Anybody using the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 with their dSLR?

Normally I tend to shy away from the offbrands for dSLRs, but I've

got an offer on a Sigma 20mm EF I can't ignore.

 

A lot of contradictory reviews on this lens (about 50/50), which may

be due to erratic production, but I'd be still interested in trying

it if anybody is having good luck with it combined with their dSLR.

If it's a bonified coke bottle, I'll defer to the Canon.

 

I could give a rip about focus speed, noise, finish, and weight. All

I care about is if it's a clean shooter stopped down a few, and isn't

a flare factory.

I believe Grant from the Leica forum shoots with one of these and likes it a great deal. I bought a Sigma 24mm f/1.8 to use on my D70 as my normal lens (36mm), but it hasn't arrived yet. I used to have a 28mm f/1.8 a long time ago (non-ex version) that focused very slowly, but took great pictures from f/2.8 and further. I shoot a lot of concerts so I need the f/2 over 2.8. The reviews I have seen have bashed these lenses for being soft close-up at f/1.8. Any of the reviews with a photo listed looks like it has not suffered from being soft, but from being at f/1.8 close-up--the eyes of the person aren't in focus, but the shirt in the dead center of the frame is. I believe it's more a problem of user error, though they do tend to be soft on the corners at f/1.8 regardless of focus. I have not heard anything bad about them once stopped down though the 82mm front element may be flare prone. I probably haven't told you anything you don't already know from internet research, but I should receive my 24mm tomorrow and can send a couple of shots to you taken directly into a light source in the evening if you would like.

I shoot with an Olympus Zuiko 21mm f/2 on my 10D. You can get an adapter which has no glass (no loss of image quality) and still permits focus at infinity. This lens is excellent, even wide-open, but they are no longer made, so you'll need to look on e*ay or somewhere similar...

<p>

The lens is manual focus only, but it does have an aperture ring (sorry Canon!). I use it in stop-down mode on the camera: focus at f/2 then stop-down to desired f-stop. Camera & lens work fine together on either 'M' or 'Av' modes.

<a href="/photo/2220250&size=lg"><b>An example of the Olympus Zuiko 21mm f/2 on the Canon 10D @ f/2</b></a>

The Japanese reviews report that the 24/1.8 is the sharpest of the three fast Sigma primes, and it focuses a bit closer than the 20/1.8 too (18cm at 0.37x vs. 20cm at 0.25x). (The review at hand prefers the 24/1.8 to the Canon 24/2.8 for sharpeness, but prefers the Canon 20/2.8 to the Sigma 20/1.8)

 

You may think that you don't care about weight, but if you haven't seen one in the flesh, be prepared for a surprise: they're serious honking monsters*, especially with the hood. The 24/1.8 takes 77mm filters, the 20/1.8, 82mm. The Canon 20/2.8 (72mm filters), despite being the largest 20/2.8 around, is smaller and lighter than the 24/1.8.

 

*: I looked at the 300D + 24/1.8 as a low-light camera, but was grossed out by the size of the lens. I couldn't convince myself that one stop was worth that much extra size and weight. Still, Canon 20 + Sigma 24 seems to be the "right answer", if you want both, IMHO.

In light of David's post, maybe I should add that the Olympus Zuiko 21mm f/2 I mentioned above is only 250g (8.8 oz) in weight, and takes 55mm filters: it is certainly not a monster!

I have the 28 1.8 and works great (as a normal lens) on a Digital Rebel.

Scott, it looks like no one here has used this lens according to the posts. That may speak volumes to it's quality.

Yeah.....so it would seem. Yet the 20mm Canon doesn't seem to be popular either, or perhaps it's just the focal length.

 

This is why they make 10 day return policies.

FWIW if you can live with the 24mm (36 at 1.5 crop) the older 2.8 version of this is easily found for under $100. I use this on my *ist D and have been very happy. It can be a little flairy with the sun just out of frame, so be careful.

The older 24mm/2.8 does not only flare, autofocus crawls and it suffers from quite a bit of barrel distortion. The pluses: it's sharp (though maybe not yet at f2.8) and compact. And not that it is important but the rubbery finish clearly shows every small scratch and makes this one of the ugliest lenses I've ever handled...

I'm considering the same lens for my 10D Scott. I'd be interested to hear if you bought the Sigma. Occasionaly I'd be looking to use this lens for astro-photography, milky way, meteors etc. For this reason, the 1.8 speed seems appealing. From what I've read about this lens, nothing is sharp when it's wide open.

I don't own a DSLR..........yet........but I use a Canon Elan II with the Sigma 20mm f/1.8. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the optics of this lens. It's very good to excellent, as seems to be, most of Sigma's EX lenses....they've come a long way since the older days of their line.

 

Having said that, the mechanical build of the lens is a different story. Not crap, mind you, but a very solid average.

 

I bought it with the expectation to use it on my future purchase of a DSLR as my normal "street lens" (i generally use a 35mm lens for film).........so, the f/1.8 was a no brainer compared to Canon's f/2.8 for low light..........and the 24mm ends up being almost 40mm film comparison, and thats just not wide enough for me.

 

If I was gonna do a two lens thing.........i'd do the sigma 20mm f/1.8 and the Canon 17-40 L f/4.......one for low light, and one for daytime general use.

 

We'll see if my own advice pans out when the 20D's become available.

great lense, as the 12-24dx also. i really like the sigma wide angle lenses,- it seems so that they know to construct them better than nikon and canon..... in terms of overall sharpness, CA and distortion.

 

it is even sharp @f1,8,- but with my kodak slr/n you HAVE to focus therfore manually, the autofocus will not make the lense sharp under f 2,8. some, but not much- cromatic aberrations.

very very sharp at f8-f11 till the corners.

the onliest thing is that it shows some moustache distortion. not very much, but very difficult or impossible to correct with normal softare.

I bought the Sigma 20MM 1.8. I now wish I bought the Canon equivilant. Sharpness is an issue for me with the Sigma.

i just got the 20/2.8 canon to use on my 20d. i have to say that after looking them over and playing around with them a bit it seemed the canon was the best made, plus its got silent usm motor. its big (the canon 24/1.8 is tiny in comparison)

 

but the sigma's were 300$ and the canon was 420$ i figured it wasn't too much money as a difference. and when in doubt I figure the canon is always better.

Scott,

 

I have used the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 on a Nikon D300 in a variety of situations and compositions. In my opinion, this lens is a fantastic value (street price around $420.00 U.S.) -- yes, flare occasionally occurs, however, in all other aspects: corner sharpness, barrel distortion, and speed ( this is a 1.8 lens for under five hundred dollars; far less than a comparable Nikkor prime or zoom) the lens more than earns its own keep. It is both large and heavy. I own a D70, and this Sigma is the next purchase on my list.