Sigma 18-50 F/2.8 Macro (first impressions)

[VTEC_EATER]

Hey everyone. I got my Sigma in today. Ive only putzed around with it at the office for the past couple minutes, but I have to go out into the field to get some shots of a clients home, so I can get you some better shots.

First off, the lens has a nice weight to it. Much heavier than the kit lens. Probably even heavier than my 70-300 Tamron, which is fairly light. But its nice and balanced. It gives the camera a good hefty weight.

Build quality seems great, but I dont have the experience of the regular lens testers have. Fresh out of the box its nice and tight. Zoom is pretty tight and focus is just a consistent even, easy turn. much easier than the zoom. Im sure Sigma was probably worried about zoom creep when your walking around with it, hence the tight zoom ring, but it comes with a lock as well. From everything I have read about Sigma lenses, this one still has the typical matte black finish with the little "sparkle" dusting. I think its a pretty nice finish, much nicer than my Tamron, and leaps and bounds better than the kit lens. The lens cap sucks (no center release), but thats common of all Sigmas, I hear. Ill probably buy a Tamron or Nikon lens cap to replace it.

It came in a nice bag, oversized, but nice. Lens hood seems good, but Im still trying to figure out if Im comfortable with it turned backwards for cloudy days. It kind of gets in the way and is fairly wide. I still have to figure that one out.

It seems to focus precisely, though the motor is on the loud side. But thats not a huge concern of mine. If I were shooting weddings, I would be a little disappointed. I just shoot for fun or when Im out on construction sites, so noise isnt a big deal.

So far pictures seem to have a slightly warmer look to them. Maybe a little more on the brownish/yellow side. My maple desk with clear coat came out looking like it had a light stain on it. But my office has crappy lighting (read: all natural light with the blinds closed for glare), so maybe that had something to do with it.

I took a few photos, but they are rather boring. I will try to take more for you all to see, but I need to get out of the office to do that. I did, however, take a macro shot that I wanted to share:

50mm F/2.8 (Aperture Priority) 1/13 sec, ISO 400

The lens was approximately 2.5 inches away from the subject

[wh0128]

wow, that image looks nice and seems take a good macro shot. Does anyone know if this Sigma macro is 1:1? Because that is the only macro I will buy. The picture you posted I think should have a little longer depth of field to get the edges of the lens and the number "24" nice and sharp.

I may have to inspect this lens though, because at 2.5" away, those can be some pretty darn good shots. Thanks for sharing!

[Stoller]

Very nice. Good boken. Might had just closed the aperture a little more so more of the lens would be in focus, but I understand you where just taking test shots. Enjoy your new lens, Christmas came 5 days early.

[VTEC_EATER]

Does anyone know if this Sigma macro is 1:1?

I may have to inspect this lens though, because at 2.5" away, those can be some pretty darn good shots. Thanks for sharing!

No, its like 1:3 macro. I think Im a bit uneducated in the macro ratio thing. I dont really understand what is the difference between 1:1 vs 1:3. I just wanted fast glass. The macro thing was just a bonus.

The distance that Sigma has on their site is 7 inches, but I think thats to the sensor, not the front element. teh lens had no problems focusing at the distance I was at.

More photos:

Here is a test shot I took out on a job site:



Photo 1) Test Shot (18mm F/5.6)
Photo 2) 100% edge crop Right
Photo 3) 100% edge crop Left
Photo 4) Chromatic Abberations

Unfortunately I don't have any web hosting for full sized images, but you get the idea.

[SpecialK]

I dont really understand what is the difference between 1:1 vs 1:3. I just wanted fast glass. The macro thing was just a bonus.

The distance that Sigma has on their site is 7 inches, but I think thats to the sensor, not the front element.




The "1:whatever" is how big the image is "on film". So, at 1:1 a bug 1/2" long in real life would have an image 1/2" long on film. At 1:3 that 1/2" bug would be 1/6" on film.

Focusing distances are to what used to be called the "film plane". Camera bodies used to have a little red or white line on the top about half way back so you could measure distances. So, if you subtract 5" or so of lens length, that leaves you the 2" to the front of the lens. It's about 6" with the non macro version of that lens. (They say 11" CFD).

Does anyone have this mark on their camera anymore?

[VTEC_EATER]

The "1:whatever" is how big the image is "on film". So, at 1:1 a bug 1/2" long in real life would have an image 1/2" long on film. At 1:3 that 1/2" bug would be 1/6" on film.

Focusing distances are to what used to be called the "film plane". Camera bodies used to have a little red or white line on the top about half way back so you could measure distances. So, if you subtract 5" or so of lens length, that leaves you the 2" to the front of the lens. It's about 6" with the non macro version of that lens. (They say 11" CFD).

Does anyone have this mark on their camera anymore?

Ahh, that makes perfect sense SpecialK. Thanks for the clarification on the macro ratio. Heres another question:

Why would someone want a 1:1 macro vs. a 1:2 or 1:3? From the sounds of it, in order for me to get a 1:1 ratio, I would need to be 3 times closer to the subject than my current distance of ~7 1/2 inches. How is that possible with a lens this short? I would literally have to put the lens directly on the subject. And I cant get any closer than that. Also, wouldnt available light be greatly reduced by being so close?

This whole macro thing is confusing me. I just liike the fact that I can get as close as I want, and it can still focus. Ignorance is bliss, aint it?

Also, I forgot to mention, the zoom ring on the Sigma turns opposite of the Nikkor and Tamron lenses that I currently have. I think this is pretty common for Sigmas however, but dont quote me on that. Its a little wierd feeling, but Ill just have to get used to it.

[SpecialK]

Why would someone want a 1:1 macro vs. a 1:2 or 1:3? From the sounds of it, in order for me to get a 1:1 ratio, I would need to be 3 times closer to the subject than my current distance of ~7 1/2 inches. How is that possible with a lens this short? I would literally have to put the lens directly on the subject. And I cant get any closer than that. Also, wouldnt available light be greatly reduced by being so close?

....

Also... the zoom ring on the Sigma turns opposite of the Nikkor and Tamron....


I'm not sure on the mechanics of the macro lenses as I've never owned one. I'd ask in the macro thread.

However, I have 2 Sigmas ("Sigfried" and "Sigmund") and they turn opposite to each other - figure that one.

[wh0128]

Focusing distances are to what used to be called the "film plane". Camera bodies used to have a little red or white line on the top about half way back so you could measure distances. So, if you subtract 5" or so of lens length, that leaves you the 2" to the front of the lens. It's about 6" with the non macro version of that lens. (They say 11" CFD).

Does anyone have this mark on their camera anymore?

I just checked my Nikon D50 and it has right behind the top LCD a little circle with a line through it so you know where to measure from sensor to subject. And I know on my old Canon AE-1 Program that it has the same thing by the ISO Dial.

[LR Max]

I need to dig this thread back up...so...

Do you still like this lense? Still good?

Did you order the lense offline or at a shop? A lot of people told me that I need to check out Sigma lenses since their quality is hit n' miss. But I found a online place that has them for nearly half price of what any other shop would ask for it.

How does this lense perform in low light? That is why I am interested in this lense, for low light work.

[jcon]

What online store? Make sure you do your homework to determine if its a reputable store.

[LR Max]

Its Adorama. I think they've got a decent reputation.

Either they've got a decent deal or my local store just jacks the crap out of price...which it could be...

[SpecialK]

Its Adorama. I think they've got a decent reputation.

Either they've got a decent deal or my local store just jacks the crap out of price...which it could be...


I've gotten a several things from Adorama including a Sigma 70-300 and Pentax 50-200. All OK (well, the Pentax should be delivered in a few days :-) It looks like they are about the same price as Sigma4Less, where I got my 18-50 non-macro, also OK.

[jcon]

I got my Sigma 18-50 2.8 from Sigma4less.. Adorama is just fine.. dont hesitate to purchase from them. When buying from Sigm4less, make sure the 4 year warranty is included, most items they sell they dont include that, thus the cheap price.

[jcon]

oh and to answer your question... Yes, it performs just fine in low light. Thats why I bought it. its my hold-me-over til I can afford the Nikon 17-55 2.8.

[erichlund]

Ahh, that makes perfect sense SpecialK. Thanks for the clarification on the macro ratio. Heres another question:

Why would someone want a 1:1 macro vs. a 1:2 or 1:3? From the sounds of it, in order for me to get a 1:1 ratio, I would need to be 3 times closer to the subject than my current distance of ~7 1/2 inches. How is that possible with a lens this short? I would literally have to put the lens directly on the subject. And I cant get any closer than that. Also, wouldnt available light be greatly reduced by being so close?



Not all lenses achieve the same level of macro at the same distance. The Nikkor 200mm macro achieves 1:1 at about 18 inches, the 105mm at about 12 inches and the 60mm at about 8inches (IIRC).