Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8

Yes it is for APS-C sensors.
Sigma making a Nikon D500 setup very attractive: 18-35mm f/1.8 and 50-100mm f/1.8 makes an awesome combo.

An 85-135mm f/2.0 for Full frame would be sweet.
 
Zooms do not interest me - I'm waiting for the Sigma 135 F2 Art lens to replace my Canon 135 L F2.

I would much rather have an 85-135mmm f/2.0 than a 135 prime.

Primes don't interest me as much as zooms with equal image quality and aperture.
 
Got ya. I just thought it would be too long on a crop

It wasn't a facetious question
It's probably why I don't know and have never needed anything between 35 and 70
 
I would much rather have an 85-135mmm f/2.0 than a 135 prime.

Primes don't interest me as much as zooms with equal image quality and aperture.

The 85-135 F2 zoom is pure speculation.
Zooms are heavier and usually 1 stop+ slower than a similar range prime E.g. The Sigma 24-35 F2 is 33% heavier and 1 stop slower than the 24/35 F1.4 primes. I'll take the lighter & faster lens and take a couple of steps back :)
 
I already own the 18-35mm and I've been looking to get something in my 35mm to 100mm gap (next lens is the EF 100mm F2.8L)

If this is as sharp (or better) than the 18-35mm then it won't be cheap... Focusing needs to be better though.
 
I already own the 18-35mm and I've been looking to get something in my 35mm to 100mm gap (next lens is the EF 100mm F2.8L)

If this is as sharp (or better) than the 18-35mm then it won't be cheap... Focusing needs to be better though.

Focusing is Sigma's last remaining weak spot. Unfortunately I don't think it'll ever improve as the third-party manufacturers are forced to try to reverse engineer Canon's AF protocols and will never do as good a job as Canon themselves.
 
Portraits and landscapes.

I struggle to see the benefit of this over many other options for landscape. While it's nice to pick out features with a longer lens it's an odds focal length for that and at f/1.8 it's overkill aperture wise as well. It's too long for astro and night photography where a fast aperture would be useful.

Portraits though, I guess it would be great, which is where I assume it'll be marketted, or as a complimentary lens to another Sigma DC lens to cover all ranges.

EDIT: Actually I change my mind a bit here. my 17-55 is oftentimes too short for travel shots and as you mentioned in an earlier post the combo between the 18-35 and 50-100 could be great for travel.
 
Oddly enough, I was considering buying the Canon 50mm F1.8 STM to fill my 35-100mm gap for certain landscape shots. Even on a crop, 35mm is often too wide depending on what the subject is of your landscape so 50 tightens that up a bit but 50-100 would be pretty good.

You also get the added bonus of an extra workout carrying this 50-100 lens it seems lol
 
I struggle to see the benefit of this over many other options for landscape. While it's nice to pick out features with a longer lens it's an odds focal length for that and at f/1.8 it's overkill aperture wise as well. It's too long for astro and night photography where a fast aperture would be useful.

Portraits though, I guess it would be great, which is where I assume it'll be marketted, or as a complimentary lens to another Sigma DC lens to cover all ranges.

EDIT: Actually I change my mind a bit here. my 17-55 is oftentimes too short for travel shots and as you mentioned in an earlier post the combo between the 18-35 and 50-100 could be great for travel.

The 70-200mm f/2.8 is my favourite lens for landscapes on FF, 50-100mm on crop would work well, a 50-150 would be better.

Yes, the f/1.8 is not needed for landscape but it likely means results at f/11 are incredible.
 
Might buy this, been looking at it for a while :)

The 18-35? It is a stunning lens. Its like having 3 primes rolled into one. The quality is perfect. The lens feels good too, it is of course heavy. I would recommend getting the Sigma USB dock to go with it so you can tune the AF across the zoom range and apertures.
 
Back
Top Bottom