Sigma 18-35 with bmpc 4k

Does the sigma 18-35 work with the new 4k camera? I know it's for crop sensor cameras. I also know that the 4k is about the size of an apsc sensor. Just a little confused about full frame on a cinema camera.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no "full frame" in cinema. Super35mm is close to 35mm film. Which is close to ASP-C. The BMPC4K is slightly smaller than Super35mm.

So it should work just fine. I believe Captain Hook has used the 18-35 on the BMPC4K.

There is no "full frame" in cinema. Super35mm is close to 35mm film. Which is close to ASP-C. The BMPC4K is slightly smaller than Super35mm.

So it should work just fine. I believe Captain Hook has used the 18-35 on the BMPC4K.

Cool. That's actually what I thought. Awesome.

Now that I can stop holding my breath about the 4K...

18-35 is still just as good on this camera as it is on the others. Although it's wider, and I think that's what made the Pocket Cam combo special.

It's great, though, nice and sharp.

Now that I can stop holding my breath about the 4K...

18-35 is still just as good on this camera as it is on the others. Although it's wider, and I think that's what made the Pocket Cam combo special.

It's great, though, nice and sharp.

On the BMPCC, the Sigma 18-35 is a nice lens to cover a normal through portrait lens angle of view. Coupled with the Metabones Spoed Boost for BMPCC, you also had wide to normal covered. On the BMPC4K, the Sigma 18-35 will cover wide to normal.

What would you pair it with in terms of a normal to portrait/telephoto zoom? At one time I thought the Sigma 50-150 was a good match but I thought I read a post on the other forum that indicated that lens wouldn't be your choice.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

This has actually been tough for me. It was perfect on the other two cameras, it's wider on this one... and I don't like the canon 24-70 II Much at all. That and no IS.

To be dead honest, my favorite lens (obsessed with) is the 70-200/2.8 II Canon, tied with Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 on the camera.

THose were the two lenses I used the most testing the camera out.

This has actually been tough for me. It was perfect on the other two cameras, it's wider on this one... and I don't like the canon 24-70 II Much at all. That and no IS.

To be dead honest, my favorite lens (obsessed with) is the 70-200/2.8 II Canon, tied with Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 on the camera.

THose were the two lenses I used the most testing the camera out.

Thanks, Kholi. But I could never afford to fill the gap between the Sigma 18-35 and the Canon 70-200 with the Otus 55 however lovely that looked shooting your partner in crime on the beach recently. Maybe I should just go with the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art lens or wait for a ciné version… patience is my middle name!

I have the original Sigma 50/1.4 and it's nice on the camera.

Will be interesting to see what a 1400.00 Sigma 50/1.4 (A) looks like...

I have the Nikon version of the Sigma 18-35. Does Metabones have an adapter so I can use it for the BMPC4K?

I have the original Sigma 50/1.4 and it's nice on the camera.

Will be interesting to see what a 1400.00 Sigma 50/1.4 (A) looks like...

Yes. When I look at the MTF and contrast charts for the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 OS, it looks good to me on paper. What was it that you didn’t like about that Sigma (given it’s $949 and so much cheaper than the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 II IS)? Thanks so much for your advice by the way!

Sigma OS was nowhere near as good as Canon Hybrid IS. Like, Nowhere.

I think the new updated Sigma OS is better than the old, but thats a big factor in my choice for telephoto right now.

I have the Nikon version of the Sigma 18-35. Does Metabones have an adapter so I can use it for the BMPC4K?

Metabones don't have a Nikon G to EF adaptor but Novoflex and MTF Services both make a very good one. The Fotodiox one is also not bad. Then there are a bunch of cheaper Chinese options on eBay.

and I don't like the canon 24-70 II Much at all. That and no IS.

To be dead honest, my favorite lens (obsessed with) is the 70-200/2.8 II Canon.

Kholi. What do you not like about the 24-70 II? Is it that it is not wide enough and no IS?

Glad to hear you like the 70-200 2.8 II on the 4K
I recently acquired one and I love it too, on the 5D MkII
So the IS works on the 4K?

I have the Nikon version of the Sigma 18-35. Does Metabones have an adapter so I can use it for the BMPC4K?

Metabones don't have a Nikon G to EF adaptor but Novoflex and MTF Services both make a very good one. The Fotodiox one is also not bad. Then there are a bunch of cheaper Chinese options on eBay.

Thanks Adam! I found the Novoflex on B&H but I can't find the MTF Services Nikon G to EF on their website. Where did you find them?

I would rather not trust cheap adapters.

MTF Services are based in the UK. You can order direct from them. Not sure they have any dealers.

MTF Services are based in the UK. You can order direct from them. Not sure they have any dealers.

According to their website they only have B4 to EF mount. None for Nikon G

Sigma OS was nowhere near as good as Canon Hybrid IS. Like, Nowhere.

I think the new updated Sigma OS is better than the old, but thats a big factor in my choice for telephoto right now.

Thanks, Kholi. If you buy a lens with image stabilization, you certainly want it to perform very well. Funny how some new lenses seem nearly perfect when issued, but a few years later, when compared to the latest releases, its shortcomings are more evident. Even the highly respected and desirable Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 will seem less tasty when they add the latest stabilization or a ciné version.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

and I don't like the canon 24-70 II Much at all. That and no IS.

To be dead honest, my favorite lens (obsessed with) is the 70-200/2.8 II Canon.

Kholi. What do you not like about the 24-70 II? Is it that it is not wide enough and no IS?

Glad to hear you like the 70-200 2.8 II on the 4K
I recently acquired one and I love it too, on the 5D MkII
So the IS works on the 4K?

I have some gripes with the overall Canon look. Hook, however, has suggested that I try a few specific pieces of Canon glass, like the 100/2.8 L IS. Right now, though, I'm all over that 70-200 MK II for this and every other camera.

It's easily one of my top fives, and all of the traits that it puts down to the image are exactly why I don't like the 24-70 II... IMO it looks nothing like the 70-200 MKII when applied to motion. Like, nothing. The MKII has this intense micro contrast, and very controlled CA performance wide open, that lends itself to motion. It doesn't feel like a still lens like the 24-70 does.

Maybe it's a little hard to put into detail, but they just don't match in my eyes. Once people start moving through frame it's obvious to me.

I can't wait to get the 70-200... ugh.

Sigma OS was nowhere near as good as Canon Hybrid IS. Like, Nowhere.

I think the new updated Sigma OS is better than the old, but thats a big factor in my choice for telephoto right now.

Thanks, Kholi. If you buy a lens with image stabilization, you certainly want it to perform very well. Funny how some new lenses seem nearly perfect when issued, but a few years later, when compared to the latest releases, its shortcomings are more evident. Even the highly respected and desirable Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 will seem less tasty when they add the latest stabilization or a ciné version.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

And I was never a major proponent of IS. Go back to the earlier BMCuser days and my POV was "who cares?", and then sometime earlier last year I rented the 35/2 to toy around, IS was great.

Didn't really hit me til the 70-200, though, and now I really want an entire set of IS glass.

I agree, IS kinda changes a few things when you approach low budget/no budget image acquisition. For better or worse.

Sigma 18-35, though, is still killer, and so cheap IMO it's a must own.

And I was never a major proponent of IS. Go back to the earlier BMCuser days and my POV was "who cares?", and then sometime earlier last year I rented the 35/2 to toy around, IS was great.

Didn't really hit me til the 70-200, though, and now I really want an entire set of IS glass.

I agree, IS kinda changes a few things when you approach low budget/no budget image acquisition. For better or worse.

Sigma 18-35, though, is still killer, and so cheap IMO it's a must own.

First time I did in-car footage, I was sold on IS. Every little micro bump and vibration was instantly gone. Also, handheld shot can have motion and "shake" without looking amateur, if that makes sense.

I would take IS over AF anyday.

[CaptainHook]

Funny enough, i turn off IS on our Canon lenses shooting motion as i feel myself 'fighting' with it. But i get the feeling Kholi shoots with the camera(s) "naked" more than i do.. because i NEVER do.

I wonder if you had a bum copy of the 24-70 II? I am very pleased with mine and I do have the 70-200 F2.8 IS II as well. Granted I think the 70-200 is a better lens in every way, but I'm not at all unhappy with the 24-70 II.

Nah, I know it wasn't a bad copy because I've used three on three cameras for a multi-cam shoot and they all look the same.

They have a very "canon video" look to them, and don't really get there until you stop them down to 5.6 in my opinion.

The 70-200 MKII just does not look the same. Trust me, if they were even close I would own that 24-70 in a heartbeat. hahha

I'll also add that I'm very freakin' picky about images, even if my opinion on what I like doesn't line up with the majority. So what's likely a complete non-issue for others, or looks good, is just right out of the five percent margin for me to get into it.

I'm weird, and not in a good way.

[CaptainHook]

I think a lot of people here are picky about images, we all just have different preferences about what "does it" for us. I thought i was nuts for a while preferring ASA400 on the 4K by a large margin, while you guys were saying 800 looked better to you and i respect all your opinions a lot which made me question what i was seeing quite a bit. And the general consensus of people i trust has always been pretty negative towards canon lenses for motion, but a couple we have (purchased for stills work) i really like so i carried on. I try not to be too negative online so like to avoid listing things i dislike.

It was more so rating it at 640 was a good way to go, but 800 (from your earliest tests even) always seemed to be an additional measure, not the optimal.

BMD had it right from the get-go -- of course, shooting at 400 is the way to go.

I've even gone out with the 70-200/2.8 II at night and done that same test, 400 is really good for extreme lowlight, talking like shop windows etc.

[CaptainHook]

So you're underexposing half a stop? I STILL haven't tried testing over/under, just been shooting "on" at 400.

MTF Services are based in the UK. You can order direct from them. Not sure they have any dealers.

According to their website they only have B4 to EF mount. None for Nikon G

Sorry you are correct. I had the Nikon G to E mount.