Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM lens leaked? *UPDATED*

Pin It

Sigma-18-35-mm-F1.8-DC-HSM-lens
Sigma-18-35-mm-f1.8-DC-HSM-lens

The Czech website Digiarena published a picture of a soon to be announced Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM lens. No other details are available at that point. This of course could be just another late April's fool joke. What do you guys think?

Update: this may actually be true, here are some detailed specs on the new lens from Fotoradce:

  • Designed for APS-C based DSLR cameras
  • Ultrasonic autofocus (HSM)
  • 9 aperture blades
  • Type A (Art), which guarantees quality materials, metal bayonet
  • Filter size: 72mm
  • Minimum aperture: f/16
  • Lens construction: 17 elements in 12 groups
  • The maximum magnification ratio: 0.23x
  • Weight: 810 grams, length: 121mm
  • Angle of view: 76.5 - 44.2°
  • Internal zoom and focusing
  • Minimal focusing distance: 28cm
This entry was posted in Sigma and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • http://twitter.com/JoeXu Joe Xu

    impossiburu!!

  • Gummybear

    I would be a massive lens if true…

    • http://twitter.com/barrosinc Max Barros

      it should be smaller at 35mm/1.8 vs 70mm/2.8

  • http://twitter.com/maninsuitcase Chris Pearson

    f2.8 maybe, f4 certainly. f1.8? No way.

    • http://photorumors.com/ PhotoRumors

      That’s what I thought.

    • Zoron

      holy sheet

  • Daniel Watson

    I’d be buying stock in Sigma like crazy if this was true. Still, if this was an 18-35mm f/2.8, I’d still be extremely interested. Looks like a sweet lens

    • 57thStIncident

      Why *extremely* interested in an f/2.8? They (and Tamron) already make a 17-50/2.8.

      Also, I’m sure there are those who will say ‘who needs stabilization at f/1.8′ but there’s no suggestion here that this lens is stabilized.

  • ninja-warrior

    FAKE 100000000000000%

  • aHo

    The lens hood seems similar to the one you get with a Nikon 24-120 f4. Assuming the front element is placed right next to the rubbery grippy thing to the left of the focus scale, the lens hood would block the field of view in my opinion.

  • Mimmo

    no way

  • omar

    if this is really 1.8 then it would certainly coast more than 2000$

  • amien

    NO WAY ??? I AM buying one, no matter if it is DX or FX !!!

  • Eric

    And € 299.00 retailprice

  • karol

    72mm filter thread? 18/1.8 should have a larger one in my opinion.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dino.brusco.1 Dino Brusco

    this might be a fake but I wish I could be as good as the one who photoshopped it !!! Anyway yes, I do think also for a DX lens a f/1.8 zoom from 18 to 35 would be much bigger… I assume a f/4 might be “only” 72mm

    • Chris Preperato

      Why? Plenty of companies make a 16-35 f/2.8 that’s 77mm for full-frame…and if this lens is meant for an APS-C field of view, it could be smaller. Heck, 17-50 f/2.8 for APS-C is 67mm from Tamron.

      Sigma’s 20mm f/1.8 is 82mm, but, that is for full-frame. I’m not sure what the math is, but I bet 18mm f/1.8 could be done at 72mm for APS-C. And I know they can do 35mm f/2 at 52mm, so 72mm is easy enough.

      I imagine the price will be steep though. And I wouldnt expect it to be all that great at f/1.8, as the current Sigma 20mm f/1.8 is not well reviewed

  • http://www.facebook.com/anshuman.gaikwad.77 Anshuman Gaikwad

    may b a f/2.8, no ways a zoom lens with f/1.8….

  • vodanh1982

    Fake. The WA zoom is C cannot be A.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bdougher Brian Dougher

    Probably fake but remember Olympus made f/2 zooms with a wider focal range than this lens, though they are for the smaller 4/3 sensor. http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/zuiko-lens-ed-14-35mm-f2-0-swd.html

    • grev

      But the Olympus lenses are freaking huge! An even faster f stop for an even bigger sensor coverage, it ought to be bigger… But it can very much be real.

  • Grev

    Too small to be a f1.8 zoom…

  • arn

    People exaggerate how expensive or impossible a lens like this would be… It’s just equivalent to 28-55/2.8 on FF. So a bit of a meh, there. Nothing _that_ special, but I would really like to see a lens like that happen! Should definitely be lighter and cheaper than the FF 24-70/2.8 lenses.

    • http://twitter.com/maninsuitcase Chris Pearson

      The lens has 1.8 on it, not 2.8!

      • arn

        You kinda need to multiply the aperture along with the focal length.

        • http://genotypewritings.blogspot.com/ genotypewriter

          Equivalence doesn’t apply to lens design. A lens such as this would be difficult to make as a 28-55/1.8 lens for FF.

          • http://tr.im/bomath Barbu

            I think the guy (also) said that it would be an equivalent f/2.8 in DOF, converted to FF; not luminance.
            Actually, if you really need to convert to full-frame equivalents, it would be about 28-50mm f/2.5

          • http://genotypewritings.blogspot.com/ genotypewriter

            The question here is whether such a lens would be difficult or impossible to make. For that, the answer is, it’d be just as difficult as making a 28-55/f1.8 lens for full frame… give or take a little because of the constant flange distance on both.

            So that’s why I said equivalence doesn’t apply to lens design. It’s the same reason why a Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 FourThirds lens costs a whole lot more than a simple 50mm f/2.8 on FF that its equivalent to.

          • http://genotypewritings.blogspot.com/ genotypewriter

            One more thing… Luminance only mattered in the film days when ISOs were more or less fixed. With digital, when everything else is equal, what matters for noise is the total amount of light gathered. Which is the reason why small sensors produce more noise than a larger one with the same lens at the same F-number.

        • Remedy

          Sir you might wanna learn some BASIC physics (optics to be precise). Seriously.

    • No longer Pablo Ricasso

      You (could) be right. The Nikon 35-70 is small and has a 62 filter. But I still wonder why it hasn’t been done before. It’s not like the market for high performance DX lenses is an emerging one at this point. Of course, that may be all the more motivation for Sigma to take a lead as they have done so many times before. It would be a long time before they have competition, if they have competition. Their 21-35 was the widest zoom when introduced and paved the way. That was followed by a 15-30 which regained the title and then two 12-24s which still hold it, and an 8-16 which holds the DX title. The 100-300 f4 is not new but is unique. The 120-300 is unchallenged and on it’s fourth generation…except by the 200-500 f2.8. I suppose if someone would do this it would be Sigma. But the picture taken might not be quite as pretty as the picture of that lens.

  • RMJ

    Zuiko 14-35mm f/2 for 4/3 sensor has filter size of 77mm.

    The Sigma above has filter size of 72mm.

    Even if it’s made only for DX (crop) image circle, it propably isn’t enough clearance for the front lens. Unless there is some sort of new special super ED glass inside.

    However, if it turns out to be real… well, it certainly would be interesting lens !

    • HotDuckZ

      14-35 on 4/3 = 28-70, it’s wider range than this lens.

  • http://www.facebook.com/daniel.cutter1 Daniel Cutter

    Allthough I think it’s a fake, it’s not a completely impossible undertaking.Scaled up to FX it would be a 28-50/2.5 – now that doesn’t sound completely mad, Just a bit odd. It would of course be roughly the same size as an FX 24-70/2.8. And the price tag would be around there too.

    It would rumage in the area reserved for fast primes. It might sell quite well.

  • duo

    you guys are so ignorant. This lens is real.
    All new Sigma lens will have smaller lens diameter (filter thread), 72mm makes complete sense. The 35/1.4 is only 67!
    This lens is marked as A instead of C because A is more professional than C.
    To keep the size (and price) down, it has to be 35mm 1.8 and not 55mm 1.8.

  • No longer Pablo Ricasso

    I believe it is possible to make faster zooms than what is available if they are very short in range and not departing far from a standard focal length. However, that seems a bit small and a bit fast. Sigma lenses have generally been fairly big.

  • Corwin Black

    Its for DX crop (1.5x), specs as follow..

    17 elements in 12 groups
    max f16
    0.23x max magnification ratio
    121mm length, 810g weight (should be nicknamed “tiny” :D)
    internal zoom and focus
    9 aperture blades
    “A” – art class build
    non-rotating 72mm filter thread

    price unknown (and you can bet it will be skyhigh)

    Made for and tested on SD1M (as was 35/1.4). Thats if you wonder “why”.

    Unveiling tommorow.

  • duo

    The comments here just shows why sigma is so awesome. Yea, go ahead, prove them wrong. Show em you can.

  • Renato S.

    noise apart, if true, and this can be spread acrros other APS-C cameras, this is huge, even more after the review the 35mm from Sigma got.

  • simon

    nice. sigma is really pushing it lately. great. at least somebody is trying something a little new.

    • http://photorumors.com/ PhotoRumors

      Agree 100%, really boring when companies keep releasing the same cameras over and over.

  • Nino N.

    Maybe f/2.8?

  • Slaven

    Attach old Angenieux 28-70 F/2.6 onto Speedbooster and you’ll get 20-50mm f/1,8 with similar length and elements in optical scheme. Yes, i know about the flange distance, picture degradation etc, but it’s possiburu :-)

  • Mike

    Olympus has f/2 zooms. I know it’s for m4/3 but perhaps a 1.8 zoom for asp-c is doable. Certainly a first and a great piece of lens tech if true. Bravo Sigma. It will catch the big boys by surprise for sure.

    • Oliver

      it’s for 4/3

  • caca

    would only make sense if it was DG (for full-frame) and 2.8 not 1.8, but who and I to say what the market needs

  • http://www.facebook.com/tony.hoffstrom Tony Hoffström
  • Back to top