Canon 28mm vs. Canon 35mm vs. Sigma 30mm

subseasniper

subseasniper

Messages
480
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi everyone,

I am looking at a new lens and need some help, but first a little info.

I have a Canon EOS 40D with two lenses, a Sigma 10-20mm and a Canon 50mm f1.4 (which is pretty much welded to the body).

I am looking into getting a fast prime which is close to a 50mm EFL on my body and have been looking at the above.

The Canon 28mm is a bit pricey, the Sigma is cheap on fleabay but gets bad write ups due to back / front focussing issues and the 35mm is, well, is it too long on the 40D body.

Please throw me some advice, I need this lens for a project in October and am really struggling with what to go for.

I would say the winner in terms of price is the Sigma but these focussing issues, wow, are they really that bad or has QC improved?
 
I sometimes get slated as being a Sigma fan boy when I say that on line Siggy panic should be largely ignored but I think it should. I've never encountered front/back issues with any lens but if I did I'd make sure that it was the lens, and not me, and then I'd take it back.

I did own a 30mm f1.4 and I was very happy with it. It was sharp from f1.4 and I only sold it when I went full frame. Unfortunately the buyer (sorry if you're reading this...) immediately had problems and posted them here but did accept that it was a technique problem rather than the hardware.

This just goes to show that you have to be careful with wide aperture lenses. If you are close to the subject DoF will be thin and any movement of either the subject or the camera could result in a miss. As you own a 50mm f1.4 you should be familiar with these issues and should be able to make your own mind up if you have a good lens... or not.

The only bad thing I can say about the Siggy is that mine felt a little gritty when manually focusing. I tried another in a shop and it felt just the same so I suppose it's just how the mechanism feels.
 
After using zooms all the time I decided to get some basic primes to give me that little bit extra, so I bought 3 Canon prime lenses, the 35 f2, 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8 and with the 35 on my 60D and the 50 on my 5D3 they give me fantastic IQ and both look very similar in focal length.

My personal favourite is the 85 1.8 on my 5D3 as that gives me the focal range I prefer and IQ thats excellent, but they all do a very good job and they all do get swapped about between bodies when I feel like it. IIRC I paid just over £600 for all of them and they were all very good second hand lenses and even if they really don't get used as much as the zooms I wouldn't think of parting with them now.

I also recently got the 40 f2.8 STM primarily for the wife's 650D but I've used that on both my 5D3 and 60D and been impressed with it too. It's even better when used for video on the 650D though but you might find it too long on your 40D.
 
I have owned the Sigma 30 1.4 twice now and both lenses have been stunningly sharp, even at 1.4. In tests the lens is almost a stop brighter than the Canon 28mm 1.8. With regards to the Canon 35mm it is a cheaper lens, and is therefore made cheaper and only has 5 aperture blades (8 blades). If I have a smaller budget I would definitely own the Canon 35 2.0, but I think the Sigma is definitely worth the extra.

This is a sample of me taken last week on a Canon 450D by my girlfriend (who hates using slr's) at F1.4

428970_10151107281044929_2029594406_n.jpg
 
The Sigma is good stopped down a fair bit, I wouldn't call it stunningly sharp at f/1.4 though and for that price I wouldn't expect it to be.
 
Laudrup said:
The Sigma is good stopped down a fair bit, I wouldn't call it stunningly sharp at f/1.4 though and for that price I wouldn't expect it to be.
Click to expand...

It's no 35L f1.4, but at 1/4 of the price it never is going to be. That shot above at 1:1 you can pick out a lot of detail including reflections in the sunglasses.
 
Laudrup said:
The Sigma is good stopped down a fair bit, I wouldn't call it stunningly sharp at f/1.4...
Click to expand...

I'd say it's sharper at f1.4 than some 50mm f1.4/8's on the market. You have to nail the focus though which is where some don't succeed.
 
I'm in a similar position as the OP, but this is for a FF 5D.
The end goal is the 35mm f1.4, but I'm torn between the 28mm f1.8 with it's USM focusing and the 35mm f2.0 with it's preferable focal length.
I know the 28mm got an average review from the-digital-picture, but I think the lack of USM would annoy me on the 35mm.
Is the 28mm that bad? Or is the 35mm that great?
 
I think USM/HSM is a great thing to have so if one lens has it and another doesn't I'd always to tempted towards the USM/HSM lens.

Could you wait for the new Sigma 35mm f1.4 to hit the shops?

Sigmas recent fast primes, 50 and 85mm f1.4, have been very good and the chances are that this will be too.
 
DaveKing said:
I have owned the Sigma 30 1.4 twice now and both lenses have been stunningly sharp, even at 1.4. In tests the lens is almost a stop brighter than the Canon 28mm 1.8. With regards to the Canon 35mm it is a cheaper lens, and is therefore made cheaper and only has 5 aperture blades (8 blades). If I have a smaller budget I would definitely own the Canon 35 2.0, but I think the Sigma is definitely worth the extra.

This is a sample of me taken last week on a Canon 450D by my girlfriend (who hates using slr's) at F1.4

428970_10151107281044929_2029594406_n.jpg
Click to expand...
This isn't a great example it very soft , but i will put this down to your GF shooting it not you :)
 
Last edited:
Oooh - I'd not seen the new Sigma 35mm! I assumed everyone meant the old DC (EF-S) model.
Are there any details for it yet? Mainly price and date - and then a review would be nice ;)

As an aside, how does the Sigma 85mm compare with the Canon 1.8 and 1.2?
 
rjbell said:
This isn't a great example it very soft , but i will put this down to your GF shooting it not you :)
Click to expand...

Hmm... yeah not the best example. I can only assume its due to FB as it's sharp in Lightroom. Wierd?
 
I've owned the Sigma 30mm on crop, it was my favourite lens. When moving upto full frame I had kept the sigma and the crop body. Now I've got the 35L I sold the Sigma.

They are not far at all from each other at all. If the Sigma worked on ill frame I'd have never spent the extra on the 35L
 
Iwallace said:
Is the 28mm that bad? Or is the 35mm that great?
Click to expand...

Often puzzles me, the bad 'rep' the 28 1.8 gets. Mine's been superb over the 2 years I've owned it, and it's my go-to lens for every day snaps. Suitably sharp at 1.8, too. Solid build, USM, Canon-build quality. Cost me a bit more than the Sigma 30, but don't regret it.
 
Iwallace said:
Oooh - I'd not seen the new Sigma 35mm! I assumed everyone meant the old DC (EF-S) model.
Are there any details for it yet? Mainly price and date - and then a review would be nice ;)

As an aside, how does the Sigma 85mm compare with the Canon 1.8 and 1.2?
Click to expand...

I have the Siggy 85mm f1.4. IMVHO it's a good lens and better than their 50mm f1.4 which I also have.

Here's a review v the Canon f1.2...

http://hofferphotography.com/2010/11/16/my-sigma-85-f1-4-vs-canon-85l-review/

"Writing this next sentence is like disowning a child.... The Sigma 85 1.4 is a better lens than the Canon 85L. There, I said it. It's not 'as good', it's actually better. The first thing you need to do is throw aside your idea that the most expensive thing is best. Then look at the pros of the two lenses:

Sigma: Better ergonomics, Better, faster focusing, Smaller, Lighter

Canon: Goes to 1.2, Better AF/M switch, CPS service

Other than the service, the Sigma advantages are the most important to me. Therefore, I'm keeping the Sigma lens. The Canon 85 will either be sold or stay on for our second camera."
 
Last edited:
I have both the canon 50mm 1.4 and the 28mm 1.8, both are good lenses though the 50mm is certainly sharper and gives creamier bokeh to my eyes. I think the 50mm might be slightly better built than the 28mm......maybe that's because the 50mm is a more recent lens? As far as I know the 28mm is definitely getting on a bit now days!

I find the 28mm sharpest at f2.8 though while still good at f1.8, does soften slightly. The only bad point ive found is it does have some noticeable chromatic abrasion round the corners of some of my shots. This is generally fixable in lightroom but worth noting.

I love the fact that both are USM and also both take 58mm filters meaning I can share my filters between them. Given the choice the 50mm is always my go to lens unless I need something a bit wider. I bought the 28mm to replace my old 18-55 kit lens as I rarely used it and just prefer primes more, it fits in nicely when the 50mm on a crop sensor feels a bit too long and I still want a nice quick aperture :)
 
I don't like all 3 of them. Canon 35mm is horribly out of date, 28mm is poor optically, Sigma is only crop and that is not that sharp either, unless you get woof woof's copy of course :LOL:

That leaves:
35mm 1.4 L - the best of the best
Zeiss 35mm, MF but still amazing
Samyang - ridiculously sharp for a fraction of cost. Best to get F mount and AF confirm adapter?

Or simply 17-55 f/2.8 zoom instead?
 
daugirdas said:
I don't like all 3 of them. Canon 35mm is horribly out of date, 28mm is poor optically, Sigma is only crop and that is not that sharp either, unless you get woof woof's copy of course :LOL:
Click to expand...

You know my view, most of the Siggy horror stories on the net are Chinese whispers or user error IMVHO.

As I've said before I've seen this myself. Lent my camera and 50mm to someone who instantly dismissed it as front/back focusing crap but it was obvious to me that the problem was his technique, which I then demonstrated to him and I nailed the shot he couldn't first time.

Likewise the 30mm f1.4 I sold here was instantly under suspicion and the buyer posted images with focus all over the place only to later accept that it was user error.

So, in my own limited experience the oft quoted poor Siggy QC has been 100% user error.

And yes, my 30mm f1.4 was sharp, but then I know how to use wide aperture lenses as I've been using them for decades.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Here's a review v the Canon f1.2...

http://hofferphotography.com/2010/11/16/my-sigma-85-f1-4-vs-canon-85l-review/

"Writing this next sentence is like disowning a child.... The Sigma 85 1.4 is a better lens than the Canon 85L. There, I said it. It's not 'as good', it's actually better. The first thing you need to do is throw aside your idea that the most expensive thing is best. Then look at the pros of the two lenses:

Sigma: Better ergonomics, Better, faster focusing, Smaller, Lighter

Canon: Goes to 1.2, Better AF/M switch, CPS service

Other than the service, the Sigma advantages are the most important to me. Therefore, I'm keeping the Sigma lens. The Canon 85 will either be sold or stay on for our second camera."
Click to expand...

Out of interest, did you see the author's last post in the comments?

"TOM
This is a 2010 review. Any new thoughts on the comparison of these two lenses Tony?

TONY HOFFER
To Tom and others…. About 6 months ago the Sigma started getting very jumpy focus. As time went on, it got worse. I sent it to get fixed, but also looked into getting the 85L again. Once I did I realized that the Canon CPS turnaround time was worth it for me to keep the 85L. So I still love the Sigma and stand by the review, but usually use the 85L now…"
 
No, I didn't read that but the author did say that Canon CPS is an advantage, I don't have that.

Have you seen the lens rental reports with trays of L lenses all going back? My point is that any individual lens can fail so unless it's really bad (there are lots of reports of faults and known issues with some lenses) I personally wouldn't worry or be put off, I just buy from a reputable dealer and don't worry.

Here's some info...

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/lens-repair-data-2011

Interestingly I don't see the Canon 17-55mm listed there but I've previously read that it's Canon's most unreliable lens. Perhaps a bad batch went out and the company producing the linked data didn't receive any? Who knows? Personally I wouldn't worry unless there are known issues.
 
Last edited:
DaveKing said:
I have owned the Sigma 30 1.4 twice now and both lenses have been stunningly sharp, even at 1.4. In tests the lens is almost a stop brighter than the Canon 28mm 1.8. With regards to the Canon 35mm it is a cheaper lens, and is therefore made cheaper and only has 5 aperture blades (8 blades). If I have a smaller budget I would definitely own the Canon 35 2.0, but I think the Sigma is definitely worth the extra.

This is a sample of me taken last week on a Canon 450D by my girlfriend (who hates using slr's) at F1.4

428970_10151107281044929_2029594406_n.jpg
Click to expand...

That's a really soft shot, not a good example.
 
Boldonian said:
That's a really soft shot, not a good example.
Click to expand...

agreed, this looks terrible at web-size.

Anyone got an actually sharp shot with 30mm sigma wide open?
 
The new sigma 35 1.4 blows the canon 35L, or any other 35 (Zeiss included) out of the water.

Works perfect on crop and full frame. Sharpest lens I've ever used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top