# EOS M / Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Combo



## hionhifi (Aug 12, 2013)

I recently got the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM to go with my EOS M. I used the Canon EOS M to EF Adapter to connect the Sigma to the EOS M. All functions worked as promised, auto-focus, exposure and everything else. 

I took the couple with me to the a trade show this weekend to see how the pair performed together. Going into it I had a lot of questions about the pair. Would it be to heavy or front heavy? Would it be difficult to handle? How's the image quality indoors in really low light. 

Here are the answers to the questions about. 


> Would it be to heavy or front heavy?


It was an enjoyable experience. I'm not sure if it was just because I had a new toy to play with that I didn't recognize the hefty lens or what but it didn't feel too heavy. It was obviously front heavy and you need to hold the whole package by the lens and using your other hand to steady and aim the EOS M. I used a Case Logic SLRC-205 SLR Camera Sling to carry everything and that worked very well indeed. I had easy access to the camera and it was well protected. Plus the sling gave me some pockets to store extra batteries and carry keys, money, etc. 


> Would it be difficult to handle?


The EOS M doesn't really have grip to speak off so I could not hold the package in one hand the way I might have been able to do with say a 60D. 



> How's the image quality indoors in really low light.


With the speed of the lens, I was able to take pictures in some really low light situations keeping the ISO down around 3200. Image quality was good up to 3200, at 6400, noise was egregious.

Overall I'm happy with the EOS M/Sigma package. It beat my Panasonic DMC-G6 m/43 camera which I took to the show as well. I was testing the Panasonic DMC-G6 to see if it could replace the EOS M. The Panasonic G6 has a ton of features, WiFi, NFC, Time-Lapse, Stop Motion, Flip-out screen, awesome EVF, and it's lighter. No, scratch that, it's a ton lighter, like "one handed carry all day without issues lighter!" While the G6 has all the features when it comes to image quality, the EOS M/Sigma has it beat in every image quality metric; better colors, lower noise, better high (<6400) ISO performance, etc. In terms of image quality, the EOS M/Sigma combo ate the Panasonic for lunch in low light by 1 stop, but in bright light, the race was a dead heat. 

I'll probably keep the EOS M and lens since I can pair it with the upcoming 70D. I plan to get one when it comes out. Then keep the EOS M as my travel and back up camera. 

Here are a few pics. 





[/URL]



[/URL]



[/URL]



[/URL]


----------



## drjlo (Aug 14, 2013)

Could you post some portraits at 35 mm end at f/1.8? Wondering about bokeh and portrait presentation of this combo, which I have been thinking about but appears just too big for the "portable" purpose I bought the EOS-M for..


----------



## hionhifi (Aug 15, 2013)

drjlo said:


> Could you post some portraits at 35 mm end at f/1.8? Wondering about bokeh and portrait presentation of this combo, which I have been thinking about but appears just too big for the "portable" purpose I bought the EOS-M for..


Sure, I can take a couple pics for you. I'll get my son to model for me. Check back later tonight. 

Canon hit the nail on the head with the EOS M. Sure it has some niggles, like no cool features like Panorama, Time Lapse, and no flip out screen, and viewfinder, so there is love lost there. For my purposes though it still does swell. It's a highly portable package that can be used as a professional tool as well with the EOS M to EF adapter attached. It gives an EOS M owner an instant lens library and portability when they want it. In operation however, none of the nice to have features trump having proven excellent image quality and video acumen in the same body. That is where the Canon still holds court. 

When I want to go portable, I load up the 22mm, f2, and 18-55mm EOS M lens. When I'm doing more professional work I'll pack the big boy combo (Sigma 18-35mm and the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM). Most the bases I need covered are covered with the above combos. I'll get those pics for you.


----------



## hionhifi (Aug 16, 2013)

drjlo said:


> Could you post some portraits at 35 mm end at f/1.8? Wondering about bokeh and portrait presentation of this combo, which I have been thinking about but appears just too big for the "portable" purpose I bought the EOS-M for..



Here ya go. 
Pic1 35mm, f1.8, 1/4000sec, iso100





Pic1 18mm, f1.8, 1/4000sec, iso100





Pic1 35mm, f1.8, 1/4000sec, iso100


----------



## drjlo (Aug 16, 2013)

Thanks. 35 mm at f1.8 definitely has more pleasing background than the 22 mm at f/2. I am, of course, spoiled by my 50L and 85L as far as bokeh..


----------



## hionhifi (Aug 20, 2013)

drjlo said:


> Thanks. 35 mm at f1.8 definitely has more pleasing background than the 22 mm at f/2. I am, of course, spoiled by my 50L and 85L as far as bokeh..


The 22mm is nice too, but your right, the bokeh @ 35mm, f1.8 is better.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 21, 2013)

This always give me a good laugh ;D

I rather carry my 5D III + 40pancake.


----------



## tomscott (Aug 21, 2013)

Yep seems pretty silly to me.

Although im sure a good performer.


----------



## DRR (Aug 22, 2013)

A small mirrorless camera with a large lens does look silly at first but after using one for a while, it becomes quiet natural once you open your mind to the possibility.

Most of us are used to holding a larger SLR body, which is often heavier than the lens (in most handheld cases anyway) and controlling functions with the right hand. Left hand to focus and/or zoom.

I use my EOS M with the adapter and my 24-70 and 16-35 quite a bit, and at first it was very awkward. But then I started holding it a bit differently, instead of holding the weight in my right hand (as in a SLR) I started holding the weight in my left hand (supporting the lens, which is now the heaviest part).

Holding the weight in my left hand still allows me two fingers to zoom and focus. Additionally, the right hand is freed to control the camera settings on the touchscreen. If you try to hold a mirrorless like an SLR, your right hand is holding the weight, your left hand is holding the lens, and you don't have a third hand to change shutter/aperture or other settings.

With my method, which is only a slight adjustment, you have all the hands you need to quickly and efficiently get the shot.

It may still look funny, but with a little practice, it's easy to use a large lens on a small camera, with no ergonomic controls.


----------



## schill (Aug 22, 2013)

I haven't found any issues holding the EOS-M with a large lens. You just need to be used to supporting a lens with a camera hanging off the back instead of supporting a camera with a lens hanging off the front.

Most people who shoot with things like a 70-200 or longer lens are probably used to having their left hand under the lens, supporting the weight, and using the right hand to operate most of the camera controls and stabilize the whole thing. It can be very awkward and less stable to have the center of gravity of the camera/lens forward of where you are supporting the weight.

It feels more natural to me to support the weight under the lens. When I shoot with the 40mm pancake on my 7D my left hand doesn't know what to do.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 23, 2013)

schill said:


> I haven't found any issues holding the EOS-M with a large lens. You just need to be used to supporting a lens with a camera hanging off the back instead of supporting a camera with a lens hanging off the front.
> 
> Most people who shoot with things like a 70-200 or longer lens are probably used to having their left hand under the lens, supporting the weight, and using the right hand to operate most of the camera controls and stabilize the whole thing. It can be very awkward and less stable to have the center of gravity of the camera/lens forward of where you are supporting the weight.
> 
> It feels more natural to me to support the weight under the lens. When I shoot with the 40mm pancake on my 7D my left hand doesn't know what to do.





DRR said:


> A small mirrorless camera with a large lens does look silly at first but after using one for a while, it becomes quiet natural once you open your mind to the possibility.
> 
> Most of us are used to holding a larger SLR body, which is often heavier than the lens (in most handheld cases anyway) and controlling functions with the right hand. Left hand to focus and/or zoom.
> 
> ...



I'll get use to it :


----------



## neech7 (Aug 23, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> schill said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't found any issues holding the EOS-M with a large lens. You just need to be used to supporting a lens with a camera hanging off the back instead of supporting a camera with a lens hanging off the front.
> ...



At first I don't understand what's the big deal with people's amusement of mounting a big EF lens on the M, then I realize they just don't use a lens big enough to experience the same thing on a DSLR. I have a 70-200 2.8 II, and when mounted to a bigger DSLR like the 5D, you still end up mostly supporting the weight of the setup by holding the lens. So mounting the same lens to the M is no different.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 23, 2013)

neech7 said:


> At first I don't understand what's the big deal with people's amusement of mounting a big EF lens on the M, then I realize they just don't use a lens big enough to experience the same thing on a DSLR. I have a 70-200 2.8 II, and when mounted to a bigger DSLR like the 5D, you still end up mostly supporting the weight of the setup by holding the lens. So mounting the same lens to the M is no different.



Then why are we giving up DSLR AF speed & tracking for mirrorless again?


----------



## BL (Aug 23, 2013)

maybe for some of the reasons someone might prefer shooting with a 6D vs 5D III, or an SL1 vs 6D.

Canon gives me a lot of options, and I'm loving it!


----------



## sdsr (Aug 23, 2013)

neech7 said:


> At first I don't understand what's the big deal with people's amusement of mounting a big EF lens on the M, then I realize they just don't use a lens big enough to experience the same thing on a DSLR. I have a 70-200 2.8 II, and when mounted to a bigger DSLR like the 5D, you still end up mostly supporting the weight of the setup by holding the lens. So mounting the same lens to the M is no different.



What's different is that with a dslr (or any other camera with a viewfinder) you're holding the camera + lens against your face, which provides additional support/stability. I dare say it's just a matter of what you're used to, but hand-holding a tiny camera + big heavy lens seems very awkward to me and likely to put a strain on even the best IS. (And, of course, you haven't saved much weight or bulk in the process - you might as well use a dslr if you're going to attach a 70-200/300L etc...) Even my EF-M 18-55 feels awkward and self-defeating to me on my M. (It's also heavier than, and only half an inch shorter than, my Olympus 40-150 m43 lens - i.e. 80-300mm equiv. - and the same size and not much lighter than my Olympus 75mm 1.8.)


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Aug 23, 2013)

The EOS M for most of us is merely another option that we couldn't pass up at the price point. While I understand what most are saying about mounting larger lenses to the M, know that many of us do it simply because we have the option to. I personally purchased it along with the 22mm for the following reasons:

1. Best deal in camera gear since I started ($299 for most of us)
2. APS-C quality in small package
3. Ability to keep it small (with 22mm when I want)
4. Ability to mount any of my 15 EF lenses that I previously owned 
5. Continuous silent AF with the 22mm
6. Great added reach with the 1.6x when you are using tele (or tele + TC)
7. Magic Lantern capable

Yes, I'd say that for $299, all those things make it well worth it even if I have to get used to not having an OVF and awkward ergonomics with different lenses. We can knock the ergonomics all day, but it doesn't negate the fact that if even only 2 or 3 of the reasons I listed above are ones that you share, the value to cost ratio of the M cannot be beat. I paid 450 alone for my TC just to put the price point into perspective. Most of those reasons I listed above are things that my 5D3 don't offer me. And btw, you get used to the ergonomics and the touch screen starts to make perfect sense after about a week of use. I will say though that the 22mm pairs awesomely with the M and is what's mounted most of the time.

So when people wonder why one would mount a large lens like the S18-35 on the M, the answer is simply because we can. We need not have much more reason than that considering what we all paid for the body. To the OP, thanks for the samples and thread.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 24, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> The EOS M for most of us is merely another option that we couldn't pass up at the price point. While I understand what most are saying about mounting larger lenses to the M, know that many of us do it simply because we have the option to. I personally purchased it along with the 22mm for the following reasons:
> 
> 1. Best deal in camera gear since I started ($299 for most of us)
> 2. APS-C quality in small package
> ...



The M was designed as *compact camera*, easy to carry around. Putting L lens on M will take that *purpose* away. Period. 

What next, battery grip for M?


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Aug 24, 2013)

I will agree that the M was designed to primarily be used as a compact camera that is easy to carry around. And yes, mounting an L lens on it does negate that purpose. However, it is clearly not the only intended purpose from Canon as they would not have released the EF/S to M adapter alongside it otherwise.

To me, the mere fact that the combo of the M with the 22mm is super compact is already worth the price of admission. But to take it a step further, I have the CHOICE to mount whatever lens I want to it. The key here is that it is an available option offered to you from Canon which is more than could be said for most of the other manufacturers with a mirrorless offering at this point. 

For all intents and purposes, what Canon has offered is a mirrorless contender (body only on eBay for $240 + Adapter at $115 both new) that gives you access to the super compact as well as the rest of their line of products if you so choose to use them with said body. At $355, it is only slightly more than half the cost of your RX100. Again, at that price point, I could mount whatever the heck I want on there. At least I can say that I have the option.

I get your typical APS-C body IQ (i.e. any of the rebels, xxD, and 7D) for that same price point which is a deal at any size. I personally have used the M as a second body along with my 5D3 for a different FL which would justify mounting an L lens.

Mounting L lenses on the M also gives me distinct differences like a longer macro through the 100L, the 24 tse now becomes a 38mm which I prefer over my 45 tse in some instances. I have mounted my 90mm tse with my 2x III teleconverter to get a 288mm tilt shift lens. Why? Because I can. The possibilities are basically endless. The fact that the M allows me to have these options is great. If you don't think it is for you, then don't do it. But it doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense for plenty of other people to do it. 

I could theoretically have gone out and gotten a larger APS-C body so that the ergonomics would have been better. But why would I do that when I picked up the M, adapter, flash, and lens for $500 total (cheaper if you don't want all those things)?

In a nutshell, different strokes for different folks. No need to judge other people on how best to use their gear so long as they are producing captivating images.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 24, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> I will agree that the M was designed to primarily be used as a compact camera that is easy to carry around. And yes, mounting an L lens on it does negate that purpose. However, it is clearly not the only intended purpose from Canon as they would not have released the EF/S to M adapter alongside it otherwise.
> 
> To me, the mere fact that the combo of the M with the 22mm is super compact is already worth the price of admission. But to take it a step further, I have the CHOICE to mount whatever lens I want to it. The key here is that it is an available option offered to you from Canon which is more than could be said for most of the other manufacturers with a mirrorless offering at this point.
> 
> ...



and I don't mind adding more pancakes to my gear, regardless what I currently own.

I don't judge people about their gear. I give comments - don't we all doing that on this forum?

I wouldn't sell my M if AF speed and IQ performs better than rx100 2. Not to mention RX100 I & II fits in jean pocket no problem.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Aug 24, 2013)

Indeed we are all here to make comments and receive rebuttals which is all I am doing. Not trying to silence your comments if that is what you are inferring. My apologies if that is how my comments have been perceived.

The point is, failing to see that there is definite utility for many of us in mounting EF/S lenses is an exhibition of lack of perspective. In more instances than not, there are plenty of valid reasons why one would choose to have larger lenses on the M hence there are few instances where there would be no justification for pairing a particular lens with said body. Again, different strokes for different folks. 

And my words were chosen poorly in my previous post. I did not mean to say you were judging people about their gear. I was merely saying that you may have had an error in judgement in that you have not accounted for all the potential valid reasons one would have to mount a larger lens on the compact body since your opinion/assessment is that some things "simply don't go together."

To reiterate, the cost of buying into this APS-C system was peanuts in the grand scheme of this hobby. It opens the door to many things my full frame body doesn't provide me at a bargain. Most of those reasons involve being able to mount larger than M mount native lenses. So in my opinion, those lenses definitely go together with the M depending on your subset of needs.

I respect and appreciate what the Sony compacts bring to the table. I only mentioned them to bring into perspective what the relative cost of the M was and to exhibit its cost to value ratio (and that mounting full size lenses is a major part of that value) in comparison.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 25, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> Indeed we are all here to make comments and receive rebuttals which is all I am doing. Not trying to silence your comments if that is what you are inferring. My apologies if that is how my comments have been perceived.
> 
> The point is, failing to see that there is definite utility for many of us in mounting EF/S lenses is an exhibition of lack of perspective. In more instances than not, there are plenty of valid reasons why one would choose to have larger lenses on the M hence there are few instances where there would be no justification for pairing a particular lens with said body. Again, different strokes for different folks.
> 
> ...



Would you hire a photographer shooting with M + adapter + EF/S lens for your wedding?

Failing to see the fundamental of M could end up in a long discussion 

Let our conversation cont here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16610.0


----------



## Policar (Aug 25, 2013)

This is the sharpest APS-C zoom I've used and the M is sharper than the 7D for sure...

But how the hell do you handhold the M (with any lens) so that it's steady. I can't for my life.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Aug 25, 2013)

@Dylan - see you in the linked thread.

@Policar - Enable the touch focus/shutter actuation. Works great for me in most cases.


----------



## BL (Aug 26, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> @Policar - Enable the touch focus/shutter actuation. Works great for me in most cases.



+1. i have never found a use for touch focus/shutter until now. i actually pair it with the 2sec timer and it gives me a moment to stabilize. granted, most everything i shoot does not move.


----------



## DRR (Aug 26, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> JohnDizzo15 said:
> 
> 
> > The EOS M for most of us is merely another option that we couldn't pass up at the price point. While I understand what most are saying about mounting larger lenses to the M, know that many of us do it simply because we have the option to. I personally purchased it along with the 22mm for the following reasons:
> ...



Here is a correction for your statement. The M was designed as a compact *large sensor interchangeable lens* camera.

Saying it was designed as a compact camera is not incorrect but only tells half the story. If compact is what you're after, buy a s100 or a G1x or a G15 (G16 now). However, none of those cameras have an APS-C sensor, and none of them have interchangeable lenses. 

So while putting larger glass does take the purpose of compactness away, you still retain the larger sensor than any of its competitors, and you still retain the ability to choose what lens you want via the mount.


----------



## Policar (Aug 31, 2013)

I can't believe how sharp this combination is. At 18mm f1.8 center sharpness and contrast is unreal... The 7D never did this! Trounces the 7D 17-55mm f2.8 IS combination and it's a stop plus faster! If only AF weren't dead slow.

I'm tempted to lose the Mark III.... My best lenses are APS-C.  But the Mark III is still a bit sharper under ideal circumstances. In fact I might have to try that out and see...


----------



## bholliman (Aug 31, 2013)

Policar said:


> I can't believe how sharp this combination is. At 18mm f1.8 center sharpness and contrast is unreal... The 7D never did this! Trounces the 7D 17-55mm f2.8 IS combination and it's a stop plus faster! If only AF weren't dead slow.



Do you have the EF-M 18-55 also? If so, how does its IQ compare with the Sigma 18-35?


----------



## Policar (Aug 31, 2013)

bholliman said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > I can't believe how sharp this combination is. At 18mm f1.8 center sharpness and contrast is unreal... The 7D never did this! Trounces the 7D 17-55mm f2.8 IS combination and it's a stop plus faster! If only AF weren't dead slow.
> ...



I don't have it... Seemed too big at the time and redundant with whatever else, especially since I like the 22mm focal length.

My guess is both are great.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Aug 31, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> I will agree that the M was designed to primarily be used as a compact camera that is easy to carry around. And yes, mounting an L lens on it does negate that purpose. However, it is clearly not the only intended purpose from Canon as they would not have released the EF/S to M adapter alongside it otherwise.
> 
> To me, the mere fact that the combo of the M with the 22mm is super compact is already worth the price of admission. But to take it a step further, I have the CHOICE to mount whatever lens I want to it. The key here is that it is an available option offered to you from Canon which is more than could be said for most of the other manufacturers with a mirrorless offering at this point.
> 
> ...


+1000000


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 3, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> neech7 said:
> 
> 
> > At first I don't understand what's the big deal with people's amusement of mounting a big EF lens on the M, then I realize they just don't use a lens big enough to experience the same thing on a DSLR. I have a 70-200 2.8 II, and when mounted to a bigger DSLR like the 5D, you still end up mostly supporting the weight of the setup by holding the lens. So mounting the same lens to the M is no different.
> ...



Having both a big lens on a big camera makes for an incredibly large object in all three dimensions. My 5D2 with battery grip on an 85f1.4 pretty much won't fit anywhere comfortably. On the other hand, when I put the Pancake on the 5D2 I can actually slip it into a lot of places without much issue since it's relatively flat in one dimension.
Now do the same thing the other way around. It's easy to carry around a large lens if there's no camera on the back. If they made an EOS-M that was just a circle sticking out the back of the lens it would make my 400f5.6 incredibly portable compared to what it is with an SLR mounted to it.


----------



## pwp (Sep 3, 2013)

There's a new in-depth review of the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 posted at DP Review.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/09/02/need-the-speed-sigma-18-35mm-f1-8-dc-hsm-in-depth-review?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0_0

They're absolutely bowled over by the optics, but unfortunately found the AF accuracy wanting. That said, the lens did get a Gold Star and an 86% ranking.

-PW


----------



## Viggo (Sep 3, 2013)

I wish they add a little to their prices and have better AF. To me, a lens as sharp as anything is pretty worthless unless the AF can make that sharpness happen consistently. Almost all of my favorite shots of the kids are when they are running or otherwise moving quite a lot. 

BUT, I love the turn Sigma have taken with all of their new lenses, they've released quite a few, consistently very high quality in (almost) all aspects, and I bet Nikon and Canon are scratching their heads and perhaps having a wtf-moment.. Love that. !


----------

