F1.8 Full Frame Zoom Lens! Sigma 28-45 Review For Wedding Videographers

The Sigma 28-45 F1.8 Full Frame Zoom lens is an excellent choice if you film weddings, corporate or commercial videos, or anything where you need a lens that excels in lowlight performance! As long as you can handle the weight, that is... Here's my full review!

Music licensing sites I recommend:

0:00 Film weddings? This review is for you!
1:11 Why Sigma made this lens
2:03 Complaint 1 - The width
4:02 Complaint 2 - Too small of a zoom range
4:56 How heavy is it?!
6:09 INTERNAL zoom!
7:34 Colors and image quality
8:16 The manual focus issue
8:49 Focus breathing test
9:24 Build quality
10:04 The satisfying price
11:20 Getting married?! I would love to film it!

I’m required to state that I'm a part of affiliate programs for Amazon, B&H, Best Buy, Adorama, SoundStripe, ArtList, Sweetwater, Musicbed, Track Club, and Adobe and that some of the links above are affiliate links.

[lalilland]

One note for the manual focus. If you buy the L-Mount version for a Panasonic camera, you can change it to linear. Not only that, you can also select the desired throw degree. (No additional software needed, it's all in camera).

[jakelarntz]

The SECOND I saw people complaining about the width I was like "y'all need to do the math"

[DalelCampbell]

This lens is also faster than the original 18-35 because you also have to multiply the aputure by the crop.

[maruwaanmoses]

I think the tamron 25-50 f2 is going to be a more compelling option.

[captainfilmmaking]

Every reviewer says „28mm is wide enough“ - I disagree. Nowadays I shoot a lot of handheld, with image stabilisation and therefore a crop.
Sonys new dynamic active steady shot will be further implemented in the upcoming Sony cameras.
Its 1, 3 times crop lets me want an even wider option like a 20-40 for instance, to cover small spaces in a wedding scenario.

[lyndonlabayan]

Do Sony bodies not have linear focus options in body? This lens, among other FBW Sigma DG DNs, have linear focus options.

[kingweddingmedia]

I absolutely love mine. I use it on an a7RV so for photos I can use crop mode and still get 26MP. So it’s effectively a 28-67.5 fov f1.8 lens for photos, and then for video it pretty much covers 95% of my handheld stuff on a wedding day. I also don’t think its weight is an issue at all, it’s quite similar in feel to an old 24-70 f2.8, which is absolutely fine.

[Pharesm]

I'd prefer that with 24mm - 45mm

You just can't talk me out of the standard Cinema wide!

[frankfeng]

I'm surprised literally no reviewer talks about or even mentions Sigma 24-35 f/2, which is actually Full-Frame EF mount internal zoom with repeatable MF and can be adapted/speedboosted to different mirrorless mount. For its much lower price it has much better value than 28-45. I picked one up used for $400 last year.

[tiagoshoots_]

Hey Matt, Great video!!! Don't forget about the extra zoom you can get on super35 crop! 45x1.5 = 67, 5 which is a little bigger than 56mm so adding up on the math you end up having a lens that is as wide as the 18-35 but also with more zoom range if you consider the super35 crop that most full frame cameras have the ability nowadays so!!! I would love to try that lens myself! might end up getting one!!! keep up man ✌✌✌

[AdamKuzniar]

Your angle of comparing this to an 11 year old lens is a miss in my opinion. We loved 18-35 because it was (amongst other things) f/1.8 and because it was all we had at the time. With the advance of modern sensors being better in low light (so less need for f/1.8) and bigger (so you don't have to shoot at f/1.8 to get decent DoF) I'd say the best comparison to the 18-35 is actually the 24-50 f/2.8 which gives you better range with the same DoF and similar lowlight for half the size and weight.

It just feels like the 28-45 1.8 is a lens made with an 11 year old design mindset and it's not very practical for 2024. 24-70 2.8 gets you more range and the upcoming 24-70 2.0 will get you same DoF. If it was a more budget oriented 24-50 f/1.8 it would fly off the shelves.

[scottadolph]

I just ordered this lens because of this review. There as another annoying video that was 3 times as long and I was ready to pass on the lens but then saw yours and I'm gonna give it a go.

[smokeyproductions]

I’ve just started using the Smallrig Weight-Reducing Sling Handgrip Kit for DJI gimbals and it really does make a difference when using “chunky lenses” 😂

[daysandwords]

Although the 18-35 was a 1.9x zoom and this is only a 1.6x zoom, I think that at least for PHOTOGRAPHY, this is still effectively the same because full frame doesn't push the lens as hard, meaning that it's sharper, and lenses nowadays are just generally sharper... Like a 2024 mid-tier lens is out-resolving a lot of the best glass from about 2014 or so. My point being that as long as you have the pixels, you can crop in to make a 1.6x zoom probably more like a 3x zoom, really... Losing some DOF effect of course.
For video, there is often a 1.5x crop mode as well, and I'm sure this lens would have no problem being sharp enough for that.

[studio]

Thank you for the explanation about the comparison between this and the earlier APSC version. For beginners like me it was a good reminder!

[JordanSubido]

Sold my Lumix 24, 50 & 85mm and bought Sigma 28-45mm f1.8 (A Lumix s5ii cam) plus Lumix s pro 70-200 f2.8 (B Lumix s5ii cam). Amazing LENS! plus on 45mm and 4k 50fps (crop) it looks like a macro!

[ValorFlameVisuals]

I’m a little curious. Matt what is your opinion on the Sony A6700 with the Sigma 18-35 F1.8 lens?

[heartshapedfilms]

While you are right about the zoom and crop factors that you're remarking about the 18-35 most people used them with speed boosters making it equivalent (18x1.6x0.71=) 25mm much wider and 35mm is essentially double 18 so it is a 2X zoom lens. Giving a 25-50.

This lens on the other hand is a 1.5 zoom which is a noticable difference and ti me is more akin to the 24-35 f2 while it cannot be utilised by speed boosters due to the shallow flange and mirrorless mount options. (and obviously you wouodnt with full frame)

This limits it usability quite drastically in comparision to the 18-35 and i get it. Mkaing a 28 -55 which would be big and extremly heavy and more akin to a specialist cine lens and not a consumer lens at all while the e mount or l mount probably wouldnt even support the weight. And would have to be LPL mount.

So for me to summerise this is a more spicialised lens that offers a unique and versatile shooting situation with great lowlight while sacrificing weighg zoom and IQ for maximum "speed" and headline grabbing fstop.

What i feel would have been the smarter move and one most would have more enjoyed is a 28-70 f2. This is 1/3 of a stop difference and offeres a much greater range and a 17-28 to accompany it. While also making it half the price of the canon version.

[captainfilmmaking]

With improving low light capabilities of modern cameras, theres no really need for a super fast lens.
And for a shallow depth of field.. that’s just another “trend” we run after, without questioning its origin.
Look a films from the giant himself - Steven Spielberg. He hardly ever shoots wide open. Most of his films are shot f5.6 and above. Would you deny Spielberg doing your wedding video, because you insist on having a decent bokeh?

What I’m trying to say: Don’t always run after everything, everyone else is doing - create your own style.

A (wedding)film is more than slowmo and a blurry background.

[wotiluv]

I'm so glad you are talking about this lens. I just bought it this morning- actually I returned the new Sigma 24-70 2.8 for 28-45 . I hope I did not make a mistake. I would love a comparison made with the Sigma 24-70 for sharpness, and ease of use. Maybe compare the focal length to see does it make that much of a difference? IDK maybe these thoughts are crazy hehe