The Canon 28mm F/1.8 or the Sigma 30mm F/1.4?

<p>I'm trying to decide between the two, they seem so very similar. The Canon is EF mount, and the Sigma is EF-S, so when I do eventually upgrade to full-frame I'd have to give up the sigma, but that's years away. The Canon seems to have better auto-focus, but the sigma is 2/3rds stop faster, and my main use for the lens will be indoors and low light.The Sigma costs a bit less at the moment, but not hugely so.</p>

<p>If anyone has used both I would love to hear what you think.</p>

<p>Strictly speaking, the Sigma is not EF-S (i.e., you can use it on APS-C cameras that are not EF-S compatible, such as the 10D), but it does not cover the full 35mm frame, so you are right about the full-frame upgrade.<br>

I recently bought the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. It's a great lens if you plan to use it at f/1.4. I got the Sigma because I love the quality of the out-of focus areas with both this lens and Sigma's other relatively new f/1.4 lens: the 50mm (which does work on full-frame cameras). Since getting the Sigma about a month ago, I've hardly had any other lens on my camera and I tend to carry my 20D around much more than my G9, which is now feeling rather neglected.<br>

However, I can't directly compare it to the Canon, which I have not used.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I own both, but used the Sigma much more than the Canon. The Sigma is an outstanding indoors/lowlight lens. I also found the Sigma to be more flare resistant than the Canon.</p>

<p>I have the 28mm f1.8 and have to say I love it. It is a bit softer wide open than I'd like but it is in the nature of such a fast lens at 28mm, there are few equivalents that even give you the option of f1.8 without forking out for the 24mm L series glass. An outstanding lens and a joy to use on my 40D.<br>

I was in a similar position to you not long ago and chose the Canon because I wanted full frame lenses for my film bodies and for future upgrades. My understanding is that the Sigma would be sharper, espicially wide open but Sigma's quality control is suspect and I decided not to risk it for a lens I'd probably only ever use with one of my camera bodies.</p>

<p><!-- [if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!-- [if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:right; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; direction:rtl; unicode-bidi:embed; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:595.3pt 841.9pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0; mso-gutter-direction:rtl;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --><!-- [if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!-- /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"טבלה רגילה"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} --> <!-- [endif]--></p>

<p dir="ltr">I had the 28/1.8 USM. I liked the bokeh, BQ and the AF but not the (non-existent) flare control and the soft edges. From <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/298-sigma-af-30mm-f14-ex-hsm-dc-test-report--review?start=1">PZ</a> I understand that the Sigma is similar regarding the last issue.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p dir="ltr">Edit doesn't work. I'll try again.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">I had the 28/1.8 USM. I liked the bokeh, BQ and the AF but not the (non-existent) flare control and the soft edges. From <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/298-sigma-af-30mm-f14-ex-hsm-dc-test-report--review?start=1">PZ</a> I understand that the Sigma is similar regarding the last issue.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

<p>Mark raises a good point about Sigma's quality control. The first copy of this lens I received tended to focus in front of the subject. Having previously read about this elsewhere, I deliberately bought it from a retailer where I knew exchanges would be painless (I chose Amazon, but there are other choices of course). The replacement copy is perfect.</p>

 

<p>I am very impressed with the Canon. Buying lenses that will not work on full frame makes it an easy decision for me. I also have the 50 1.4 and I rarely use it below 2.0 anyway since the DOF gets so shallow. So having a small light fast focusing 2.0 lens is a perfect for me. The Canon is soft at 1.8 but at 2.0 it gets very good. </p>

<p>I agree with TG up there. I was never concerned about EF-S lenses and future compatibility. I have always believed that 1.6X FOV cameras will be around for a looooong time, and still do. But with the recent fall in the OG 5D prices, full frame is now in my affordability comfort zone and have adjusted my lens buying accordingly.<br>

I just got the EF 28 1.8. Its plenty sharp in good light. I have noticed a few shots that were soft due to a combination of low light and wide open apertures. Being that I've only owned it for a day, I am thinking its in the technique and will be doing more tests in the next couple of days. Initially, I am happy with my purchase.<br>

/bing</p>

<p>lens test on guest coming in for our xmas party :)<br>

<a href="http://s12.photobucket.com/albums/a218/bing123/?action=view&current=jamjul.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a218/bing123/jamjul.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /> </a></p>

<p>Canon.</p>

<p>I had the Sigma but sold it because I got too many OOF pictures with it.<br /> I bought the Canon and I have much less OOF pictures now, most of them because of user error or bad circumstances. The Sigma had the Sigma factor: this picture should be in focus according to settings and circumstances but it isn't and I don't know why. I found just one answer: because it's a Sigma. I hadf the same experience with the Sigma 50-150/2.8. I bought the Canon 70-200/2,8 IS and got 10 sharp pictures of 10.<br /> I supose there are god copies around of both but I can't find them.</p>

<p>But when one is talking about low light conditions, and then having soft photographs, I think that the lost of sharpeness would apply to all kind of lenses in the same low light conditions? no?</p>