About the Sigma 18mm F2.8 FD (for Canon)

[William Gonzales]

Hi All,
I am looking for a wide angle FD lens, there is a Sigma 18mm F2.8, but there is not information nor reviews about. I would appreciate comments, pros, cons to help me make a decision.

Thank you,
William

 

[chip j]

i have a Sigma 18mm 3.5 AF for my Nikons that I just love--low,or no, distortion & good glass

 

[camtec]

The sigma lenses for Canon that I've worked on were of poor quality mechanically. The rear mount was really weak and subject to getting bent or otherwise damaged. I've seen better metal in a beer can. Optically they are ok. Save your money and get a Canon lens.
There is a good reason that they are cheap.

 

[benjiboy]

I have the Tamron S.P 17mm f3.5 rectilinear wide angle it's even better than the Canon FD 17 mm lens.

Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk

 

[William Gonzales]

Thank you for you comments and advice!

 

[trythis]

I have a Tokina 17mm RMC that is fun to use but can't compare it to anything.

 

[benjiboy]

Here's a comparison of the Tamron SP 17mm with some of the other leading ultra wides of that era. Dead Link Removed

 

[Mick Fagan]

I have the Sigma f/3.5 18mm for my Nikon. It belonged to a professional photographer when I purchased it from him as he was moving to Canon. This was around 1988 to 1990.

He had a 72mm filter mount fitted, which the original, as far as I know, didn't have. It is a very good lens.

I had it on my F3 alongside another F3 with a Nikkor 18mm lens, both cameras on tripods and both using the same film and both rolls developed together in the same tank.

The Nikkor had a higher overall contrast than the Sigma. The Sigma, wide open, was just slightly softer at the edges.

Stopped down to f/5.6 to f/8 the Sigma sort of caught up to the Nikkor.

It is a very good lens for the money, simple as that.

Interestingly, I purchased the Sigma 18mm, to replace the Tamron 17mm with the built in B&W filters. The Tamron 17mm was a very good lens, but at the time I was doing heaps of colour negative work and printing my own colour prints. Under some conditions the Tamron was a bit dicey with flair, with B&W it is a non issue, but with colour it gave some cross processing type effects when you had a mixture of different colour light sources facing towards the camera.

I enjoyed the Tamron 17mm but the Sigma 18mm was a tad better with colour, much of a muchness with B&W.

If the Sigma you are thinking of is reasonably priced, then unless you find an FD lens really cheap, just pick it up and learn what the 17mm or 18mm lenses can do. If you find you like that focal length and wish to make an incremental improvement, then you can pick up a Canon lens and move the Sigma or Tamron lens on at probably little to no financial loss.

Mick.

 

[benjiboy]

BY

I have the Sigma f/3.5 18mm for my Nikon. It belonged to a professional photographer when I purchased it from him as he was moving to Canon. This was around 1988 to 1990.

He had a 72mm filter mount fitted, which the original, as far as I know, didn't have. It is a very good lens.

I had it on my F3 alongside another F3 with a Nikkor 18mm lens, both cameras on tripods and both using the same film and both rolls developed together in the same tank.

The Nikkor had a higher overall contrast than the Sigma. The Sigma, wide open, was just slightly softer at the edges.

Stopped down to f/5.6 to f/8 the Sigma sort of caught up to the Nikkor.

It is a very good lens for the money, simple as that.

Interestingly, I purchased the Sigma 18mm, to replace the Tamron 17mm with the built in B&W filters. The Tamron 17mm was a very good lens, but at the time I was doing heaps of colour negative work and printing my own colour prints. Under some conditions the Tamron was a bit dicey with flair, with B&W it is a non issue, but with colour it gave some cross processing type effects when you had a mixture of different colour light sources facing towards the camera.

I enjoyed the Tamron 17mm but the Sigma 18mm was a tad better with colour, much of a muchness with B&W.

If the Sigma you are thinking of is reasonably priced, then unless you find an FD lens really cheap, just pick it up and learn what the 17mm or 18mm lenses can do. If you find you like that focal length and wish to make an incremental improvement, then you can pick up a Canon lens and move the Sigma or Tamron lens on at probably little to no financial loss.

Mick.

Did you use the Tamron dedicated lens hood on the 17mm Tamron SP ?, because it makes a big difference go the flare resistance.

Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk

 

[Mick Fagan]

Ben, probably 99% of anything I shoot in Australia with a wide angle like these, I use a tripod and always shield the lens from light, usually better than any lens hood, especially an extra wide lens hood.

With the Tamron 17mm it had problems when faced into the light, more so if I was exposing for something that was with the light behind the subject. The flare was nearly always problematic if I had more than one colour temperature of light. Some really bad ones were when I did a series of shots inside a shearing shed with warm sunlight coming in at a low angle and with some holes in the roof cold blue light coming in from the top.

Under these conditions the Tamron was certainly not the best lens if using colour film, with B&W it was not an issue. The time I visited the same shearing shed with the Sigma 18mm I did an almost exact replica shot using colour film and although the same colour temperature differences were almost identical, they were, compared to the Tamron, greatly reduced.

The second time I was there, with the Sigma, I was alongside a mate with his F3 and his Nikkor 15mm rectilinear. There was really no comparison between the two. One was a moderately priced lens for what I am, a happy go lucky shooter, the other was intended for the professional market and at the highest end. The Nikkor 15mm also had the same colour flare, but one really had to look to see it. Although to be fair, the 15mm lens made the colour flare bits that much smaller in the frame.

I don't remember if I had the lens hood for the Tamron 17mm, to be honest.

Mick.

From my QWERTY tap tap laptop

 

[benjiboy]

Ben, probably 99% of anything I shoot in Australia with a wide angle like these, I use a tripod and always shield the lens from light, usually better than any lens hood, especially an extra wide lens hood.

With the Tamron 17mm it had problems when faced into the light, more so if I was exposing for something that was with the light behind the subject. The flare was nearly always problematic if I had more than one colour temperature of light. Some really bad ones were when I did a series of shots inside a shearing shed with warm sunlight coming in at a low angle and with some holes in the roof cold blue light coming in from the top.

Under these conditions the Tamron was certainly not the best lens if using colour film, with B&W it was not an issue. The time I visited the same shearing shed with the Sigma 18mm I did an almost exact replica shot using colour film and although the same colour temperature differences were almost identical, they were, compared to the Tamron, greatly reduced.

The second time I was there, with the Sigma, I was alongside a mate with his F3 and his Nikkor 15mm rectilinear. There was really no comparison between the two. One was a moderately priced lens for what I am, a happy go lucky shooter, the other was intended for the professional market and at the highest end. The Nikkor 15mm also had the same colour flare, but one really had to look to see it. Although to be fair, the 15mm lens made the colour flare bits that much smaller in the frame.

I don't remember if I had the lens hood for the Tamron 17mm, to be honest.

Mick.

From my QWERTY tap tap laptop

You would remember Mick if you had it it's enormous and hard rubber. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/like/2312...t=0&ff3=1&ff11=ICEP3.0.0-L&ff12=67&ff13=80&ff

 

[Mick Fagan]

You would remember Mick if you had it it's enormous and hard rubber. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/like/2312...t=0&ff3=1&ff11=ICEP3.0.0-L&ff12=67&ff13=80&ff

Yeah, I would have remembered that!

Mick.