PDA

View Full Version : Sigma 18-35mm Replacement???



Dreadas
05-31-2015, 07:51 PM
Hi, I love the image out of the Sigma 18-35 however I think it is a bit to heavy for me. I am looking for a replacement for this lens something more light weight to be used with the SpeedBooster MFT to Nikon.

Cheers

Jared Caldwell
05-31-2015, 10:30 PM
Just cleaned up the place. Simply use the report button if you see something. No need for bad mojo here. Back to the thread. :)

Jared Caldwell
05-31-2015, 10:33 PM
I've noticed that Sigma tends to prioritize optics and design over weight. The 18-35 is fairly heavy, but the Sigma Art 50mm is almost as big! If you're not opposed to using primes, there's always Nikors. Other than primes, there isn't really another Nikon mount lens that does what the Sigma does. It's a one of a kind.

vicharris
05-31-2015, 10:41 PM
Thanks Jared. Order is too much for some to understand.

As for the Sigma, I agree I haven't found a lens that comes close to providing the range and quality as the Sigma. Others out here agree now as the PL Cine Rehousing versions are starting to make their way into productions.

Sarlacc
05-31-2015, 11:02 PM
As for the Sigma, I agree I haven't found a lens that comes close to providing the range and quality as the Sigma. Others out here agree now as the PL Cine Rehousing versions are starting to make their way into productions.

You got a link to any info on those PL conversions???

Sarlacc
05-31-2015, 11:07 PM
Found it

http://cinemaglass.com

pricey...but worth it.

Max Minoia
06-01-2015, 12:10 AM
I highly recommend the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 or the old Sigma 18-50mm Macro over the 18-35mm, the drawback is the tricky focus ring, if you have the EF Speed booster the Canon 17-55mm is stunning and also has the OIS.

Akos
06-01-2015, 03:42 AM
something that is much lighter and has a larger reach is the panasonic 12-35 2.8

no need for speedbooster, the wide end is similar to the sigma on the bmpcc, it has ois, much smaller and lighter than the sigma + booster

Jared Caldwell
06-01-2015, 08:42 AM
something that is much lighter and has a larger reach is the panasonic 12-35 2.8

no need for speedbooster, the wide end is similar to the sigma on the bmpcc, it has ois, much smaller and lighter than the sigma + booster

MFT = dumb mount.

I haven't played with that lens, though. Could be good if weight is the issue.

Max Minoia
06-01-2015, 08:55 AM
If you already have the Speed Booster the Sigma 17-50mm is way more brighter than the Panny 12-35mm (f/1.6 equivalent) and focal range equivalent is 9,5-29mm, and it cost less than half the price of the Panasonic (that is a very good lens for BMPCC as well...).

rick.lang
06-01-2015, 09:01 AM
Found it

http://cinemaglass.com

pricey...but worth it.

$4,350 with 300 degree focus throw. We know how bright and sharp it can be. This parfocal Ciné lens looking awesome.

jtfarabee
06-01-2015, 11:01 AM
It's not a zoom, but the Nikkor 35mm AF-S 1.8 DX lens is lightweight and sharp without being expensive. I have that and the Sigma 18-35, and I use the Nikkor if I am mounting on a gimbal. Only issue is that it isn't a wide angle on these cameras (even with SpeedBooster).

Akos
06-01-2015, 11:30 AM
MFT = dumb mount.

I haven't played with that lens, though. Could be good if weight is the issue.
It's not dumb on the bmpcc as opposed to the original bmcc

Jared Caldwell
06-01-2015, 12:41 PM
It's not dumb on the bmpcc as opposed to the original bmcc

Truth. I was assuming BMCC. However, the Speedbooster for Nikon is dumb.

Sarlacc
06-01-2015, 09:05 PM
Truth. I was assuming BMCC. However, the Speedbooster for Nikon is dumb.

What an asinine and frankly, stupid, comment.

DPStewart
06-02-2015, 12:50 AM
What an asinine and frankly, stupid, comment.

Either you don't realize that "dumb" means the mount doesn;t transmit auto-focus and iris control to the lens through the "dumb" Speedbooster - (no electronics connections get made).

Or I just fell face first into some well played snark.

Sarlacc
06-02-2015, 01:38 AM
Either you don't realize that "dumb" means the mount doesn;t transmit auto-focus and iris control to the lens through the "dumb" Speedbooster - (no electronics connections get made).

Or I just fell face first into some well played snark.

Apparently, I wasn't properly following the conversation. I read through posts too fast because Im only looking for certain info.

So, I guess I'm the one that fell face first. Doh.

But the Nikon bmpcc mount does control the electronic iris...just nothing auto, which is fine by me.

jtfarabee
06-02-2015, 08:33 AM
Apparently, I wasn't properly following the conversation. I read through posts too fast because Im only looking for certain info.

So, I guess I'm the one that fell face first. Doh.

But the Nikon bmpcc mount does control the electronic iris...just nothing auto, which is fine by me.
Actually, the iris control on Nikon lenses (so far) has been mechanical, and that is how the Nikon-BMPCC SpeedBooster controls them as well. There are literally zero electronics in the adaptor. You are correct in stating that it controls iris, but it does not do it electronically.

steve phillipps
06-02-2015, 09:35 AM
I highly recommend the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 or the old Sigma 18-50mm Macro over the 18-35mm, the drawback is the tricky focus ring, if you have the EF Speed booster the Canon 17-55mm is stunning and also has the OIS.

Why do you need Speed Booster for the Canon 17-55?

vicharris
06-02-2015, 10:28 AM
This thread is all over the place now.

The OP has a Nikon Speedbooster and asked for a replacement to use instead of the 18-35. Pretty much 90% of the info here has nothing to do with what he asked. Besides the fact that nothing comes close to this lens and combo, I think the best "alternate" is the 17-50. It's not going to be near as fast or good wide open on the booster, it will be lighter and provide the same range plus some. Many people are happy with it though you will lose the 2 stop advantage over the 18-35+Speedbooster. That's your tradeoff for weight, price and range.

Denny Smith
06-02-2015, 12:54 PM
P
Apparently, I wasn't properly following the conversation. I read through posts too fast because Im only looking for certain info.

So, I guess I'm the one that fell face first. Doh.

But the Nikon bmpcc mount does control the electronic iris...just nothing auto, which is fine by me.

No, the Iris on current Nikon F and G lenses are not electronic, they are mechanically controlled by a tab on the back of the lens. Nikon is only just starting to market a true electronic Iris in the lens. The BMPCC mount is MFT, not Nikon. The Nikon G to BMPCC speed booster controls the the Nikon Iris mechanically also. The Pocket camera, also has no control over the Iris, even though the MFT mount is active.

Denny Smith
06-02-2015, 12:59 PM
Why do you need Speed Booster for the Canon 17-55?

You need the Canon EF to BMPCC Speed Booster to adapt the lens to the Pocket camera, and allow the camera to control the lens.

Sarlacc
06-02-2015, 06:10 PM
P

No, the Iris on current Nikon F and G lenses are not electronic, they are mechanically controlled by a tab on the back of the lens. Nikon is only just starting to market a true electronic Iris in the lens. The BMPCC mount is MFT, not Nikon. The Nikon G to BMPCC speed booster controls the the Nikon Iris mechanically also. The Pocket camera, also has no control over the Iris, even though the MFT mount is active.

I always thought it was electronic. thanks for the clarification.

steve phillipps
06-03-2015, 03:23 AM
Having just tested the Sigma 18-35 I'd say it's worth hanging onto if you can - it's insanely good! Noticeably much sharper and more contrasty than the Canon 17-55 2.8. Build quality on a different level to the Canon too.
Steve

jrd
06-03-2015, 01:40 PM
Apparently, I wasn't properly following the conversation. I read through posts too fast because Im only looking for certain info.

"Certain info" meaning, a pretext to call someone else's views stupid or asinine? On the plus side, you're fast to forgive yourself ("doh"?), which some might see as a good thing, though of little comfort to anyone else.

Howie Roll
06-03-2015, 01:49 PM
Ease up. It's refreshing to see someone hold up their hand and say "my bad" on this site. Most would rather take their opinions to the grave.

jrd
06-03-2015, 02:02 PM
Ease up. It's refreshing to see someone hold up their hand and say "my bad" on this site. Most would rather take their opinions to the grave.

I think I'm too old for these forums -- I'm always amazed that people who apparently aren't brawlers (what would they be doing online if there were?) routinely use language which would get their teeth knocked out in real life. Or, more to the point, make them unemployable. And with total strangers.

Is it considered heroic? Witty? In the end, we're all fools, but still....

Sarlacc
06-03-2015, 02:13 PM
"Certain info" meaning, a pretext to call someone else's views stupid or asinine? On the plus side, you're fast to forgive yourself ("doh"?), which some might see as a good thing, though of little comfort to anyone else.

Is there a point you acting like an asshole?

I made an error because I wasn't following the entire conversation, I admitted, and I ended with my own humility.

If you really have a problem with that, you can go fuck yourself. Is that more comforting to you?

Sarlacc
06-03-2015, 02:14 PM
I think I'm too old for these forums -- I'm always amazed that people who apparently aren't brawlers (what would they be doing online if there were?) routinely use language which would get their teeth knocked out in real life. Or, more to the point, make them unemployable. And with total strangers.

Big talk from another keyboard warrior.

Robert Rogoz
06-03-2015, 02:19 PM
You need the Canon EF to BMPCC Speed Booster to adapt the lens to the Pocket camera, and allow the camera to control the lens.
At the moment there are 2 additional options for electronic lens control EF/EF-s to MFT cameras by Aputure and by Kippon. Aputure is a bit more interesting, as it also serves as a remote and remote FF.They both do not have an additional optical element, like Metabones, so what you see is what you get as far as FOV.
Returning to the main issue- size and weight of Sigma 18-35, the truth is real, high quality glass is heavy. When you are buying zoom in particular, it will be even bigger and heavier, compared to any primes. Probably any time you go to a lighter lens, the actual quality of the image will decrease. As with everything elase, it will always be a trade off.
If you are using a Pocket (since you are not specifying active vs dumb MFT mount), Olympus 12-40 F2.8 is an impressive lens, on parr with Canon L quality.

jrd
06-03-2015, 02:32 PM
Is there a point you acting like an asshole?

I made an error because I wasn't following the entire conversation, I admitted, and I ended with my own humility.

If you really have a problem with that, you can go fuck yourself. Is that more comforting to you?

Thank you. You have cleared up the matter entirely. I would note, however, that "humility" is a trait which can only be attributed by others; those who nominate themselves for that honor are automatically disqualified.

Sarlacc
06-03-2015, 02:38 PM
Thank you. You have cleared up the matter entirely. I would note, however, that "humility" is a trait which can only be attributed by others; those who nominate themselves for that honor are automatically disqualified.

I made a joke at my own expensive for my own error.

Like I said, if you have an issue with it, you know exactly what you can do with yourself. Not much else to say.

jrd
06-03-2015, 03:55 PM
I made a joke at my own expensive for my own error.

Like I said, if you have an issue with it, you know exactly what you can do with yourself. Not much else to say.


I realize full well that your many posts here reveal a humble and generous man who's quick to acknowledge error and who gracefully instructs his inferiors in their deficiencies of knowledge and character.

In particular, you don't, to your great credit, engage in that insidious (if also ridiculous) form of internet bullying/trollery, which always gets the last word by exhausting and/or disgusting other parties with insults, personal attacks, obscenities, etc.

When you urge individuals unknown to you to commit improbable sexual acrobatics, it's in the spirit of conferring new pleasures upon them.

If only everyone here were as magnanimous as yourself. There *would* be a danger that after fifteen minutes all the Sarlaccs would be urging each other to commit peculiar acts upon themselves, but if that's the price of knowledge and grace, so be it.

Sarlacc
06-03-2015, 05:13 PM
I realize full well that your many posts here reveal a humble and generous man who's quick to acknowledge error and who gracefully instructs his inferiors in their deficiencies of knowledge and character.

In particular, you don't, to your great credit, engage in that insidious (if also ridiculous) form of internet bullying/trollery, which always gets the last word by exhausting and/or disgusting other parties with insults, personal attacks, obscenities, etc.

When you urge individuals unknown to you to commit improbable sexual acrobatics, it's in the spirit of conferring new pleasures upon them.

If only everyone here were as magnanimous as yourself. There *would* be a danger that after fifteen minutes all the Sarlaccs would be urging each other to commit peculiar acts upon themselves, but if that's the price of knowledge and grace, so be it.

I made an error and made the move to admit it and move on.

What exactly is it you're attempting to do here? Enact swift justice for internet community because admitting I was wrong wasn't good enough?

You're the one making it personal buddy. Perhaps if you spent less time be an e-marshal around these parts and more time stretching and getting limber, you would be able to perform those "new pleasures upon" yourself. And you might just be a happier person for it.

jrd
06-03-2015, 05:30 PM
I made an error and made the move to admit it and move on.

What exactly is it you're attempting to do here? Enact swift justice for internet community because admitting I was wrong wasn't good enough?

You're the one making it personal buddy. Perhaps if you spent less time be an e-marshal around these parts and more time stretching and getting limber, you would be able to perform those "new pleasures upon" yourself. And you might just be a happier person for it.

My memory is evidently longer than yours, but let bygones be bygones. We're both agreed now that, to use your own words (I wouldn't choose them, but no matter), you were "asinine" and "frankly, stupid". And best move on from that point.

Sarlacc
06-03-2015, 06:40 PM
My memory is evidently longer than yours, but let bygones be bygones. We're both agreed now that, to use your own words (I wouldn't choose them, but no matter), you were "asinine" and "frankly, stupid". And best move on from that point.


Awww. I get it now. This has nothing to do with my error and admission. You must be butthurt from some debate from who knows how long ago. That's so cute how you've held onto a grudge all this time!!! Im flattered, really. Sorry, sweetheart, I really don't remember you. And if bygones were to be bygones, this whole "thing" would have never happened.

But really, who ever you are and whatever we might have quarreled about, its just not healthy to hang on to stuff like that...especially from the internet. Might I suggest more porn and less forums?

Jared Caldwell
06-03-2015, 08:35 PM
Take it to PMs, gents. Yet another thread gone sour.

Let's make this place useful, shall we?

Hoping the OP has some options now.