>internal zoom
>sharp across the zoom, all apertures
>bright
>small and light for what it is
>is like carrying 3-4 primes in 1
>multiple mounts
did Sigma just singlehandedly save APS-C?

>>4437002 (OP)
It's an f/2.8 26-60mm that weighs more than their 28-70 f/2.8... APS-C continues to be pointless. Their APS-C primes are cool though, we could use more of those.

>>4437002 (OP)
opinions range from
> This truly is the worst focal lengths of all worlds. (https://boards.4chan.org/p/thread/4436848)
to
> did Sigma just singlehandedly save APS-C

>>4437002 (OP)
Buy an ad

How does this weigh almost twice what my Sigma 18-50 weighs despite being worse?

>>4437010
28-70 is soft as fuck on corners and their 24-70 is a behemoth.

>>4437017
your sigma isn't 1.8 dummy

>>4437051
Yeah but it's full frame so I don't need such a low aperature.

No, "equivalence cope" lenses like these end up exemplifying the idiocy of photography gear consumerists and adding nothing in the end. There are lots of absurdly priced "fast" lenses for crop formats in existence already, and basically no one uses them because if you can afford the stupid pricing and want to put up with the stupid size, you already have a full frame camera, most likely two.

>>4437053
>it's full frame

>>4437002 (OP)
that is a terrible product shot.

>>4437015
>> This truly is the worst focal lengths of all worlds. (https://boards.4chan.org/p/thread/4436848)
how much of a fucking newfag are you that you don't even know how to crosslink?
>>4437149
I could smell that shitty DPreview backdrop from a mile away. Even worse is how it highlights how awful that new Smegma font looks.

$919 USD is a significant fraction of the money you could use to buy a full frame camera and reap much larger benenfits. If you were hell bent on only ever using APS-C, then I could see this lens being useful, but why the hell would you?

An expensive, crop only, bulky, non-IS, f/2.8 (FF), limited FL zoom? Wow.

It's almost half the weight compared to my old Canon 24-70 2.8 that I've used for ages.
I've been seriously considering moving to an APS-C camera like the Fuji XT5 because I'm tired of lugging my big ass old Canon stuff around. And the quality of new cameras these days, even crop sensors, are crazy.
I just wish this was weather sealed and not just kinda dust and splatter proof.

>>4437195
>reap much larger benenfits
unless you are a professional paid by the hour, you aren't reaping shit, your 100 Instagram followers wouldn't notice even if you moved from ff to iPhone, you are just a gear fag.

>>4437228
Yeah no difference at all bro.

>>4437228
We can only benefit from stuff if we get paid for it?

>>4437230
>ISO 12800
NTA and I shoot BIF and have never needed an ISO this high. If you have to break out the studio shot comparison at 12800 you are a lost gearfag as far as I'm concerned. In normal shots it's very subtle but still apparent here and there, if you print large or pixel peep.
I'd be curious if you could tell the difference between FF and APS-C that has been resized down drastically, like 20 to 2MP. I doubt such a comparison exists.

>>4437281
>If you have to break out the studio shot comparison at 12800 you are a lost gearfag
100% truth. Be very careful not to ask them for examples of images they shot using that ISO.

>>4437228
>UHM, ONLY PROFESSIONALS DESERVE NICE THINGS! YOU ONLY NEED TO PLEASE INSTAGRAM!
What is with this communist faggotry? No, you can have nice things if you are a fucking adult with a fucking job, and you can have them because you want them, not because you "need" them. Grow the fuck up and get a job.

Also, fujifilm autofocus is trash and huskyfag photomogged you which is pathetically really, he has an EM5II and changes the exif to lie about it being various nikon cameras. Lmfao.

>>4437285
No, you only need a phone. From each according to his own, to each according to his need. It's called being moral, responsible, and a good citizen. If you are not a professional, you do not need a professional camera, because you only need a professional camera for other people to like your photos. If no one but you pixel peeps you're wasting your time. The only reason to do photography is to show your art to other people. You are a loser.

Our lives our not our own. From womb to tomb, we are interconnected and indebted to each other. Individualism is satanic. You should grow up and live your life for other people instead of living for yourself like an edgy capitalist teenager.

>>4437285
huskyfag did in fact photomog him. i've never seen anyone get embarrassed by worse photos. it's like losing a photo battle with moop.

>>4437230
>bro you need a microscope and 12800 iso to see the difference
>>4437247
what you must understand my gear faggot friend is you don't need rf 28-70 and r5ii to shoot your rocks and leaves, canon r10 with kit lens will do just fine !! IF !! you only upload to Instagram.

>>4437308
>A microscope
A macbook, or at least a poorfag windows PC with specs similar to a macbook from 2012. A basic piece of equipment every employed adult worth caring about already has.

That is all you need to be able to tell full frame is better than micro four thirds.

>>4437002 (OP)
APS-C's niche is that it's small, cheap and light. This is neither small nor cheap nor light.

>>4437308
Most everyone has gear beyond what they actually "need"

>>4437285
you are a brainrotten gear fag who buys shit and never use it.

>>4437281
>NTA and I shoot BIF and have never needed an ISO this high
You've never shot outdoors at night? Or exclusively use a tripod and shoot rocks and leaves? The way your argument boils down, everyone should be shooting a D80 because it caps out at ISO 1600.
>>4437283
It was the fastest example I could grab. If anon wants to claim FF and APS-C are indistinugishable, it's sufficent to counter it. I have photos that are shot handheld at 12800 ISO and they look kind of like ass in terms of noise.
>>4437308
Again, if you're only ever shooting static subjects in good light, yeah, your phone will do. Turns out some people actually do other more interesting shit.

If you guys want to spend nearly $1000 on a cope lens for a cope format be my guest. I'm gonna spend my money on what I want.
>pic rel, it's you three

>>4437310
nobody will view you snapshit on a mac or pc, 99,91% of your views came from phones, and even then ur pics are only viewed at a low quality 1080p.

>>4437314
I use my $3000 sony gear every day for non-artistic snapshits and they look amazing because my camera isn't shit, and i'm satisfied because i am the most important consumer of my own photography

If you want everything that isn't a carefully set up building corner shot on a tripod or a flashed studio portrait to look like a phone go ahead but since you only care what other people think do consider that everyone else is going to think your camera is worse than their phone, and you basically spent twice as much as they did just to pretend to be a photographer with a fashion accessory camera.

>>4437319
>nobody
I viewed my snapshits on a mac
So did the 3 friends I emailed a few to
>99.9% of your views
I don't have an instagram.

And no matter what, in the end, I am the most important consumer of my own photography. If I was up for disappointing myself and hating my own output as long as some subhuman goyim ape on instagram was entertained, I wouldn't even own a camera. I'd repost poorly photoshopped memes about freeing palestine.

>>4437315
may we see your "interesting" snaps? oh wait, i guess we may not because that "interesting" shit you do isn't that interesting.

>>4437320
>use my $3000 sony
stopped reading here, troll harder.

>>4437324
The individual is the most important consumer of their own photography

Imagine spending money just to please others. That's like being a prostitute in reverse.

>>4437322
>I don't have an instagram
then you failed at photography.
>>4437326
the navy seal with 300 confirmed kills pasta sounds more believable than what you just wrote here.

>>4437322
>I am the most important consumer of my own photography
The only pure way to engage with photography

>>4437330
>Spending money for your own pleasure? Inconceivable. I only spend money to please others.
Do you pay people to suck their dicks too? Asking for a friend.

>>4437324
Look around the board you fag. I have a trip on, it's not hard.
I also don't do this because I want to please some random dickhead on the internet. I take photos because I enjoy it. It's for me. I find going to race tracks, out on hikes, social events with my friends and family, and other shit, interesting.

Congratulations on derailing another thread with a random shitflinging because someone wants to own a nice camera.

>>4437330
>no, intrinsic satisfaction from doing a hobby and mastery is not enough
>you NEED external validation or it doesn’t count
Holy woman moment, damn.

>>4437338
>>4437342
>>4437372
i refuse to believe this isn't a samefag tryharding to be a troll, sorry m8 you failed, take your cope and your 10k$ worth of heavy gear and gtfo of my board.

>>4437400
No samefag, it’s just obvious to others you’re a coping retard

>>4437230
i can make both of those look amazing with one click of a button
try again nigga

>>4438162
You can definitely crisp up those lines but the colors are permanently flatter, blotchier, duller, etc

also see
>HR FF is NOT worse in low light! -sony northrup coping with sony abandoning the 24mp sensor
>the visual example: sharper but the colors are fucked

>>4437315
>everyone should be shooting a D80 because it caps out at ISO 1600
I believe this and say things like this

Doghair photo mogs all anti gear gearfags. he thinks he needs medium format digital to take snapshits of his dog, sure, it seems bizarre, but he also at least attempts photography. anti-gear gearfags and shit camera copers (ie fuji/mft shills) dont post photos at all. maybe doghair is on to something that makes photography more enjoyable.

until the shit camera copers and anti gear gearfags can post more and better photos than what doghair and his $20,000 of large and medium format gear typically produce, logic dictates we should be taking him more seriously and engaging in excessive gearfaggotry by buying the really expensive, over specced cameras we actually want.

>>4438503
which photos did you post?

>>4437002 (OP)
Sticking to the 18-50mm 2.8 since im broke

>>4437002 (OP)
SIGMA's new typeface is horrible; it looks like a cheap Chinese item from the 90s.

>>4437002 (OP)
why waste money in APS C? FF or M43, that is all

I've thought about it more, definitely going to be picking this up this month

>>4437230
Where do I find this comparison tool?

>>4443770
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx
Doesn't have everything but has a lot of things.
Studio shots are purposfully harsh on optics and good photos can be taken with things that look like garbage on these test charts.
It's useful information to know, especially when trying to work out what your optimal aperture is for a given lens, but don't get too hung up it.

>>4437287
TRVKE. You are selfish consumerists. Be moral. Be socialist. Don't be a gearfag. Buy cameras for other people. Not yourself.

>>4437287
I wish I could make shit up like this.

>>4437002 (OP)
sigma zooms a bretty cool, i have a 24-35 f2 art for my canon, love that lens. you might think its useless, but i like having a 24,28,35 all in one.

>>4443792
just chatgpt it like they do bruh, it's that easy. just pepper in more slurs and profanity as you desire since it's hard to get it to let those fly.

>>4443805
ChudGPT truth nuking sortie acomplished

>>4443805
>chatGPT generates facts
when AI is smarter than you its time to quit life

>>4437002 (OP)
There is something very comfy about the pictures from this lens. Sigma picked some really good material for their marketing showcase. Honestly if I were on APS-C I'd be getting this immediately.

>>4444339
LGTM