may have improved at the edges of the frame, but we are only looking at the center and it looks like both lenses have reached their resolution limit of 40 lp/mm.

Aperture 5.6

Here Canon got better and I counted 15 stripes with the letter C. And with Sigma everything is exactly the same as it was.
You can try to count - maybe you can do better. Do not forget to only zoom in on the monitor screen, otherwise you can “break your eyes”.

Resolution Test Conclusions

The lens has surprisingly high resolution at full aperture, but its maximum resolution is not very high today (40 lp/mm).

Conclusions on the lens as a whole

Good design, but without emphasis on high quality. Very fast and silent autofocus (liked). I really liked the ability to fully work at aperture 1.8. This is its main advantage!

If you also want to watch my videos, then subscribe to my channel
, you can see what I'm working on at the moment

Use period: 5 days

Strengths:

1) High sharpness with open.

2) Aperture 1.8!

3) Excellent build.

4) Nice view.

5) Lack of HA and strong distortions.

6) Kit.

Weak sides:

Except for autofocus, there is nothing to complain about. Is that the lack of dust and moisture protection.

Comment:

This Sigma has been stirring my heart for more than a year. Two years ago, before the crisis, an announcement about such a sigma for canon popped up, but I thought too long. I was embarrassed by the small spread of focal lengths and the heavy weight. Two years later, he acquired many glasses and carcasses, and again in December this sigma came out (though under Nikon). I decided that it was fate and it would be unreasonable to miss it a second time, so I bought it. Now let's go through the pros and cons.

The sharpness at the open aperture was very surprising. I have already read a lot of reviews and reviews on this sigma, but I was sure that it was far from fixes. Nevertheless, the MTF graphics, reviews and recommendations are confirmed - the sigma is very sharp right from the open across the entire field of the frame. At 35mm, it is comparable in sharpness to Nikon 35 1.8dx, even better in the corners.

Aperture 1.8 at zoom is a dream of many photographers. And then sigma rolled out this lens for adequate money. And with sharpness from the open. It's a miracle! In fact, we get the equivalent of a zoom from 2.8 to ff. At the same time, an extremely sharp equivalent. At one time I had 24-70 2.8l2 and now I have 24-70 2.8l, and so the sigma lens of the first version (set to ff) is noticeably ahead in sharpness, and almost comparable to the second version. And despite the fact that even the first used version costs like a new sigma!

The collection is superb. Metal, glass and special plastic. Everything is very strong. The zoom and focus rings rotate extremely pleasantly, for me it’s even better than most electric ones. Nothing hangs anywhere, there is no trunk, everything is done with the highest quality.

Nice view. Sigma does not attract too much attention and without a lens hood it is very similar from a distance for most to 18-135 or 18-105, that is, it does not look too cool from afar. This is nice both in terms of harassing the photographer, and in terms of visibility for thieves.

Returning to the image, I note the absence of ha on all focal lengths with an open one. They exist, but they are vanishingly few. The distortion inherent in wide-angle lenses is almost completely absent as well. All minor flaws are easily corrected on the computer.

I always set the sigma kit as an example for other brands. Hard on the outside and soft on the inside, the case and lens hood are a big plus for the purchase. I also got an excellent rodenstock filter from a used one. The same sigma 150-500, in addition to the above, due to its size and weight, also had a tripod foot. Why canon with its 70-200 4l does not give us the same, I don’t know. Why the lens hood does not work with 10-18is is also a mystery.

Now for the cons:

Autofocus. As expected, as they wrote in the reviews, this is the main jamb of the lens. The d5200 has front focus on all focal lengths. It's a shame that this problem didn't work for me. On d70s, the focus hits the target. There is still a check on the d5100, d80, d200, fuje s5pro and d7000. But most likely there will be problems there. And the docking station will not help me - it will be too tiring to set up a new camera every time, except to write down the values ​​\u200b\u200bfor each and make corrections before shooting (but this is too dreary). It’s a pity that Sigma made an excellent optical lens, sells it cheaply, makes a good kit, but hasn’t come up with a way to get rid of autofocus problems. It is clear that Nikon and Canon do not disclose focusing algorithms, and jambs with this lens can happen in every new camera (Canon 70d and 7dm2 mess up, probably 80d), but it’s still a pity. The autofocus speed is quite acceptable, but again after 70-200 2.8lis2 it is noticeably lower.

The lens does not have dust and moisture protection. For me personally, this is a problem. I like to shoot a reportage and you don’t know what the weather will be like there. I understand that the same 70-200 4l also has no protection, moreover, it is also expensive and seems like an Elka. But at the same time, the inexpensive 17-40 4l has protection, Nikon's 70-300vr and 16-85vr also have. And then they got stingy.

If sigma made 18-35 1.8 protected and with perfect autofocus, I think few would overpay an extra 200-300 bucks for this innovation, but I would strangle the toad :)

Also, before the purchase, I saw three aspects as minuses:

Small range of focal lengths. Trying to set focal lengths from 18mm to 35mm at 18-55, it seemed that these same 35-55mm were not enough for complete happiness. But only a little like 18-35, it turned out that these are quite convenient focal lengths. And there is no feeling that you are working with a fix - adjusting the frame with a zoom movement is still just as simple as with other zooms. Let the scale and not super, but quite good. At one time, using 17-40 4l on the crop, I had enough range, but here it’s about the same, only with aperture ratio of 1.8.

Weight two years ago seemed too big to me. 800-odd grams was too much. At that time, the heaviest lens I had was Nikon 70-300 vr, which is lighter than this sigma, but still seemed huge. Two years later, after working with 24-70 2.8l, 70-200 2.8lis2, sigma 150-500os, as well as a number of heavy manual glasses, I realized that the weight of the sigma is quite adequate. Moreover, with carcasses like d200 or fuja s5pro, working with light lenses is not even as convenient as with heavier ones. And the sigma is quite comfortable on them. With small carcasses like d5200, the bunch nods, but again it’s convenient to shoot. It is even more convenient than on the Canon D650 with 24-70 2.8l or even 24-105 4l - the dimensions of the sigma seem much more modest.

No stub. I still regret it, but I understand that the price would have increased greatly. And in general, 18mm with f3.5 (on a whale) and a stub are approximately equal to 18mm with f1.8 and without a stub in shutter speed. So you can live.

Let's get back to the positives. A separate pleasant moment of sigma 18-35 1.8 is the possibility of working on ff. At the moment I do not have ff nikon, but I have ff canon. I put on this sigma through an adapter and get 28-35 1.8 on ff, which is just awesome! Of course, a small vignette remains, but it is quite possible to fix it (you can’t fix it on shorter focal lengths). In fact, it turns out a replacement for 24-35 2.0 from sigma, which is noticeably more expensive. Albeit with a loss at a short angle, but with a gain in money, and most importantly, in aperture ratio (1.8 versus 2, although not significant, but very nice).

I also note the artistic value of glass. Aperture wide is a very interesting combination. Covering a large angle of view, you can blur the background, which looks extremely unusual. Shooting a group portrait with background blur at 18mm is worth a lot. The difference between whale 18mm with 3.5 and these 18mm with 1.8 is very noticeable. In addition, with a small MDF lens, you can blur the background into a mess, like on some 50 1.4. I can't wait for the New Year holidays to experiment with this glass - garlands, tinsel and all kinds of decorations taken from bokeh at a wide angle will be very original.

In conclusion, I will say that this lens casts doubt on the need for anything else in this range of focal lengths on a cropped camera. Nikon 35 1.8dx or Canon 24 2.8stm are now only interesting in size, expensive 28 and 24mm fixes become unnecessary. Amazing sharpness makes you forget even about longer zooms. Autofocus remains the only noticeable problem, but this problem can be solved with the help of a docking station if you have only one carcass, or you plan to use the lens on only one.

Thank you all for your attention, good shots.

good picture, sharpness, detail, pleasant blur

Minuses

lack of a stabilizer, slow autofocus (subjectively), misses in the dark

Review

At first glance, the zoom seemed short. After analyzing my photos, I realized that it would be a good replacement for a whale lens. The analysis showed 70% shot within the focal lengths of this lens, 25% shot at 50mm, only 5% from 50mm to 135mm. When testing in the store, I felt heaviness, I gradually got used to it, I don’t feel it. In normal light, the picture gives amazing, the maximum aperture is working, I like the blur. There is a nuance: aperture allows you to shoot in a dark room, but the lack of a stabilizer and the size of the lens "do not allow" to set shutter speeds longer than 1/40 sec, in order to avoid "shake" you have to raise the ISO, after which noise appears. I shoot on the Canon 600D in the same conditions as on the whale "dark" lens, the aperture allows you to set faster shutter speeds, blur the background well, while excellent detail, volume, saturated colors, no aberrations. The disappointment that came after buying the camera, from the faded photos of the whale lens, has passed.

Shock, anxiety, joy and envy. It was these emotions that overwhelmed me immediately after Sigma announced their new “A” lens. And this is not just an empty experience, because the novelty presented is the world's first wide-angle zoom lens that has a constant f / 1.8 aperture at all focal lengths. Since the announcement, I have been tormented by only one question: “Is this really true or is it just another marketing gimmick to lure users?”. I will try to answer my question in this review.

Design and body

First of all, it is worth mentioning that this lens is not designed for full-frame cameras. It is designed for SLR cameras with APS-C sensors, which means you cannot use it with your or . Personally, I do not consider this a minus, because despite the fact that full-frame sensors are quite good in themselves, their influence and necessity are too exaggerated. After all, not having a full-frame camera in your hands doesn't make you a bad photographer.

But let's not dwell on it, the design of this lens is beautiful: a great mixture of metal, rubber and just a few plastic inserts. In the hands it feels like an expensive and high-quality thing, which it is. Its weight is 810 grams, which is not so much as it might seem from the outside. Focusing and zooming takes place inside the lens (by shifting the lenses), so the length of the lens always remains constant, which adds to the impression of a solid construction.

Image quality

As many might guess from the name, it is equipped with an ultrasonic Hyper-Sonic Motor autofocus drive, which provides fast and quiet focusing. In daylight, autofocus works, of course, very well, and it was not worth waiting for less. This is perhaps the fastest and most accurate autofocus lens ever made by Sigma. At night, the lens is slightly less accurate, but even in almost complete darkness it works in 8 cases out of 10, but it should be borne in mind that no lens is able to focus correctly in 100% of cases, everyone has misfires. Several times focusing took a little longer than expected, that is, about 1.5 seconds instead of 0.5 seconds, but this is not very critical. In general, the focusing speed is not inferior to most of the highest quality lenses on the market, and I personally was satisfied with this parameter.

When shooting at 18mm and wide open, sharpness in the center of the shot is off the charts, while it does fall off a little at the edges, although it's still excellent, which is great overall for a lens with a maximum f/1.8 aperture. Reducing the aperture has a positive effect on the result, the highest clarity is achieved between f / 2 and f / 2.8 at the same 18 mm.

Increasing the focal length to 24mm causes a slight decrease in clarity, but the result is still excellent. By opening the aperture to the maximum, the picture is not clear enough at the edges of the frame, so f / 4 is the most effective aperture for a given focal length. Well, finally, at the largest focal length of 35 mm, there is a general decrease in clarity throughout the image, in order to get a great shot, I recommend experimenting with apertures in the f / 4 and f / 5.6 ranges.

One of the most impressive things about this lens is how well it handles chromatic aberration (hereinafter simply CA). During studio shooting, HA was completely absent, even when shooting at short focal lengths. You can observe them at the edges of the frame when shooting with a maximum aperture and a focal length of 24 mm, although even in this case the number of XA is extremely small and this practically does not create problems.

In terms of color reproduction, this device is all right, the lens transmits colorful and bright colors, similar to those produced by high-end multi-coated Nikkor lenses.

As for ghosting and flare, at short focal lengths and very small apertures, no more than 18 rays should be expected, this result is achieved due to the rounded 9-blade diaphragm.

The level of vignetting is very low, especially for an f/1.8 lens. Vignetting is only 1.39 stops at the short 18mm end, increasing to 1.65 stops at the longest end.

Distortion at both ends of the zoom is noticeable, but not too much, the values ​​are about 2.71% barrel and 1.06% pincushion. The distortion itself is evenly distributed throughout the frame, which means it can be easily removed using Adobe Lightroom or Adobe Camera RAW.

The lens produces very beautiful “bokeh”, especially at longer focal lengths, however, when reducing the length to a minimum, it will be quite difficult to obtain high-quality background blur.

Verdict

When Sigma first announced the , there was a lot of buzz all over the internet about it being "the world's first f/1.8 zoom lens". With its wide-angle end and large aperture, it excels at capturing a wide variety of scenes in all lighting conditions, making it a versatile solution for everyday shooting and even photojournalism. I was pleasantly surprised by the quality build, unsurpassed clarity (especially at short focal lengths) and beautiful colors, but to be honest, I doubted that the Sigma would be able to provide sufficient performance at this aperture. Fortunately, my fears were not confirmed and I was impressed by the speed of the novelty. is an excellent replacement for kit lenses, which at a fairly fair price, boldly competes with more premium competitors, and I look forward to when Sigma will show us more of these "stellar" lenses.

Timur Bublik
Especially for Photosklad.ru

The latest history of Sigma lenses began in September 2012, when the first models of each of the three new lens lines (Art, Contemporary and Sport) were introduced to the market: Sigma A 35 / 1.4 DG HSM A1 Art, Sigma C 17-70 / 2.8-4 DC Contemporary , Sigma S 120-300/2.8 DG OS HSM Sport. The hero of today's review - Sigma Art 18-35 / 1.8 DC HSM - "the fastest mass-produced zoom lens for SLR cameras in the history of photography", was announced in April 2013, the novelty became the first zoom model in the "Art" line of lenses . The lens still stands apart and it is difficult to find direct competitors for it: the nearest analogues, starting from f / 2.8, are “darker” by an impressive 1 and 1/3 stops.

Text: Vladimir Dorofeev,www.vlador.com .

Sigma Corporation is kind to the Art-line and its representatives: today there are only 4 zooms in it:

Sigma Art 18-35/1.8 DC HSM

Sigma Art 24-105/4 DG OS HSM

Sigma Art 24-35/2.0 DG HSM

Sigma Art 50-100/1.8 DC HSM

The latest lens was announced on February 23, 2016, becoming the second "fastest zoom for SLR cameras".

Specifications

Optical design

Set

Contents of delivery

The Sigma Art 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM kit is traditional for top-end lenses from Sigma:

Lens

Front cover Sigma LCF-72 III

Rear cover LCR-EO II

Hood Sigma LH780-06

Semi-rigid case

Manual

Warranty card

We praise: the superbly comfortable Sigma LCF-72 III, the Sigma LH780-06 lens hood with thoughtful ergonomics, the presence of a high-quality semi-rigid case in the kit.

We criticize: the inner surface of the hood is not covered with flock - just ribbed plastic.

Front element

Manufacturing and design

The design of the Sigma Art 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM is traditional for Art lenses. The lens evokes a feeling of thoughtfulness, good quality and - although the characteristic is not obvious in relation to the lens - elegance.

The hero of the review is not small in size and solid in weight: more than 800 grams of the lens alone brings the weight of the kit (bag, camera, lens and little things) closer to 2 - 2.5 kilograms, which is on the verge of comfort for the average amateur photographer. The size of the review hero reminded Nikon Nikkor AF-S 16-35 / 4 G ED VR.

There are no complaints about the materials and workmanship: the plastic is of high quality, the bayonet mount is metal, the base of the body is made of metal and “heat-resistant composite material TSC”, the rubber non-slip coating of the focal and manual focus rings is pleasant to the touch. Sigma's "Thermally Stable Composite compound material - TSC" looks and feels like metal, but is actually a type of polycarbonate with thermal properties similar to aluminum. Its use allows to reduce the weight of the product, without losing consumer characteristics, durability and strength. The Sigma Art 18-35/1.8 DC HSM looks and feels solid and solid.

View from above

The controls are represented by a distance window, rings for changing focal lengths and manual focus, and an autofocus operation mode switch. The rings are traditionally arranged: focal changes - in the place of the natural grip, closer to the rear element; manual focus ring - closer to the front cut of the lens.

The focusing ring is perfectly damped, comfortable, wide (35 mm, 26 of which are covered with ribbed rubber), sits like a glove, the move is smooth, the effort is uniform and comfortable. Does not rotate in autofocus mode. The course of the ring is about 125 degrees, distributed unevenly - almost 100 degrees are given to the range from the minimum distance to 1 meter.

Rear element

The lens does not change its external dimensions either when zooming or when focusing, the front element does not rotate, the use of filters is not difficult. The middle part of the lens, not occupied by the distance window and the focus mode switch, is ribbed, which is designed to make it easier to attach and remove the lens. The autofocus mode switch is conveniently located. The size is comfortable, the shifts are clear. The zoom ring is wide (30 mm, 20 mm covered with non-slip corrugated rubber), perfectly damped, sits like a glove, rotates with uniform effort, without jerking or jamming. The effort is more than usual, but does not go beyond the comfortable. On the front of the ring there is a scale of focal lengths - 18, 20, 24, 28 and 35 mm. The zoom ring travel is short - about 45 degrees.

The Sigma Art 18-35mm f/1.8 DС HSM definitely belongs to the upper segment of interchangeable lenses and inspires respect in design, construction, assembly and materials used. The lens causes only positive emotions. You can complain about the considerable weight, find fault with the lack of dust and moisture protection.

geometric distortion

Sigma Art 18-35 / 1.8 DC HSM successfully controls geometric distortions, but I expected slightly better results: 29 mm equivalent cannot be attributed to “extreme wide angle”, and the lens magnification is quite modest.

The behavior is predictable: wide-angle barrel distortion changes to pincushion distortion as focal lengths increase. The change in the nature of geometric distortion occurs in the focal area of ​​24 mm, where the lens is practically free from distortion.

The “barrel” of 2.05% at a focal length of 18 mm decreases to 1.35% already by 20mm. At the 24mm focal length, Imatest detects pincushion distortion at 0.15%, the "cushion" grows to 1% at the 35mm focal length.

Distortion at 18mm

Distortion at 20mm

Distortion at 24mm

Distortion at 35mm

I repeat: the indicators are decent, they are by no means inferior to competitors, and in most cases the distortion in the pictures will be invisible. The nature of the distortions is correct, if necessary, they can be easily eliminated in post-processing.

Resolution and sharpness

Sigma Art 18-35/1.8 DC HSM deserves the highest praise: excellent resolution in the center even at full aperture and convincing uniformity of sharpness across the entire field of the frame make it possible to use the lens even at full aperture. F / 1,8 for the hero of the review is actually a “working” value, and not an optional one, as is very often the case with fast lenses. Look at the "center sharpness vs aperture" graphs plotted by Reikan Focal .

Center sharpness vs aperture value at 18mm

Sharpness vs aperture at 24mm

Sharpness vs Aperture at 35mm

With a resolution comparable to the best representatives of the family of “prime focus lenses”, and the behavior of the Sigma Art 18-35 / 1.8 DC HSM, I definitely pleasantly surprised (if not even amazed).

You can read about the method of presenting the data obtained in the material "Reference point".

Chromatic aberration

Sigma Art 18-35 / 1.8 DC HSM convincingly fights chromatic aberration: the conditionally acceptable level of 0.06% is not exceeded.

The coloring of out-of-focus areas is present at open aperture values, but is relatively modest and ceases to annoy when the aperture is covered down to f / 2.8.

XA 18 mm f/1.8

XA 24 mm f/1.8

XA 35 mm f/1.8

Everything is in perfect order with control over spherical aberrations: focus shift is not determined.

Vignetting

The Sigma Art 18-35/1.8 DC HSM controls vignetting quite confidently: the effect is clearly pronounced at full aperture, the lens covered up to f/2.8 does not raise any complaints.

Vignetting 18mm f/1.8

Vignetting 24mm f/1.8

Vignetting 35mm f/1.8

Given the range of focal lengths, one could hope for lower performance, but do not forget that the peak of vignetting falls at f / 1.8, and at f / 2.8, with which the main competitors “start”, the hero of the review is all right.

autofocus

Back focus on EOS 70D (left to right at f/1.8: 35mm, 24mm, 18mm)

The Sigma Art 18-35 / 1.8 DC HSM autofocus drive uses a ring ultrasonic motor. The process is virtually silent. The hero of the review does not belong to the champions in autofocus speed, but he cannot be considered an outsider either: the run over the entire distance takes about 1 second, which is an average.

The autofocus performance of the tested Sigma Art 18-35 / 1.8 DC HSM was so puzzling that the lens was tested on two cameras: Canon EOS 70D and Canon EOS 5D mark II (if you forget about vignetting, then the hero of the review works quite calmly on full-frame Canon EOS).

Vignetting on the Canon EOS 5D: 18mm, 24mm and 35mm

Anticipating the story about the work of phase detection autofocus, briefly about the good: everything is in order with contrast autofocus, regardless of the focal length - convincingly fast, confident and accurate. Reikan Focal estimates the repeatability of results of contrast autofocus at 99 percent or more over the entire focal range. Let me remind you that a result above 98% is considered “excellent”

Contrast AF stability at 18mm

Contrast AF stability at 35mm

The test specimen on the Canon EOS 70D showed a slight back focus over the entire range of focal lengths, on the 5D mark II it was right on target. But the words “right on target” need to be supplemented with a sad one: phase focusing at a wide angle on the EOS 5D mark II slightly alarmed, on the Canon EOS 70D it simply discouraged. The results on the 70D are unsatisfactory, and errors and misses are more frequent, the wider the angle: at a focal length of 18 mm and open apertures, an acceptable result is rather an exception. Reikan Focal rates phase focus repeatability at 18mm at best at 92%, typically 85 - 90%. In the attached screenshots - the result of several runs.

Phase focus stability at 18mm

Another run at 18mm

And one more

Repeatability of only 90% is critical in itself, but in reality the problems at 18-24mm focal lengths are deeper: Reikan Focal evaluates repeatability by taking a series of shots with lens refocusing after each. Accordingly, repeatability in terms of the program is the spread of focusing results in a series without assessing the accuracy of focusing itself: if the lens takes 10 equally unfocused frames, the repeatability will be close to 100%. Please note: when evaluating contrast autofocus at 18 mm, the values ​​on the y-axis (contrast of transitions, i.e. exaggerated "perceived sharpness") are in the range of 2020 - 2050 units, with phase - on the best frames they only approach 1900 units. Accordingly, in itself, the unimportant repeatability of 90% is the repeatability of initially insufficiently accurate focusing.

At the focal length of 24 mm, the situation is relatively better: the repeatability is 94 - 96%, the indicators often lie in the region of 1900 units and above. At a focal length of 35 mm: more than 99 percent inspiring respect, but - again - this is the stability of the results, not up to the quality of contrast focusing.

Phase detection autofocus stability at 24mm

Another run at 24mm

Phase AF stability at 35mm

Reikan Focal cannot evaluate focus

The behavior of the test instance is not the result of bad alignment, back or front focus. The randomness of the results does not allow one to point a finger at the problem, and Reikan Focal refuses to evaluate accuracy: the results are so unpredictable that the program cannot use the built-in evaluation algorithms. A search for information on the Internet did not give a definite answer, but reading forums and owner reviews led to the conclusion that the phase autofocus of the Sigma Art 18-35 / 1.8 DC HSM is extremely rarely “friendly” with the Canon EOS 70D and is often naughty on the Canon EOS 7D mark II. Whether dual-pixelAF is the reason for this is not clear, but there are quite a few Canon EOS 70D owners on dpreview complaining about the need to use only contrast autofocus on an otherwise completely outstanding lens.

As an example of what this looks like: screenshots of successive shots taken at f/1.8 in phase and contrast focus, viewed at 100% and 200% magnification.

Viewing at 100%

One more time at 100%

Viewing at 200%

Picture, backlight

Sigma Art 18-35 / 1.8 DC HSM pleases with an excellent picture with rich and attractive color reproduction. The lens has character and "drawing"

Blur 35mm f/2.8

At wide apertures, the Sigma Art 18-35/1.8 DC HSM blurs out-of-focus areas carefully and diligently. The quality of the bokeh in general is not satisfactory. The transition zones are smooth and natural not only behind but also in front of the sharpness zone. Positively on the overall impression is the effective control over spherical aberrations.

The coma is better than expected: it is expressed only very close to the edge of the frame. Stronger in the range of 18 - 24 mm, more modest - when shooting at focal lengths of 24-35 mm.

Conclusion

In 2012, in a review of the excellent Tokina 50-135 / 2.8 AT-X Pro DX, I complained: “I don’t like high-quality lenses for APS-C cameras. Acquaintance with them leads to unhappy thoughts about the implicit advantage of full-frame sensors, about the constant search for lenses with tolerable flaws in the corners and edges of the frame, about the prices of high-quality full-frame lenses, about the size and weight inherent in full-frame aperture.

Sigma Art 18-35/1.8 DC HSM

Did I have "unhappy thoughts" following the results of meeting Sigma Art 18-35 / 1.8 DC HSM? Only in part: the size and weight, which differ little from full-frame competitors, and the indistinctness of the range of focal lengths interfere (agree that 29 - 56 mm in equivalent does not quite meet the requirements for "standard zoom" and limit the applicability and versatility of the model). Sigma Art 18- 35 mm f/1.8 DC HSM impresses with field-of-field sharpness already at full aperture, confidently controls vignetting, geometric distortions and chromatic aberrations, can draw an attractive picture and commands respect for workmanship. Cons:

Not always confident work in the backlight

Lack of dust and moisture protection

Uncertain phase detection on Canon EOS 70D

Let me imagine: September 2012, Sigma just announced the upcoming changes, announced a paradigm shift and released the first three lenses of the updated line. We need to move on and preferably with the maximum attention of the photo community. The engineers are faced with the task of developing a zoom with a constant aperture of f/1.8, not heavier than a kilogram, with acceptable dimensions and price. Can you? The engineers thought and answered: we can, but it will be for APS-C, with a magnification of 2 and focal lengths of 18-35 mm. We figured it out and decided - we do it!

The hero of the review is made within the framework of a clearly defined task. Did the lens work? Definitely yes, but - only in view of this task. Without the magic of f/1.8 it is incomprehensible and limited, with f/1.8 it becomes a niche product aimed at photographers for whom f/1.8 will outweigh the accompanying limitations. Listen to yourself: if you need exactly f / 1.8 - the lens is for you.

The $800 price is competitive and I think the Sigma Art 18-35/1.8 DC HSM is worth it based on the combination of features.

What can be considered as alternatives (prices according to bhphotovideo version at the time of writing)?

The remnants of the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM are being sold for $420. It loses in optical characteristics, wins in focal length and price.

Tamron SP 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD: $500 It loses in aperture ratio, workmanship, sharpness and uniformity over the field are worse. It wins with the range of focal lengths and vignetting.

Tamron SP 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD VC: $650 To the above, an optical image stabilizer is added to the pros

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM: $880, discounted $780. Good even without taking into account the discount, with a discount, in my opinion, is clearly preferable for a thrifty amateur photographer.

For owners of Nikon cameras, the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX takes the place of the “native regular stabilized” f / 2.8 on the list, but the price of $ 1,500 looks unreasonably high.