Sigma 30mm HSM; Sigma 10-20mm HSM?

[reish_lakish]

I'm grateful for ideas or pointers on these lenses: Sigma 30mm HSM and the Sigma

10-20mm HSM.

<P>

(I've read through a fair number of comments in previous posts and have from

these, plus a handful of good reviews, that both are quality lenses with good

builds, and that they serve users real well. But a few specific questions

remain, so I'm grateful for your views and your patience. I'm real new at all

this.)

<P>

<B>What I have:</B> a Nikon d40 w/kit 18-55mm lens.

<br>

<B>What I'm after:</B> a documentary, photojournalistic effect. Barrel

distortion, if moderate, is not a bad thing.

<br>

<B>Subjects will include:</B> Portraits and Landscapes mostly.

<br>

<B>Naiveté factor: 10+.</B> I'm completely new to all this, having some bg and

biases from the video world.

<br>

<B>My guess and gut feel:</B> the a 30mm prime lens, fast and sharp as it is, is

the way to go.

<br>

<B>My concern:</B> that 30mm = something close to 50mm on my d40, so the lens

will not be wide-enough for what I'm after.

<br>

<B>My other concern:</B> that the "wide" effect looks good but a bit too

manufactured (for me), as seen <A href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/sigma/"

Target="_NEW">in samples like these</A> posted by Philip Greenspun.

<br>

<B>My prejudice:</B> 1.4 beats 4-5.6, always.

<P>

Again, I'm grateful for ideas and pointers and ditto for your patience. I

understand that other discussions here may come close to answering

questions/concerns like these. I'm in need of a touch more clarity than what

I'm getting from the reading.

[joshroot]

That has always been my rub with the "famous" Sigma 30/1.4, I'm just not that huge of a fan of the ~50mm focal length. While I like 50 more than I have in the past, I'm really more of a 35mm guy.

 

But, like you say, 1.4 ALWAYS beats 4-5.6.

[Matt Laur]

Richard: I have an use both of those lenses. They are definitely cut out for different jobs. If it were an either-or, for general use, then it's the 30/1.4 without questions. At closer to normal focal lengths (20mm, on the 10-20), you're too slow for anything other than pretty good light. The 30/1.4 is very usable at 1.4, if you understand the shallow depth of field and slight edge-of-frame softness that's going to happen when you're wide open. But by the time you're at the still-very-fast f/2, it's sharp sharp sharp across the frame. Great lens, and that "standard"-feeling field of view is certainly a must-have, if you're not going to get a killer zoom like the 17-55 any time soon.

<br><br>

All that being said, I find the 10-20 to really usable, even at 10mm. In <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6890455&size=lg"><b>shots like this</b></a>, you're seeing the results of a little bit of correction in post-production, to deal with the 10mm effects. But minimally, really. In <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6703905&size=lg"><b>this one</b></a>, where the 10-20 was used at 17mm, there was no need to correct (though it is cropped a bit, for taste). Again, back at 10mm, there was a bit of correction <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6668904&size=lg"><b>used here</b></a> to keep the marginal architecture straighter looking (not that everything actually IS straight in Venice!). Sorry for the vacation shots! They're just easy to link to, here, and the 10-20 served me well in those circumstances. <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6431040&size=lg"><b>One last one</b></a>, at 11mm. The relative visual chaos, and my ability to get eye-level on the camera half-way up the cornstalks meant... no correction necessary at all. <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6434474"><b>Looking down on that same scene</b></a>, zoomed to 17mm. Love that lens... and hope that those examples help you see some wides-that-don't-"look"-wide scenes.

[michael_yacavone1]

Hi Richard,

 

I bought my D300 about four weeks ago, and I bought these two lenses at the same time.

I like them both a lot. 10-20mm is going to be wide, you can't worry about the distortion

too much, just work with it. Realize that at 10mm you should think about the scene in

terms of depth, not width. On the 30mm front, it is fantastic to have a 1.4 lens. It's a

really good working distance for indoor events with people. I shot a fashion show without

flash, and the dance party afterwards, and got decent results at 1/60 @1.4.

 

If I were doing this now, I might wait for the Tokina 11-16mm/2.8 in June instead of the

10-20. I may sell my 10-20 and move to that. But I love working wide so I'll have one of

them.

 

If you're looking to start with one lens, get the 30mm/1.4 and don't look back. It's a great

place to start from.

[juan_parm_nides]

There are two absolute diferent lens. One is a superwide zoom and the other a fast fixed lens. If you normally shoot this range, I should by the two lens.

 

As Michael said above, one could be complementary of the other.

And one of the best things with this lens is its price.

 

Juan Parm鮩des

[JAPster]

Being a thrify kind of guy, I would say keep the 18mm-55mm kit lens, since you arleady have it, even though it might not be 'top of the line'. Suppliment that with something like a Nikkor 70mm-200mm DX VR lens, which would serve you well for various types of portraits under various distances and conditions. The VR will be a (+) in hand-held situations where you cant or don't want to use a tripod.

[eric_arnold]

hi richard, i have the 30/1.4 and tokina 12-24. no question, the 30/1.4 is more of a street/doc lens, although i've also used it for landscapes. the 12-24 is too wide for portraits, except maybe group shots on the long end, so i can't imaging the 10-20 would be better in this respect. ultrawides are, however, excellent for landscapes. for an all purpose lens that will AF on your D40 in that price range, the sigma 18-50/2.8 might be more versatile, although the 30/1.4 is better in low-light.

[reish_lakish]

Thanks to all who've taken the time to answer here and in email. Your answers are quite helpful, and I'm grateful. (And Matt: the images you linked to are both instructive and lovely. They nearly convinced me to skip spending on a lens at all and instead put the $ into a viz to Umbria.)

 

Michael, your point about thinking deep instead of wide is very much on-target and, together with Juan's thinking, your advice that these two lenses, together, make the right package is probably...right. (Waiting to see if Tokina's entry will be worth the wait--or if it will effect the Sigma price is also good advice.)

 

That Michael shot fashion photos indoors with the 30/1.4 is a key selling point. The prime lens comes first. (I know that some have sent "zoom first" advice in email, but knowing now that there's a new zoom entry coming to market--the Tokina--I'm guessing that Sigma's price may drop some.)

 

Alan, I thought of filling the range, 18 - 200 (the come-with starter zoom + a longer tele-VR): tho I'm not at all unhappy with the kit 18-55mm, the lens just can't deliver the sort of work I need to work toward. It is, tho, a great starter lens.

 

Again, I'm grateful to all for the advice. Thanks again. Best for the weekend-

[kari v]

"now that there's a new zoom entry coming to market--the Tokina--I'm guessing that Sigma's price may drop some.)"

 

There are already plenty of ultrawide zooms and Sigma isn't expensive for what it is. Hard to see price drop of any significant amount.

[reish_lakish]

Thanks again to all for replies that are quick, good and instructive. I took away more from this discussion--and the looking-up of alternative recs--than I did from the silly and costly "You and Your New DSLR"-type course I took at the local college. (Sheesh.)

<P>

Eric, thanks for the comments on your experience w/the Tokina 12-24/f4--and also for your suggestion re the fast 18-50. I'm a sucker for the wide-angle look, tho, even in portraiture--an effect I nailed pretty well in video and am wanting to get down, now, in still work.

<P>

(Re this: Go and have a look at <A href="http://www.jamesnachtwey.com" target="_New">Nachtwey's</A> up-close and personal doc shots--esp. <A HREF="http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/jn/images/JN0003AFG_107-3FIN.jpg" target="_NEW"><B>this one</B></A>--the minor bend in them that adds drama, not surrealism.[As if his subjects are not dramatic--nor surreal enough.] [Yep, I know every new schmo with a new, walk-around Nikon wants to shoot like Nachtwey, but what better way to learn, no?] Nactwey shoots at 35mm, mostly, and in film. So this to me says: 24mm-ish in dslr-world.)(I babble here, but I did want to direct the discussion to a sample of good work and to get in return some idea on how it's achieved.)

<P>

Thanks also, Kari, for your view on pricing and the market. You're probably right. It'll take me a while to get use to the idea of $479 for anything as inexpensive.

 

Again, thanks to all for the quick and good answers, and for the patience.

 

Best for the weekend-

[Two23]

There's absolutely no way I could live without the 10-20mm range. It's far more dramatic than the 30mm (digital) length. I am primarily a night photographer and have never felt the need for the 30mm f1.4. The problem I have with fixed focal lenses is you are stuck in case photo conditions or subjects rapidly change.

 

 

Kent in SD