Has anyone shot with the Sigma 28f1.8?

I recently purchased a Sigma 28f1.8 to add to my wedding kit. I shoot with both D80 and D200 bodies. I bought the

lens somewhat on impulse. It should solve a problem for me and be useful, but I usually research purchases first.

The price was just too good to pass up.

 

The problem is that the lens appears somewhat soft to me. I have primarily shoot with it wide open and that is what

a want it for . . . Am I going to be disappointed with this purchase?

 

Thanks for any info,

 

Ed

I would sell it and get the 30mm f1.4. See this review here:

 

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/30v35_2nd

 

where it outperforms the Canon 35mm 1.4L

Dear Rick,

 

Sigma 30mm is good for the money it costs. Besides it has HSM - 28mm doesn't. 30mm could be used wide open for

sure. I used to have Sigma 24mm f/1.8 - the only useful feature of this lens was macro ability - it was really fun - less

the one inch. The bokhe of the Sigma 30mm is sort of this - http://www.photo.net/photo/7462572&size=lg

Check out borders - its way far from circles. I would not say that 300$ lens could outperform in someway more then $1K

lens. THERE IS A RULE - You always getting what you are paying for.

 

BR,

Sergey

Wide open sharpness is very expensive. Even if you shell out the cash, "sharp" is a relative term.

 

I guess the bottom line is that if it's not sharp enough for you, then it's not sharp enough.

 

Rick: That's a very funny lens comparison. Cheap is not a positive quality of optics. The 35L is designed for full frame. That's where the money went. Not that the Sigma 30 is a bad lens, but to say it's "better" than the 35L, that's a stretch.

 

That said, sharpness is overrated for me. I'd rather have an even level of moderate sharpness corner to corner in most situations, than to have a razor sharp center and fuzzy edges.

i did. loved it. never shot it for sharp at wide open though, but at (only) f2.2 mine had gotten much "better" in that respect.

Pictures speak more to me than words. And that test speaks loud and clear. Obviously the L is better (build and whatnot) but the Sigma is sharper at 1.4, it's clear by the test pictures on the link that I posted. It's definitely close enough that it worth 1/4 of the price of the L. The Sigma 30mm is an outstanding lens, and if it's focus calibrated to your specific camera body (which Sigma NY does for free under warranty)...it performs amazingly well.

 

And I disagree, with a fast prime I'd rather have a tack sharp center and less sharp borders because chances are the borders will be out of focus anyway because of the depth of field.

Check out slrgear.com

 

There are lens sharpness tests in there that make the differences very clear. The Sigma is absolutely NOT sharper. At best it is the same, but not when it comes to "the edges" (meaning anything outside of the spot meter circle.) At most apertures, the Sigma is at least one level away from the Canon, even at the sweet spot.

 

I'm just saying that you must take any reviews that use terms like "almost as good" and "bang for the buck" with a grain of salt. The L is much more expensive for a reason. Maybe you don't like the reason.

 

What if you don't want to put the subject's eye at the center of the frame? I say "eye" because the sharp spot isn't big enough to get both eyes in. :)

"The L is much more expensive for a reason"...

 

You're right. It's the letter L and the red ring that make it so expensive. :)

 

for four times the money the Canon should blow the Sigma out of the water, but it doesn't. They're very close performers optically. Which one to get is a no-brainer for me.

It's true, small improvements to excellent quality are very expensive. But it is an improvement. Why some people shell out tens of thousands for slightly better, isn't beyond me.

 

My equivalent Leica lens is four times the price of the 35L. It's also a 35 1.4. And they are also "very close performers optically". I bet most people won't know the difference in a small print. Many people DO know the difference though, and the Summilux 35 is a very popular lens. Of course the Leica is manual focus and manual aperture, but price and convenience are almost always contrary to quality.

 

So why would anyone buy the $4000 Summilux when they can get a perfectly capable Sigma for $350? They must be sick, twisted individuals.

"So why would anyone buy the $4000 Summilux when they can get a perfectly capable Sigma for $350? They must be sick, twisted individuals."

 

I agree, camera snobbery is a big problem. Leica banks on it. No one bought the M8 for the image quality. They bought it because it's a Leica. And people buy L lenses because they are L lenses.

 

The fact is, if you look at the test I posted, a good copy of the Sigma 30mm is every bit as good an optical performer as the L. I'd feel bad too if I paid all that money for the L and then saw that test. But you can't deny the facts.

I certainly beg to differ about the M8 image quality... But now we are moving way off topic.

 

It is Ed's decision to make if he wants to keep his 28 or get rid of it. The "facts" as you call them, are subjective. Ed seems to lean toward more bang for his buck and that's fine. If he want's to upgrade to the 30, fine.

 

Your statement: "where it outperforms the Canon 35mm 1.4L" is grossly inaccurate, considering the review you posted. That's all I take issue with. It only outperforms the Canon in price. By that logic, his 28 "out performs" the 30.

 

So I am a snob, and you are among the unwashed masses. Now that we are settled..

The fact that the Sigma 30 is even close to the performance of the 35 L is huge...I'd be upset too if I paid all that money for the 35 L. Bang for the buck is what matters to us non-rich folk. I'll get some red paint and draw the ring on myself. :)

I'm not upset about my 35L. I'm upset that you insist that I should be.

 

Let me guess... You are a big Ken Rockwell fan.

And my comment about it out-performing the Canon is accurate...the Sigma is sharper wide open in the center where it matters on a fast prime.

I disagree that it is sharper in the center. At best, it's almost as good. There are other reviews out there you know. Some of which are much more thorough.

 

But hey, the Sigma 30 is a great lens. And it's better than all of those snobby lenses that successful photographers use. Live and be well.

By more thorough, you mean they show results that you want to see.

 

But the one I linked to is unbiased, respected, and he chose the sharpest shots out if many that he took with each lens. and the resolution tests when viewed at 'original' size are undeniable.

 

But rest easy that you have a $1000 ring of red paint around your lens.

I stand behind my work.

Come to think of it... Why would I feel bad about not buying a lens that doesn't work on my bodies?

 

Pshh.

Ed- you shouldn't feel bad at all. Just give the Sigma the respect it deserves.

How about giving the original poster the respect he deserves by <b>not</b> totally derailing his thread to extol the virtues of a lens he didn't even ask about.