Sigma 28mm f1.8 as 50mm substitute for 1.6 crop bodies

[qiang_lin]

I love my 50mm f1.8 on Elan 7E, and I am looking for something similar to buy

with a 1.6 crop body. Of course it is difficult to find a lens as

good/cheap/light as the 50mm f1.8.

 

I was looking at Canon 35mm f2 and Sigma 30mm f1.4, then came across this Sigma

28mm f1.8 on B&H's website. It is bulky and heavy compare to 50mm f1.8 and 35mm

f2, but much cheaper than Canon 28mm f1.8 and Sigma 30mm f1.4. Optical

performance wise, is it reasonable enough to be used as 50mm substitute? Does

anyone have experience with this lens?

 

Thanks for your advice.

[shambrick007]

I used the 24/1.8 as a substitute for a moderate wide when I had the 10D. it was a great performer, but like the 28/1.8, it was huge.

[danny d]

I would highly rec. the sigma 30mm 1.4 to replace your 50mm 1.8

[qiang_lin]

Danny, is there any reason that you are in favor of 30mm 1.4 than 28mm f1.8 other than it is faster?

[danny d]

faster, lighter, smaller. Can't speak on IQ though.

[qiang_lin]

Thanks Danny. Actually I'm more concerned about image quality since I already know it is huge. But the price is much lower and my 50mm also only has f1.8, which I'm pretty happy with.

[frolickingbits]

I have the Sigma 20mm f1.8, it's a really quite good lens. I actually used it as my primary lens on my 30D before I switched over to mostly using a 5D. It is heavy-bigger than my Tamron 28-75 f2.8 zoom. I found the 28mm makes a pretty decent normal lens as well.

[peter_rowe]

The Sigma 28mm f1.8 is $269 on B&H while the Canon 35mm f2 is less expensive at $229. I have the Canon and it works well. It is exteremly lightweight, and very small. The IQ is pretty darn good. It's a lones I use a lot. It is a bit slow and noisy on the focus though but is fine for me.

 

Good luck!

[qiang_lin]

Thanks Peter. I really like the light weight and small size of the 35mm f2, but it seems a little bit long (56mm equivalent vs 44.8mm equivalent). Is the focusing much slower than 50mm f1.8? I don't mind the noise when focusing, and the focusing speed of the 50mm f1.8 is tolerable for me, although I desire something faster.

[alexdi]

Sigma's 28/1.8 is weak at wide apertures. The 35/2 has a whiny, irritating focus noise, and it's none too keen about locking on in low light.

 

The 30/1.4 is the best of the lot.

 

DI

[alan_myers]

Hi,

 

I use the Canon EF 28/1.8 as my "normal" lens on 1.6X cameras.

 

I'm not a big fan of 28mm lenses on full frame cameras, usually opt for a 24mm instead.

 

However, the 28/1.8 has gotten a lot of use since I started using 1.6X D-SLRs.

 

The Canon 28/1.8 is a good lens, particularly with 1.6X cameras using the sweet spot. USM is quick and quiet. It's very compact even with the tulip shaped lens hood reversed for storage. In fact, except for a couple teleconverters, it's the smalled of 15 Canon lenses in my kit. It is only slightly larger than the 35/2 (which I don't have and won't buy until Canon upgrades it to USM). It also shares 58mm filters with several other of my Canon lenses.

 

The Canon lens costs a bit more than the Sigma, I'm sure. I haven't used and compared the Sigma directly.

[joe tarrant]

I'm a Nikon user not Canon. However, I like standard primes and I faced the same

decisions as you do when I bought a D50. I looked at various new and used Sigmas and

Nikon's 35/f2, before settling on the Sigma 30mm. Experience indicated that the sheer

weight of the big Sigmas would annoy me (I have a well-documented pancake fetish...lol).

The 30mm was dear but I suspected that if I bought a 28mm and was unhappy with the

size and weight, I might end up buying a 30mm anyway. The 30mm is a big, heavy,

chunky lens. Much to my surprise, though, I'm slowly drifting back to my 50/f1.8 and

45mm pancake. Reason: weight. They weigh 30% of what the Sigma weighs. They're longer

than I'd like, but I find the 30mm big and heavy. You could feel quite different, but the

Sigma weighs twice the weight of the Nikon kit zoom lens and you may find yourself

longing for a light lens rather than a standard lens. Try one or two out on your camera

before you buy. Making the right decision now will save you money later.

[qiang_lin]

Thank you all for the great information. I'd love to get a FF body to use all my lenses as they were designed for, if 5D weren't that expensive/heavy/chunky.

 

What seems strange here is that since lenses at normal focal length are easy to make, there is no company trying to make a 50mm f1.8 equivalent in size, weight and price for crop bodies. Sigma 30mm f1.4 is very expensive as a normal lens, well, unless you are using Leica or Zeiss. I know that they all want higher profit, but 50mm f1.8 is cheap even if you double the price. Is that because people like us wanting a normal lens are just rare animals?

[alexdi]

While it may be equivalent to a normal on a crop body, the Sigma is still a 30mm lens. It's a much more complicated design than the 50/1.8, not to mention 3/4 stop quicker.

 

Considering that it holds up fairly well against Canon's $1000+ 35/1.4L, I think the price is reasonable.

 

DI

[joe tarrant]

Canon and Nikon do 35/f2 lenses. They're not cheap, but certainly the Nikon is about 2/3 of

the price of the Sigma here in the UK. And they're a stop slower. But much of the time, that

doesn't matter. Nikon's 35mm doesn't get rave reviews; the Sigma does. Maybe that's just

wow-factor: it's big and fast and a bit brash. Nikon's 50mm lenses have a better reputation

than their 35mm. As David says, 50mms are easier to make. And the Sigma isn't dear if you

compare it with its real competition. I do think you should try a 50mm. I was out this evening

with the Sigma and wished I'd brought the 50mm instead. And considering what they both

cost, that's a hard thing to say.