Pro Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2023
- Posts
- 56
- Likes Received
- 24
- Points
- 8
- Name
- Phil Olenick
- City/State
- Cambridge, Massachusetts
After just over a year happily using Sigma's RF-S 18-50mm f/2.8 on my R7, I traded it in on Sigma's new RF-S 17-40mm f/1.8 Art in August.
Yes, it's more expensive, bigger, and heavier, but wow! (It's about an inch longer and a bit less than 1/4 pound heavier than Canon's RF 85 f/2 and 28-70 f/2.8 lenses.)
Sharp at f/1.8, it's a stop and a third faster than the f/2.8 full-frame standard zooms, more than overcoming APS-C's one-stop low-light and bokeh handicaps - which is why I've given it the Colt 45's Old West nickname.
And it's as sharp as most primes. While its range is equivalent to the angles of view of a 27-64mm zoom, my tiny Sigma RF-S 56mm f/1.4 takes me out to 90mm. And my lobbying with Sigma and DxO got it supported by DxO relatively quickly.
After selling the 18-50 the net cost of the 17-40 was comparable, giving me a very practical upgrade to full-frame quality.
Yes, it's more expensive, bigger, and heavier, but wow! (It's about an inch longer and a bit less than 1/4 pound heavier than Canon's RF 85 f/2 and 28-70 f/2.8 lenses.)
Sharp at f/1.8, it's a stop and a third faster than the f/2.8 full-frame standard zooms, more than overcoming APS-C's one-stop low-light and bokeh handicaps - which is why I've given it the Colt 45's Old West nickname.
And it's as sharp as most primes. While its range is equivalent to the angles of view of a 27-64mm zoom, my tiny Sigma RF-S 56mm f/1.4 takes me out to 90mm. And my lobbying with Sigma and DxO got it supported by DxO relatively quickly.
After selling the 18-50 the net cost of the 17-40 was comparable, giving me a very practical upgrade to full-frame quality.