Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 Lens Review
The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is the world’s first constant aperture f/1.8 zoom lens. In this review of the revolutionary Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 crop sensor lens, we’ll cover its real world performance, along with a number of sample photos, and a recommendation for the types of photographers for whom this lens might suit best. This lens is part of Sigma’s new “Art” line, which is one of Sigma’s upper end lines introduced as part of Sigma’s reinvention. The class-leading Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is also part of the “Art” line, so right from the get-go, the bar is high.
Before getting started with the review, I think it’s worth taking a step back. Starting the review with phrases like “world’s first” and “revolutionary” alone implies something about this lens. These buzzwords have been thrown around since the lens was announced, and obviously the hype machine is in full force with the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8.
First order of business: design and build. Much like the Sigma 35mm f/1.4, this lens is built incredibly well. The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is built of “Thermally Stable Composite,” which is fancy Sigma-talk that essentially means plastic. However, it doesn’t feel like a plastic lens. Sigma states that this material has a “high affinity to metal parts,” and while this might just seem like marketing fluff, I think it’s true.
The lens has great heft to it, and if I didn’t know otherwise, I’d think it were a metal lens. The zoom and focus rings also move smoothly with just the right amount of resistance. In terms of design, everything about this lens is nice. I really hope Sigma sticks with this style, as I think it’s excellent. Those used to kit lenses might be taken aback at first, because this lens is significantly larger than those (and larger than its closest competitors).
In terms of performance, let’s start with autofocus. The autofocus here is lightning fast, quiet, and accurate. I was actually shocked by this at first, and there were a couple of occasions I thought my autofocus must have not been working because I didn’t hear it at work. In fairness, this was partly due to the exceptional autofocus on the Canon 7D I was using (I love Nikon, but that camera has better autofocus than any Nikon I’ve ever used), but a big part of the equation was the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8. The 11″ minimum focus distance is also a nice feature, and one I found myself using when it came to food photos.
Given Sigma’s past infamy with the issue, I think every review from now until the end of time concerning a Sigma lens will address whether it has front or back-focus issues. My copy of this lens did not, and I have not heard widespread reports of others having issues, either. Of course, even the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 (and any lens ever made, for that matter), has had reports of focus issues.
As long as focus issues are the rare exception and not the rule, they shouldn’t be too concerning. Focus accuracy does not seem to be an issue with this lens (update: DPReview seems to disagree, but I didn’t have any such problems and I’ve read several other reviews, none of which mention the “issue”). Hopefully that’s a chapter of Sigma’s history that is forever closed.
In terms of sharpness, I was surprised by the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8. It’s very sharp at f/1.8 (not as sharp as a flagship prime lens, but still very sharp), and becomes tack sharp by f/2.8. It seemed sharp to me edge to edge at all apertures, but there is a slight amount of natural vignetting at f/1.8. Pretty normal for an f/1.8 lens, but worth mentioning.
In terms of real world performance, the lens is great. The colors and contrast are great, and images pop right out of the camera. More importantly, the bokeh is smooth and buttery at f/1.8, and has the same quality you’d expect from a nice prime lens. I was surprised by this, thinking it might be f/1.8, but not be able to deliver the out of focus area “quality” that other lenses can. Again, I was wrong.
As an additional plus, at f/16 it has a nice starburst, which is great for those like me who enjoy shooting into the sun. I shot with it in a number of challenging situations, namely at the Mickey’s Not So Scary Halloween Party, and it handled that deep lighting very well.
I found that f/1.8 in a zoom lens is a great thing to have, and I tried a lot of creative approaches to shallow depth of field shots. Many of these turned out to be duds, but it was nice to have a lens that made these duds possible in the first place. I suspect using the lens more will make me more comfortable with the f/1.8 zoom.
Now, what about real world application…is an 18-35mm f/1.8 lens really needed? It depends. For Disney photographers (the focus of this blog..apologies if you stumbled upon this from somewhere else and have no interest in Disney; scroll down about three paragraphs), it absolutely does.
The greatest benefit of this lens will be zooming on dark rides, which I found to be huge. For example, as I started getting closer to Jack Skellington, I simply zoomed out, rather than trying to scoot back in my DoomBuggy (I know I can’t be the only one who has done that).
In the parks, with the exception of times when I want to use an ultra-wide for dramatic architecture shots or a telephoto lens for whatever reason, this focal range covered me in most situations. It was great for fireworks, worked well for the Boo to You Parade (zooming here was very helpful!), and was generally excellent for night landscapes.
When photographing parades, there were times when I wanted a bit more zoom, but for all three of these big categories in terms of Disney photography, this lens pretty much hit the sweet spot. I could get by with only it and an ultra wide in my bag.
The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 also worked well for photographing food and in-park portraits. I lump these two categories together because the amount of “working room” can vary in Disney restaurants, queues, and other such places, and the combination of zoom (for “creating” distance) and f/1.8 (for subject separation) was great to have in that situation.
I still prefer using something more discreet for photographing food in the real world, but I don’t mind looking like a dorky tourist with my DSLR at Disney restaurants.
The big question for most photographers considering this lens will probably be whether 18-35mm is a useful focal range for them. Honestly, in my experience, this range seemed to have the most utility in the Disney theme parks. I also used it a bit around Indianapolis and when we visited Acadia National Park, and in both situations, I got a lot of use out of it, but I noticed that it was less useful.
I’m an ultra wide angle fiend, so in pretty much every situation I was wishing it were wider (an unrealistic wish), but in those places, I also found myself wishing it had just a tad more reach. Given the 17-50mm and 17-55mm lenses that the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens will undoubtedly be “competing” against, for lack of a better category, I think this is a realistic wish.
It thus becomes a question of whether the trade-off in gaining a constant f/1.8 is worth losing 15-20mm of zoom on the long end and 1mm on the wide end (the 1mm of widenss is more important to me than the 15mm of reach). This is a personal decision. For me, it unquestionably is worth it. I love buttery bokeh, but I’m not big on prime lenses, mostly because I don’t subscribe to the belief that they’re good because they force you to get creative with composition (or maybe I’m just not creative…who knows).
By giving me flexibility in focal range but still allowing me to have that buttery bokeh of f/1.8, this lens is a huge winner for me. The biggest disappointment (for me) is actually that it’s only for crop sensor cameras, which means I have to make a tough decision when it’s finally released for Nikon.
Image stabilization is also missing from this lens. Sigma has already stated that adding stabilization to this lens is its next goal, but it was too challenging at this time given the f/1.8 aperture. If present, stabilization would make this the ultimate low-light, handheld lens. As it stands, if you’re only looking at this “category” of lenses for use in low light, handheld situations (besides dark rides, where stabilization obviously does nothing since YOU are moving), the presence of stabilization in an f/2.8 lens would negate the f/1.8 in this lens. The true value here is in terms of depth of field, and stabilization plays no part in that.
With all of that said, if a constant f/1.8 aperture doesn’t matter to you, don’t get this lens. You can find cheaper lenses that offer more zoom and are just as sharp.
Overall, I think it is fair to call the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is a game-changer. The f/1.8 aperture is not just a gimmick that Sigma managed to toss into a lens. When it was initially announced, I was really excited about its potential, but concerned that its constant f/1.8 aperture would mean sacrifice after sacrifice in other areas. I was shocked by how sharp and nice the bokeh looked, and at the lens’ overall construction and design. About the only sacrifice that Sigma made with this lens is its focal range, and given that the range is clearly marked on the box, it’s patently obvious, and shouldn’t surprise any buyers. The only surprises those who purchase this lens will be in store for are how good Sigma has made a first-of-its-kind lens. If this lens has the type of “growing pains” normally associated with first-gen tech, I can’t find them…and I really can’t wait to see the second-gen f/1.8 zoom!
For most photographers, this lens becomes our recommended DSLR “first upgrade” replacing the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (read our review) and Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 (read our review) that previously occupied that position. It also replaces the recommended Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (read our review) for all but those who are super-serious about an f/1.4 aperture. Some may balk at the $800 MSRP on this lens, but it’s a very good deal relative to what it can do and considering that it should replace two lenses in your bag. Don’t expect a price drop on it anytime soon, as this lens remains a hot item in 2016, some 3 years after its release. If you really want it, we recommend just biting the bullet and placing a backorder-order on it now. Much like the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 that was difficult to find at MSRP for years after its release, this lens is going to be a hot commodity.
Photography Buying Guide: Everything from Underwater Cameras to Software
Best Books for Improving Your Photography
5 Indispensable Tips for Better Vacation Photos
Choosing the Best Travel Tripod
Choosing the Best Camera Bag for Travel
For updates on Walt Disney World, the latest news, discount information, and tips, sign up for our free monthly newsletter!
Your Thoughts…
Do you think this lens will be a game-changer for your photography? Are you planning on buying this lens or do you think it won’t suit your style? Have you seen it in stock anywhere? Hearing from you is half the fun, so please share your thoughts in the comments!
I have read many of your Disney reviews and I am a bit confused as to which lens would be best for me. I have a Canon EOS T3i camera. I have the standard lens kit which comes with it, a Canon Zoom 55-250 and a 50mm which I just purchased. We are headed to DW before long and I want to know which lens is the best for me. I have two granddaughters so lots of character and people pictures along with parade, fireworks and etc.I cannot afford the higher prices lens $500 and up. I just read the review about the Signma 18-35, but is there a Tamron that rates as good as that one. I would appreciate any info or suggestions that you have so I can get the best possible pictures with as little equipment as necessary Thank you
Hi Tom!
I am new to photography and plan to go to Disney World in August. I need to purchase a good camera and lens. Based on what I’ve read here would a Nikon D600 body only and the Sigma 18-35mm lens work? My introduction to exposure in on its way in case you’re wondering 🙂
The D600 is a full frame body and the Sigma 18-35mm is a crop sensor lens. If you get the D600, check out the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC lens.
Tom,
Am a massive fan and need some advice!
Sigma 30mm 1.4 art or sigma 18-35mm???
The weight didn’t really both me.. Although it might become a hassle after 10hr of walking 🙂
Would appreciate your opinion!!
That’s a really, really tough decision. The 18-35 is more versatile, but the 30 is slightly better quality–and cheaper. If I were confronted with this decision, I honestly don’t know what I’d do. The new 18-35 is tough to say no to…
I got the 18-35mm in the end! haven’t used it properly yet but really looking forward to trying it out in May when I’m in Disneyland!
Hi Tom,
I just found you through the Capturing Magic Podcast, thanks for all the wonderful information and inspiration. I love this review of this lens and it is going to the top of my wishlist. I take a ton of pictures at Disney, but usually leave my camera at home, when we are there at night. This lens sounds perfect for ride and night pics with the grandkids. I can’t wait to get it. Thanks for the review.
Terri
Thanks for the comment! Glad you enjoyed the podcast episode!
Thanks Tom for the review. I was going to get the 30mm 1.4 but I think the 18-35 1.8 makes more sense for me. I find that primes drive me a little nuts.
In the camera store I was looking at the 18-35 but this is really to heavy.
I like your positive review of the older 30mm, the new one is also outstanding!
I just got the new 30mm 1.4 art version.
This lens is really something else! This lens on my D7100 is ultra super sharp.
Did a little micro af adjustments in the camera and the focus is tack sharp.
Good to hear that you like the new 30mm f/1.4 Art version–thanks for the feedback!
I’m glad that you tested this lens with a Canon 7D. Too many reviews are from full-frame camera body users. I often find that the 50mm f/1.4 on my Canon 7D body is just TOO close. Especially in restaurants or inside. But my Tamron 24-75 f/2.8 isn’t fast enough. It sounds like the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 might fit that gap for me. Thanks for a thorough review!
Howdy, I jumped over to your website via Twitter. Not a thing I typically read, yet I really like your ideas none the less. Many thanks for generating some thing worthy of reading!
Hi Tom
i realy liked your photos and your review.
i want to but a new lens for my canon t2i.
i had a Tamron 17-50 non VC and it broke a few days ago
it served me well for nearly 3 years.
which lens should i buy?
the Tamron was good,but i wont better image quality.
Thank you
Oded
I would put the Tamron’s image quality about on par with this lens. I’m surprised that you didn’t find it to have great image quality. Maybe consider the Canon 17-5mm f/2.8, in that case?
Glad to see your still recommending the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for crop sensor cameras like my old Nikon D80. Based on your glowing recommendation I bought one from B&H here in N.Y.C. for our September MNSSHP trip to WDW. My hope was to finally duplicate the images I got years ago with my Nikon film camera, using a Nikon f/1.4 lens and Kodak Kodachrome and Ektachrome Slide film ranging from ASA 25 to ASA 400. I bought your recommended tripod and a cable shutter release for fireworks photos. B&H sold me a cable release whose packaging said it worked on a Nikon D80. Wrong cable! Rookie mistake, I should have checked out all equipment before packing it for the trip. B&H photography expert also said forget your shutter speed priority advice. He said put the camera on the “P” setting, 1600 ISO and said everything will be great. Wrong again!
Bottom line, dark rides and nightime parades need shutter speed priority. I returned the tripod and shutter release but I am thinking of re-purchasing them again for a possible MVMCP trip in December. My advice, listen to Tom not to any so-called “40 years of experience” photography store expert. WDW photography is an art form unto itself. An art form that Tom has mastered.
PS: Still managed to get 4500 much improved digital images over the old kit lens. Despite having the most problem plagued Disney vacation ever.
Sorry to hear that things didn’t go according to plan! All of the photos taken on this site were taken by me with the settings I recommend–if you like the photos here, I think going with my recommendations is the safe bet.
Hope you have a chance to visit during MVMCP and get some great shots!
Hello, I recently discovered your blog and I love it! I just bought the Canon 70D with the 18-55mm kit lens. The lenses I’ve got my eye on are the Sigma 18-35mm and the Sigma 35mm.
I’m moving to the US next year and ideally I would like a lens that can fulfil two tasks: Shooting YouTube ‘vlogs’ (mainly indoors but some outdoors) that I can share with my family back home in Australia and also for ‘walk around’ photography (some of which will be in the Disney parks which I’m excited about!) to document my gap year.
I know I will benefit from the wider focal length of the 18-35mm when shooting the indoor videos and I also know that the 35mm will be likely be too tight on the crop sensor, but based photos I’ve seen taken with each lens it seems like the Sigma 35mm takes much sharper photos than the 18-35mm.
What would you recommend? Maybe I’ll need two lenses. If that’s the case, I definitely want one of the Sigma lenses I mentioned to be one of them and then maybe a 24-105mm just for versatility.
The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is for full frame cameras, and the 70D is not a full frame camera. It’ll be serious overkill if you’re not using full frame. If you really want a fast lens, I’d recommend the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for crop sensor, instead: https://www.disneytouristblog.com/sigma-30mm-f1-4-lens-review/
I’d probably go with the 18-35mm f/1.8 and then adding on another zoom lens above that range. I don’t think you’ll see a significant difference in sharpness using a crop sensor camera between the 18-35mm f/1.8 and another Sigma prime.
I have a Nikon d7000 with the Sigma 180mm macro os f2.8 . It has the new style thermo composite outside and I love it. And it does look like Sigma is going to stay with this look. I’m wanting this new 18/35 f1.8. Do wish it was a bit wider maybe they will do a 10/16 1.8 art line with this close of a focus and all the perfection of this lens. Don’t think they would be able to make them fast enough. They did just announce a 24/105 f4 art line. Same thermo pplastic looks beautiful and I bet its awesome too. I was going to try and get only Nikon lenses but Sigma is coming out with focal lengths and quality I want. The bonus is the prices vs the quality. I may just keep buying Sigma I’m very pleased with my 180mm macro. Great info in the review keep up the good work.
I’d love for you to try this lens out on a Pentax, that would completely negate the need for image stabilization thanks to that being built in body. I’m sure your results would be superb with the extra 3.5 stops that you gain with the new K3!
Hello!
I am one of those people who stumbled across this post who is not a disney photographer! (ive never even been to disney!) I own a nikon d3100. my two lenses are the kit lens and the 50mm/1.8. Although i love my 50mm, I am often frustrated by the lack of zoom. We are going on our honeymoon to Maui in 5 months and I am looking for an affordable lens that would work well on our trip. (we have a toddler daughter so I want to be able to take lots of family pictures together)I just want a lens that will be able to zoom take good close ups (like when we’re sitting next to eachother on the plane, bus, car, w.e it may be) etc. im basically looking for a lens that has the ease of zoom of a regular point and shoot, but will take much better quality photos on my d3100. We will be in hawaii so we will be taking pictures with amazing blue skies and waters and greenery. would this be your recommendation for me? or would your previously highly recommended tamron 17-50mm do? Thanks in advance!
Either lens would work for you, this one will work better in low light and for shallow depth of field, and the Tamron 17-50 will give you more zoom.
If your main reason for buying the lens is the Hawaii trip, I’d probably go with THIS lens. I think you’re most likely to be shooting wide landscapes, plus flowers and other details were the f/1.8 might be nice.
Thanks for the review. Like the others, I’ve been interested to hear your thoughts since I saw you were trying it out. I came across this lens because I was looking to buy a 1.4 or 1.8 prime for low light and DOF purposes. The only thing that has held me back from jumping to this lens is the price over the prime. I finally broke down when I lucked out and found an Amazon partner with one in-stock for MSRP today. It should get here next week!
Now my dilemma is what gear to carry. The 18-35mm range compliments my Sigma 8-16mm perfectly, but kinda leaves my Canon 17-85mm in a gray area. I’m used to that extra reach, so I think 35mm may feel lacking to me, but the 17-85mm almost isn’t a good enough compliment to warrant carrying it. I’m thinking a good compliment would be something like a 50-200 or a 24-105, but the wallet would have to get involved there again. 🙂
I would go with the 50-200mm over the 24-105mm. Too much overlap and too little reach with the latter.
Interestingly, I’ve been using a 28-300mm instead of my 70-200mm f/2.8 a lot recently, and I’ve been very satisfied with that lens given its all-in-one nature. Granted, DoF isn’t nearly as good, but it’s no slouch. Maybe check out the DX equivalent?
Thanks for posting this review, and showing what it can do at Disney. I’d really like to get this lens one day; and wouldn’t mind selling my Sigma 30mm to do so. Hearing how the focusing is pretty spot on is great news to my ears. Even after Sigma’s repair of my 30mm, it still seems a little iffy at times.
It’s really sad that the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 had so many quality control issues. That’s an amazing lens, but it’s really luck of the draw as to whether you get one with focus issues.
They did release an updated version of it in 2013. I haven’t really read reviews of that updated version, but I wonder if it has better QC?
I’ve been waiting for your review as well. Great real world Disney review. I had previously asked about this lens and the 35 f/1.4. But with our Disney trip I decided to trust my gut (and other respected opinions on the lens) and purchased this lens. It is fantastic, definitely larger than I was anticipating but it has that high quality feel, better than any of my current lenses. While the price on the lens is steep when you get into this range on quality and price there is not much out there that can compete with it.
It did take about a month to come in from Amazon. Since it has arrived it has not left my camera. I’m still learning how to fully appreciate all the lens has to offer. Can’t wait to use it on our upcoming trip in 2 weeks.
A month actually isn’t too bad given their shipping estimate and the waits I’ve heard about elsewhere. Good luck using the lens–report back here with your results (and a link to your photos with it) if you’d like!
Wow, sounds like you were rather impressed with this lens. It’s kind of a match made in heaven for Disney photography, I could see myself using it exclusively along with a 55-200mm for some zoom now and again. It’s tempting to sell my tamron 17-50 2.8 vc and my sigma 30mm 1.4 to obtain this superior lens.
By the way- did it drive you crazy getting used to canon after having your muscle memory so completely trained on a D600?
Using the Canon took some SERIOUS getting used to. I missed a lot of shots at the beginning because I inadvertently changed settings I didn’t want to change when I pressed buttons that did things I didn’t expect them to do. I rarely pull my head away from the Nikon to change settings…changing settings on the Canon took much longer for me. I finally got the hang of it after a few days, but I don’t envy anyone who switches brands.
I’ve had this lens for about a month on a 60D and love it. (I bought it to replace the Sigma 30 f/1.4 I lost out at Disneyland.) I was a bit concerned about focus, particularly after DPR’s non-glowing review, but so far it’s been more accurate than my 30mm was.
As you said in the reivew – I think it’s a prefect zoom range for Disney, as there have been several times I wished I had a bit wider angle than the 30mm gave. The zoom range (and overall better picture quality) was worth the loss of 2.3 of a stop to me.
The only real downsides vs. the 30mm are the ~2x price and the size weight. The 30mm was a nice light walk-around lens. At 1.75″ longer and >0.8lbs heavier, this lens has a lot more heft.
Interesting comment about the DPR review. I had not read that prior to posting mine–I had read several other reviews, and NONE of them commented on that. What’s most intriguing is that DPR said they tried two copies of the lens and both had the problem. That seems like some serious bad luck if there wasn’t error on the part of the camera.
I tested the autofocus in challenging situations (namely, Disney dark rides), and didn’t experience those issues. I wonder what gives?
I’ve been waiting for this review! I’m glad to hear nothing but positive feedback as I, too, was skeptical about whether sharpness or bokeh were going to be unimpressive. I might have to try to get my hands on one very soon. — Thanks for the review, Tom!
I don’t think you’ll regret it. Report back with your results if you do get it!