Oliver Daniel Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 I'm looking to buy some Sigma ART lenses to shoot on Super 35 sensors (and sometimes full frame) for my shoots that need a sharp, clinical look with DOF advantage. Shooting handheld, on gimbals, sliders. Cameras Sony FS7, URSA Mini (soon), A7S, GH4. Would like to use them as stills lenses too - probs on a cheaper Nikon for laughs and giggles. Got my eye on the Sigma 18-35mm and 50mm ART in Nikon mount. Just stratching my head for the very wide angles and 85mm end. Anyone have any experience with these lenses and other lenses you use with them? I'm a bit of a vintage glass kinda guy but would like some more up to date stuff! Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronChicago Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 Sigma 18-35 is my favorite lens. Not sure about for wide end though.i've been using Tokina 11-16 and not a big fan. It adds way too much contrast and is hard to match other lenses. Cinegain 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronFilm Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 I'm a big fan of the Tokina, as is Duclos:https://matthewduclos.wordpress.com/tag/tokina/ For longer... tricky, might want to wait for Sigma to update their 85mm lens. Which I suspect will be "soon".Currently I'm using (all Nikon F mount) Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 + Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 + Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 + Rokinon 85mm T1.5 for my long needs. All which I picked up very cheap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 The 18-35mm is quite wide enough for everything really, but if you ''need'' wider then you'll have to go with one of the Ultra wide lenses, like the Tokina 11-16mm, the Nikon 14-24mm, Tamron 12-24mm, Canon 11-$4mm All of these will give a much wider fov when used on FF than the sigma as they're full frame lenses of course. I think you'd have no problem matching 11-16mm tokina to an 18-35mm, they are both fine lenes, what I doubt is that you'll even find you ''need'' wider than 18mm on s35 unless for very niche application, so I'd just get the Sigma first and see how it goes.The 50mm sigma is very sharp very high quality and fast, it's great, but it's not so radically different from all the other good quality lenses on the market that would make it visible when intercut with different ones. For example cutting the 50mm sigma with an 85mm Samyang wouldn't be visible, they are both sharp and clinical if that's what you're going for. In fact, a Canon or Nikon budget 85mm 1.8 would intercut fine too. What I think and from my experience is that matching lenses only proposes an issue when you cut a vintage soft russian prime with a super sharp Canon L, but most modern photography lrnsrs that are known for being sharp and of good quality will intercut fine, nothing a minor post tweak won't fix. It's just my opinion though and you might have much higher critical needs in matching lenses than I do and see things that I don't. For me I recently intercut Canon's 10-18mm STM Ultra wide (299$) with a sharp as hell Zeiss cine prime 50mm and a Canon 135mm f2 L which is one of the sharpest lenses ever made, the three lenses looked great on the C300. By my personal advice, want sharp clinical modern lenses for sharp clean 4K GH4 video? get the 18-35mm (three primes in one, 18mm + 24mm + 35mm), and get the Sigma 50mm Art, and enjoy. When you need longer or wider just pick up another modern sharp lens, like a tokina 11-16mm, and a samyang 85mm 1.4. They'll all give you similar modern look. Don't put to much worry into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Daniel Posted May 9, 2015 Author Share Posted May 9, 2015 Thanks for this feedback. I am a vintage lens guy at heart, I barely use modern lenses. But now I've got reasons to grab some. I've used the Tokina 11-16mm before and I thought it was really soft. It was like the image is out of focus. Also isn't this lens only APS-C? I know the Sigma 18-35mm is, but i can put up with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ade towell Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 the tokina will work on full frame at 16mm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronChicago Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Yeah, the difference in the 18-35, and 11-16 is night and day. Too different to mix & match. I'm hoping Sigma with release an ART wide angle to go against Tokina. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Daniel Posted May 9, 2015 Author Share Posted May 9, 2015 Yeah, the difference in the 18-35, and 11-16 is night and day. Too different to mix & match. I'm hoping Sigma with release an ART wide angle to go against Tokina.Yep, never liked the Tokina really. Wasn't happy with it when I used it. It felt broken because it was so soft. Very wide angles are very important to my work, so I'll have a look around at some options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Go to www.the-digital-picture.com and check the ''lens image quality'' under tools. It gives you a complete objective sharpness analysis of all lenses at all focal lenghts and at all apertures and at centre, and corners. It's lovely and simle. Choose the sigma 18-35mm as the first competetive, and try all the other ultra wides and how they look next to it, its a simple mouse over thing. Try the aps c budgets:Tokina 11-16mmCanon 10-18mm Sigma 10-20mm (just for reference) and then try the FF ones Nikon 14-24mm Canon 11-24Tamron 12-24The previous three are ultra wides on s35, the following are not so wide on s35 but ultra wides on FFCanon 16-35mm Nikon 17-35mm -So which one looks as sharp as the Sigmas (We know who's gonna be sharpest! but it helps to see) Remember for 2 mp video that sharpness difference will be much less pronounced that the 5-6K stills on that site, but it gives an idea on how they compare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonesy Jones Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Oliver, I have been thinking about this too.I will be going with the Sigma 18-35 for the majority of my shoots (on URSA mini) and then building the rest of my kit around that lens. I already own an old Contax 35-70, which I think will pair nicely with the Sigma, though I haven't tested this yet. I am going to be doing a pretty extensive test in the next week or two with the Sigma 18-35 and comparisons to other lenses and I will post that when it's finished. For sharpness, I am thinking Zeiss and Contax will match the Sigma's, though my first impressions with the Sigma 18-35 is that it creates warmer tones than the Zeiss and Contax, but that's a simple post fix right? For me, the Sigma 18-35 at 18, on S35 is wide enough (27mm). But if you need wider maybe the Sony A7S you have with the Sigma Art 24mm, or maybe the Zeiss 21mm which is an awesome, though pricey lens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrorSvensson Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 The sigma 8 - 16 works great with the art lenses, not the sharpest lens but well enough for video Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Daniel Posted May 9, 2015 Author Share Posted May 9, 2015 Has anybody tried the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8? I'm considering this with the 28-70mm as an option too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrorSvensson Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Has anybody tried the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8? I'm considering this with the 28-70mm as an option too. Thats an legendery lens, probably the best wideangle zoom out there. But the price is the only downside Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve madsen Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 It's surprising how few quality wide wide angle options there are, especially when you consider how long the 14-24 has been out. Oliver, if you're considering the 14-24 I guess you'll be using a mattebox? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Daniel Posted May 9, 2015 Author Share Posted May 9, 2015 It's surprising how few quality wide wide angle options there are, especially when you consider how long the 14-24 has been out. Oliver, if you're considering the 14-24 I guess you'll be using a mattebox?Not considered anything yet. I know the hood is fixed and have no idea yet whether there is an ND solution. That could be a deal breaker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve madsen Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Yeah, the lens is so bulbous it doesn't have a filter thread. I've got a BMCC and I'm using 82mm NDs and IR cut (I won't ever use a mattebox), and as much as I'd like the 14-24, I can't get past the filter system. Look at the size of the filters!... And this link shows various filter options... http://www.ianplant.com/blog/2013/03/15/using-filters-on-the-nikon-14-24mm-and-other-ultra-wide-lenses/#sthash.AysobifT.dpbs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.f.r. Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Sigma 24-105mm is actually very wide on FF cameras such as the A7s. If you're using APS-C though not so much, but Sigma 18-35mm is definitely more than wide enough for narrative work. Now you must have definitely had a bad Tokina 11-16mm version as the ones I've owned are razor sharp/flawless. So much so that Duclos even mods this lenses.Now if you want anything higher quality though you will definitely have to pay a pretty penny for something like the Canon 14mm,16-35mm etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Daniel Posted May 10, 2015 Author Share Posted May 10, 2015 Sigma 24-105mm is actually very wide on FF cameras such as the A7s. If you're using APS-C though not so much, but Sigma 18-35mm is definitely more than wide enough for narrative work. Now you must have definitely had a bad Tokina 11-16mm version as the ones I've owned are razor sharp/flawless. So much so that Duclos even mods this lenses.Now if you want anything higher quality though you will definitely have to pay a pretty penny for something like the Canon 14mm,16-35mm etc. Maybe I had a bad one. It was a hideous piece of glass. I'll try again. Is there any difference with the cine version (besides gears etc)? It's rather pricey!Nikon 14-24mm not an option after doing some research. 17mm is usually my ideal focal length on APS-C and 24mm on FF. Just love the look of truly epic wide compositions, especially for band shoots! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikkor Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Voigtländer 21mm 1.8? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronChicago Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Maybe I had a bad one. It was a hideous piece of glass. I'll try again. Is there any difference with the cine version (besides gears etc)? It's rather pricey!Nikon 14-24mm not an option after doing some research. 17mm is usually my ideal focal length on APS-C and 24mm on FF. Just love the look of truly epic wide compositions, especially for band shoots! I really wish the 18-35 was 17-35. But there is always the array of 17-55 lenses (Canon, Sigma, Tamron). They're pretty sharp and clinical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.