Photozone rate this lens as sub-average (2 stars). I compared it side by side with Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 USM (a $1,600 lens, 4 stars) and I really cannot see from the graphs such a big difference. A f/1.4, 30mm @ $440 looks great for me, but I was disappointed by the review (I am still trying to convince myself to add it to my Christmas list). Maybe Henry's may let me shut some pictures to test it. I would appreciate the opinion of somebody who own this lens. I am interested mostly for the f/1.4 - f/2.8 range since I own a Sigma 17-70 mm that covers f/2.8 and up @ 30 mm.
if you compare the MFT chart,
you'll see that the borders only guets "good" at f5.6,
a bit disapointing for a lens meant to be used at wide appertures...
I own this lens and to be honest even if I'm not really unhappy with it,
I don't use it that much anymore,
be aware too, that this lens has focus problems,
you should only use the central focus-point,
when shooting action this is a minus
kr
couplos
[quote name='Azo' timestamp='1289530478' post='4116']
Photozone rate this lens as sub-average (2 stars). I compared it side by side with Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 USM (a $1,600 lens, 4 stars)
[/quote]
Photozones ratings are, at times, a bit hard to understand.
I felt the same like you, when I saw and compared the reviews of
the EF24/1.4L II and the Zeiss 21/2.8 ... two lenses comparable in
price and perforance stop by stop ... and see the different ratings.
But in the end, PZ it certainly one of the best collection of
lens-data ... regarding accuracy, reproducability (of tests) and the
sheer number of lenses.
Just read the verdicts with a grain of salt.
A word to the 30/1.4 ... I used that for some years on a crop-1.6 camera, and I
always liked this lens. It was one of my favourite lenses. But it has a special use
... like lowlight stuff, or stuff where you need limited DOF. As a "landscape" type
lens, you're better of with every standard zoom stopped down to f/8 or f/11.
Just my 2cts ... Rainer
[quote name='Azo' timestamp='1289530478' post='4116']
Photozone rate this lens as sub-average (2 stars). I compared it side by side with Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 USM (a $1,600 lens, 4 stars) and I really cannot see from the graphs such a big difference. A f/1.4, 30mm @ $440 looks great for me, but I was disappointed by the review (I am still trying to convince myself to add it to my Christmas list). Maybe Henry's may let me shut some pictures to test it. I would appreciate the opinion of somebody who own this lens. I am interested mostly for the f/1.4 - f/2.8 range since I own a Sigma 17-70 mm that covers f/2.8 and up @ 30 mm.
[/quote]
Hmm this is a hard one... I've owned it for a while now and I found that I wasn't a big fan of its focal length after all so I didn't use it very often. And the times I did, I was somehow puzzled at its inconsistent performances.
I can't really point it :
is it that it's not so sharp at some focus distances?
is it a tendency to just miss the proper focus?
Is it Front/Back focus?
I don't think it's user error as I'm quite used to picking proper focusing point on the 40D
Haven't spent time to experimentally identify its weaknesses in the field but it seems to me that the good shots are pretty sharp with good clarity to me in the center and that the borders certainly were good enough (well on my 10MP camera) that it didn't really annoy me in practice. CA and PF are quite visible but can somehow be corrected nicely.
If it's just a matter of front/back focusing, a body with AF micro adjust might just be the cure but my 40D didn't have that so I can't tell..
To try extensively on your body...
Hope this helps,
S.
ps.: it is interesting that someone mentioned issues with lateral AF points; it would render the lens rather unusable. If we agree focus and recompose isn't really working wide open and if lateral af points are faulty, what can you do then?
I liked the lens for low-light applications, where the border sharpness is not overly important. But be aware of serious AF issues:
I used this lens in Nikon mount on a D40x. Only the second copy was focusing accurately. Then, when I got my D90 it had focusing issues on this camera. I sold it and ended up with a Nikon lens.
If you get a copy that has no AF issues with one camera you cannot assume that it works on another camera. Sigma is known to correct focus issues for free under warranty. But for this they need body+lens, thus they calibrate it only for this very body.
[quote name='ThomasD' timestamp='1289560053' post='4124']
If you get a copy that has no AF issues with one camera you cannot assume that it works on another camera.
[/quote]
I can confirm this point. I had the same issues when I searched for a 30/1.4 and noticed it more than
once when I borrowed my lens to friends (who then were not happy with it on their cameras).
[quote name='Rainer' timestamp='1289565748' post='4125']
I can confirm this point. I had the same issues when I searched for a 30/1.4 and noticed it more than
once when I borrowed my lens to friends (who then were not happy with it on their cameras).
[/quote]
Why not get the Canon 28mm 1.8 (or Nikon 35mm 1.8 if you are a Nikon user) instead? The canon has the huge advantage of reliable focus over the Sigma.Its disadvantages are only heavy CA which can be corrected quite easily and sub-par border sharpness, which doesnt matter much for low light pictures for which you would use such a lens. I sue it on crop and on full frame and I am very satisfied. I would not print larger than A3+/13x18" from this lens though.
[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1289572736' post='4129']
Why not get the Canon 28mm 1.8 instead? The canon has the huge advantage of reliable focus over the Sigma.Its disadvantages are only heavy CA which can be corrected quite easily and sub-par border sharpness, which doesnt matter much for low light pictures for which you would use such a lens.
[/quote]
Actually, I also owned the EF 28/1.8 USM ... but not only does it develop more CA than the
Sigma 30/1.4, it also has a massive flare problem. In many situations, the Sigma just
"behaves" noticably better than the Canon. The only real problem is to find a sample
that plays ok with the body you have.
Just my 2cts ... Rainer
Thank you for sharing your experience with this lens. I knew something about Sigma focusing problems but I did not imagine they are so serious. I own a Sigma 17-70/ 2.8 and I recently tested it in a trip to Europe. I mainly used this Sigma and a Tokina 11-16/2.8. Tokina gave me some focusing problems, one out of 20-25 pictures, which is acceptable. But in the same conditions Tokina can give different results, let say "normal" quality pictures, and some that are totally outstanding. The quality and depth of the colors are unique and impossible to replicate with other lenses. I ended up shooting in continuous mode and keeping the best copy. Sigma 17-70 did not give me noticeable focusing problems but it was not capable to compare with some Tokina outstanding pictures. The Sigma results were very constant and I used single shoot mode for Sigma to save time deleting multiple identical copies. Reading your replies I should consider myself very lucky that the Sigma 17-70 copy I own is pairing perfectly with may Canon body. I may give up on Sigma 30/1.4, I do not want to force my luck. Twice in a row to get a perfect copy it is hard to believe it will happen.
Azo, I bought the Sigma twice. One used, one brand new. Used it on two different bodies, D80 and S5 Pro. Misfocused pics all over. During the Christmas evening, after getting about 100 shots with off-focus, I shot the rest with he 50mm F1.8 and sent the Sigma back. That was in 2008. I have not touched a Sigma since then with the exception of the 150mm Macro. But even the Sigma had a great picture quality, when shooting sports, the AF wasn't up to the level of e.g. the AF-S 80-200. Ok, the Macro wasn't supposed to be used for sports, but the Nikon 105VR had far less problems. So my personal experiences with Sigma haven't been great so far., especially with the 30mm.
Christian
|
