Sigma 15-30 for Nikon

[wm._kleimenhagen]

I have serched the forum for members reviews of the Sigma 15-30mm

zoom without any luck. Does anyone in the forum own this lens? How do

you like it for digital as well as 35mm film bodies?

[vasilis]

http://www.bythom.com/1530lens.htm

 

To be honest I do not have a clue for the lens, but this is an online review by Thom Hogan

[wm._kleimenhagen]

Thanks Vasilis, I already read it. I am looking for some "real world" user reviews from forum members.

[mark_chappell]

I've used it on digital and film Canons. My copy was a really good lens -- sharp and

amazingly distortion-free for something that wide. However, it's not fast, and it will not

accept front filters at the wider focal lengths (on a 1.5 crop factor DSLR, you might get

away with 82 mm filters at 30 mm). And the huge front element is easy to get direct sun

on, and when that happens, you'll get flare.<P>

 

<A HREF="http://biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/scenics/deadbristlecone.html">

example</a>

 

<P>I ended up wanting a wider view on my 1.6 and 1.3 crop factor DSLRs, so I sold it and

got the Sigma 12-24, which I also like very much.

[merlin]

this lense is impossible to use all the way wide with film cameras, terrible distortion. DX lenses were not made to work on film cameras.

[mark_chappell]

<I>this lense is impossible to use all the way wide with film cameras, terrible distortion. DX

lenses were not made to work on film cameras.</i><P>

 

Wrong. The Sigma 15-30 IS made for film cameras. It's NOT a DX lens.

[armando_roldan]

Mark

 

Below is what a 15-30mm at 15mm does with a F100, a film camera.

 

William, I had a 15-30mm Sigma and found it extremely bulky and the you cannot use regular filters. I used a 18-70mm AF-S, the standard kit lens with the D70 cameras and found that a much better value and faster focusing. if you need to get really wide, then get the 12-24mm Sigma.Or even check out that new tamron 10-20mm....I didn't care for the Sigma and it had a permently mounted lenshood on it. Sometimes you just need all that bulk.<div></div>

[wm._kleimenhagen]

Thanks everyone for the comments up to now. Armando, was the photo you posted made with the extended hood attachment on the lens? I have read all the reviews at photography review.com on this lens and not one of those reviewers mentioned vignetting at 15mm on their film cameras using only the attached petal hood. My photo equipment dealer is selling the Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 EX DG on sale for $299. I asked for forum members opinions of the lens in consideration of purchasing this lens that evidently cost 3 times this amount in 2002 when it first came out. I do not own a lens wider than the Nikon 20 2.8D and I would like a wider lens and find this sale price hard to resist.

[armando_roldan]

You cannot remove the lenshood. It is built in to the lens. And if you able to remove it, I seriously doubt you will able to use it again. Like I said, its a very bulky lens, perhaps not in weight but in size.

[fourfa]

there's some confusion here... I've definitely used a Sigma 15-30mm zoom that did not vignette on film at 15mm. Wasn't mine, just swapped lenses with another photographer for a few minutes to try it out. The photos I took are fine in the corners.

[armando_roldan]

if I remember correctly, the vignetting disappears at about 22mm using a film camera. I used this lens basically indoors and got some great results, same as using a 24mm on film and once I used it in a recording studio on film for special effects but not for full frame images. I still rather get a 18-70mm for my standard digital lens or just go really wide with a 10mm or 12mm zoom. That price is amazing for the new Sigma. I paid like $400 18 months a used one!!

[mark_chappell]

<I>Below is what a 15-30mm at 15mm does with a F100, a film camera.</i><P>

 

I think whoever took that photo made a fundamental mistake that relates to the rather

unusual lenscap configuration of this lens. It (the lenscap) is in two pieces: a flat cover

that looks like a typical front lenscap, and a cylindrical part that fits over the

petal-shaped lenshood. If you just take off the flat cap, you have left most of the cap in

place around the lenshood, blocking much of the FOV. What your image shows is exactly

what would expected

in that circumstance. Believe me, I've taken lots of pictures on a film camera (Canon 1V)

that completely fill

the frame, at 15 mm. The link in my first post shows one of them, without any cropping.

Here it

is:<P>

 

<P>

<CENTER>

<!--

<A HREF="http://biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/scenics" target="_blank">

-->

<IMG SRC="http://biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/scenics/

deadbristlecone.jpg">

[armando_roldan]

Andy, are you sure is wasn't the Sigma 20-40mm?

[armando_roldan]

dunno boys....I taken quite a few shots at 15mm using film with the lenscap cover(s) off indoors and got some strange images. I could make that mistake once, not constantly.

[wm._kleimenhagen]

Armando, I am told that the lens comes with the permanently attached petal hood as well as a second hood that fits over the petal hood for use on digital cameras only. (This second hood allows the attachment of the lens cap as well as an 82mm filter.) It is my understanding that the use of the digital hood will cause vignetting on film bodies .

[j_autey]

Yeah, I own it for the Nikon. Good things first. Sharp, quick focus (should be for 15-30), really close focusing (specs say 8 inches I've gotten closer-5 inches?), nice range for digital, built solid, above 20mm great images. Now the bad, on film don't use below 20mm on a film camera or viginetting occurs in corners, I often work around this problem, Lens flare, gotta watch that lens flare, and I can't use filters. Overall, I like the lens, I especially like it on a digital body moreso than on a film. It takes up somespace in a camera bag, but it's not heavy. Some of my best fotos were taken with the 15-30, but so were some of my worst-especially if I didn't catch the lens flare.

[j_autey]

Oh and the whole lens/caphood thing, I have no idea what the others are confused about. Its a two part system. The hood protects the petals, and the cap the lens. Seems simple enough to me.

[mark_chappell]

<I>Now the bad, on film don't use below 20mm on a film camera or viginetting occurs in

corners,...</i><P>

 

I didn't notice this to any degree on my copy, but I hardly every shot it wide open where you'd

expect the effects to be at their worst. On the image above of the bristlecone pine (which is a

full-frame scan), there's no obvious vignetting in the lower left corner. The lower right is a

bit obscured by the seedling and the upper corners by the natural gradation in sky color you

see with such a wide view at high altitude (11,000 + feet).

[j_autey]

The viginetting wasn't severe and like you said Mark, on subjects that would display the viginetting more readily than others. Thats the part I work around now. Keep small detailed objects (pepples, tiles, etc.) out of the corners.

[fourfa]

"Andy, are you sure is wasn't the Sigma 20-40mm?"

 

100% positive.

 

now to the original point, I personally don't find much use for images wider than 18mm or 20mm on full frame, hard to use and gimmicky in the real world. at least for me. I'd rather have a fisheye.

[jan_de_ridder1]

15-30 on an F100 ..... no problem what so ever, vignetting ? Show me a reasonably priced wideangle that doesn't vignet a bit, the 15-30 only vignets at 15mm and then very slightly.

As for the size, it is big.

 

I sold it because I got the 12-24

[lex_jenkins]

Let's not confuse vignetting with light falloff.

 

Armando's photo illustrated vignetting, caused by an object actually blocking the view. Stopping down would correct only the most minor sort of physical vignetting.

 

Light falloff is an optical phenomenon. Stopping down usually corrects this problem.

 

Also, photos taken with ultrawide lenses can create the illusion of light falloff. Clear blue skies are naturally polarized during much of the day. Next time you're outside on a sunny day with a clear blue sky stand in one spot where you have a 360 degree view around you. Scan the entire sky and you'll see the effect. An ultrawide angle lens can take in enough sky to give the impression of light falloff when it's just the sky. If the bottom corners of the photo are also dark, yup, it's light falloff. But if only the upper corners are dark, it's not light falloff.

 

An exception would be a shift lens adjusted to the extreme. This causes light falloff at only one end.

[john_kothanek1]

probably off topic but I use the 12-24 DX on my D2X. It is really very sharp etc. And it givesme that wide angle that I am looking for with landscape and scenes of city streets like Edinburgh Scotland or Dublin Ire. I would prefer a faster lens than a 4 and it looks like a cheapo lens on the camera which for some reason bugs me (I think it makes me feel overly cautious with it) but the images so far are great. I guess that might be an alternative for you. I recently took it to Europe with me and it performed incredibly. I just wish it wasn't so plasticky and was at least a 2.8.

 

Thanks for letting me learn from you all.