Sigma 30mm or canon 28mm

mjb123

mjb123

Messages
1,187
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm after a fast prime for my 40d, I've owned a sigma 30mm f1.4 before and not quite sure I was happy with the IQ, are some copies sharper than others? How does the canon compare to this lens?
I'm open to other suggestions not interested in 50's though as there a bit restricted!
 
Hi,

I love my 28 1.8 on my 5Dc (calibrated for this lens).

It's sharp @ 1.8 and very sharp @ 2.0 and beyond. And I love its colors!
I never used the Sigma, though.
 
I'm pretty sure that in the real world there's probably little in it but from what I remember (it's years since I had a Sigma 30mm f1.4) the Sigma was considered to be better than the Canon and the Canon from what I remember was regarded as rather... ordinary, to be polite.

Luis seems to be happy with his Canon and I was overjoyed with my Sigma... so maybe they're both good enough :D
 
What are you shooting and do you mean the new Art one or older one? Portraits, then the sigma may be a good bet. Landscapes, then either the canon 28mm or the 35/2.

I bought the 35 f/2 a few years ago and used it for about 2 years as my main shooter. It may be an older lens but it easily matches the sigma and beats it in some regards (sharp corner to corner on crop). It's not the fastest focusing but I never had a problem with the speed. I always wanted to replace it with the 28 f/1.8 but could never quite afford it. Canon released another 35 f/2 recently, not sure what that one is like though.

Tbh I think the 30 f/1.4 needed replacing with a new art lens, which they have. Not sure what the new one is like but if they've reconfigured the old version into something like the rest of the new art lenses then it may be a golden buy.

Edit: unfortunately the Art version still seems to have the same issues as the old one, making it a pretty poor choice for landscape and other types of photography that want edge to edge sharpness...

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sigma_30mm_f_1_4_dc_hsm_a_review/conclusion/
 
Last edited:
Amp34 said:
What are you shooting and do you mean the new Art one or older one? Portraits, then the sigma may be a good bet. Landscapes, then either the canon 28mm or the 35/2.

I bought the 35 f/2 a few years ago and used it for about 2 years as my main shooter. It may be an older lens but it easily matches the sigma and beats it in some regards (sharp corner to corner on crop). It's not the fastest focusing but I never had a problem with the speed. I always wanted to replace it with the 28 f/1.8 but could never quite afford it. Canon released another 35 f/2 recently, not sure what that one is like though.

Tbh I think the 30 f/1.4 needed replacing with a new art lens, which they have. Not sure what the new one is like but if they've reconfigured the old version into something like the rest of the new art lenses then it may be a golden buy.

Edit: unfortunately the Art version still seems to have the same issues as the old one, making it a pretty poor choice for landscape and other types of photography that want edge to edge sharpness...

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sigma_30mm_f_1_4_dc_hsm_a_review/conclusion/
Click to expand...

I meant the old 30mm! What I'm shooting is basically everyday stuff out on weekends with wife daughter and dogs!
 
mjb123 said:
I meant the old 30mm! What I'm shooting is basically everyday stuff out on weekends with wife daughter and dogs!
Click to expand...

It just so happens that two of my favourite Sigma 30mm shots were of this cheeky pair...





The first was f1.4 and the second f8, both on my 20D.

Re reading the test reports for the Sigma I have to say that the issues they raise were never a real world issue for me and neither was the oft reported field curvature. Having said all that I still think that it'll very probably make very little difference in real world shooting which you get and I'd imagine that the biggest differences are that the Sigma is APS-C only whereas the Canon is FF and the Sigma is f1.4 and the Canon is f1.8.

PS. I think that the new 35mm Art is IMVHO a very different beast. All of the reviews I've read have said that it's an outstanding lens but it's a big fat thing and in a different price range. Personally I'd admire it from afar and go for a more modest but very useable Sigma 30mm f1.4... or Canon 28mm f1.8 :D
 
Last edited:
Great shots "woof woof" I think your right, I had a 30mm and was happy with it mainly!
Now when I'm looking again for a prime I start watching reviews and get put off! At the end of the day it's for everyday photos so probably doesn't matter what I use I probably wouldn't notice a difference unless I start peeping!!
 
Tbh if you've had that lens before and weren't 100% positive about it how about seeing if you can find the 28mm or 35mm canons used and buy one. Worst case scenario is you sell it again in a month for what you paid and buy the sigma. Best case you find the lens a lot nicer and keep it.
 
I use the 35mm and its a gem, it should be for the price.... however when i tested it against the 30mm from sigma, stopped down a little bit you are going to struggle to identify the same image from one to the other.

I personally went for the 35mm over the 28mm as i had the funds at the time and one came up on the classifieds.
 
Had both, my experience with a 400D... Depends on what you want it for.

I had a Siggy 30mm - sharp from 1.4 upwards on near subjects. Once I bought it home it I discovered it front focused by about 2 foot. Was great in low light. Returned it.

Bought the 28mm. took it to a friends wedding battled with the lens all night. How anyone can say this lens can be used at 1.8 is beyond me. had to stop down to 2.8 minimum (@ ISO 1000) to try and get SOME IQ. impossible. at 1.8 my copy suffered from terrible veiling/fringing in daylight. Selling it now as we speak. However in good light it's not a bad lens once you get past 3.5-4. You shouldn't have to though. Might as well buy the 28 2.8 for half the price.

Could be my old 400D, and anything past 800 ISO is pretty bad. 28mm is being sold as I type.

It's for these "copy" reasons that I have decided to go with a Fuji X100, something that will just work so I can go take pictures!


If you can find a good copy of the Siggy for YOUR camera, I vote that.
 
Last edited:
SilverfoxUK said:
It's for these "copy" reasons that I have decided to go with a Fuji X100, something that will just work so I can go take pictures!
Click to expand...

I read a blog recently and whilst the blogger was enthusing about his camera he bemoaned the reliability as he and everyone he knew had returned Fuji cameras and/or lenses due to various issues. Now, one blog does not a summer make... but bad copy thing doesn't seem to be limited to Sigma and Canon.
 
Sometimes it's not a question of a good or bad copies.
Sometimes it's more (just?) a question of calibration between the lens and that specific body.
 
Totally agree woof woof, I'm just hoping that one piece of kit that has been optimised to work great will be much less frustrating then multiple elements that need "calibrating"

It's my first experience with Fuji so we'll see ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top