Fast Prime Lenses for D300

[alex_sotelo]

I am in the market for a prime lens and am currently considering the Sigma 30mm in addition to the 24mm or the

28mm. I will primarily use the lens for casual shooting of family and friends but I also want it for taking shots in low

light level environments like museums and such.

 

I will also be buying the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 to complement the Sigma I purchase. I like that the 30mm is f/1.4 but I

am concrened that is too long for indoor photography. Since I am getting the 50mm, would I be better off going with

the 24mm or the 28mm wide angle?

 

I've been researching these lenses over the past several weeks and am probably more confused now than I was

before I started reading.

 

Thanks in advance for the advice.

 

Alex

[Matt Laur]

I find that the 30/1.4 is a very pleasant focal length indoors. Just did a test with my long-suffering wife. She's 5'-2", and I was getting about 6 inches above, and 6 inches below her at standing height while just under 8 feet away. Mind you, that's in the D200's viewfinder, which means that there's even more coverage in the actual frame. If you have one of the kit zooms, the 30mm position on it will tell you exactly what you'll see from the Sigma. As much as I thought I'd be using it for "normal" focal length environmental/people shots, I keep bumping into situations where that <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/7510329"><b>really shallow DoF and pleasant bokeh</b></a> come into play in unexpected ways.

<br><br>

When I find that I need to go wider, I pretty much always need to go MUCH wider, and jump over to their 10-20 HSM, which of course ain't as fast... but you might also consider Tokina's new 11-16/2.8 in that role.

<br><br>

Certainly 24mm is noticeably wider than 30mm on a DX sensor. But it doesn't buy you as much more utility as f/1.4 does on the slightly tighter lens. Incidentally, the 50/1.8 (a great little lens) pushes you back to more like 15 feet for the same standing-person test that I just did with the 30mm. Have fun if you get the 30/1.4 - it's a nice, solid piece of gear, and I find myself liking it more every time I use it. It can take a while to come to terms with that shallow DoF if you use it wide open on nearby subjects - but that's an asset, not a problem.

[guido_h]

If you browse through the forums, you will find that the Sigma 30/1.4 is infested with fear and concerns

(front-focus, build quality, paint chips). It seems to work for many people, but there are enough bothering

reports to cause some sleepless nights.

 

I was in a similar situation as you are but I did not manage to come to a clear conclusion based on all the

contradictory reports surrounding the Sigma 30mm's performance and quality I found on the net. In the end, my

nerves couldn't stand it anymore, so I decided to buy the Nikon 35mm f/2D instead. I have to say that I am VERY

pleased with the view angle and sharpness/performance of this lens, especially when shot at f/2. I find the Nikon

35/2D (for group portraits and indoor shots) and the Nikon 50/1.8D (for portraits) on a DX sensor to be a great,

weightless combo if you wish to move around indoors and in the evenings with light and unobtrusive gear.

[carl_becker2]

Although its a stop slower and manual focus I like the Nikkor 28mm f2. I suggest if you have the kit lens try to pay attention to the focal lengths you use. That may help determine which prime fits your needs best.

[tri-x1]

The 24mm 2.8 is about the same as a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera--not really wide but a nice focal length. A 30mm will be pretty close to a 50mm normal on a film camera.

[Matt Laur]

<i>you will find that the Sigma 30/1.4 is infested with fear and concerns (front-focus, build quality, paint chips)</i>

<br><br>

And yet, curiously, it seems to be a rather small number of people that one finds most frequently making those observations. It's not a matter of questioning their experiences, it's more a matter of comparing those people's experiences against the larger number of people who - getting just what they'd want out of the lens and not having any trouble with it - don't feel obligated to get on a forum and say, "Yup, this item is doing exactly what it should."

<Br><br>

So, here I am saying, yup, the 30/1.4 does exactly what it should. I have no front or back focus issues. The build quality is substantially nicer than Nikon primes like the 50s, and though this unit rides around in my pack or mounted the camera every day, I've not seen the slightest sign of wear on the finsh. They've been making this lens for years, now. It would be strange indeed if early problems from the factory went completely unaddressed. Regardless, I don't consider myself lucky that the lens does what it's supposed to - it's just exactly what it's supposed to be. I love the size, handling, focus speed, and the thing is dangerously sharp. When it's wide open, the very margins of the frame aren't as sharp as the center... something I don't consider even an issue, since we're talking f/1.4.

<Br><br>

No, I'm some Sigma fanboy. But I do like to play counter-balance to some of the complaints that might distort one's expectations. Apocryphal tales of unusuable lenses seem to take on a life of their own, which is a shame. It's too bad Nikon still isn't shipping anything <i>like</i> this lens, but I'll bet it would far more expensive if they did.

[oskar_ojala]

Depends on your usage. I don't find the 50 mm focal length that practical on DX as on FX format, but on DX I like 35 mm a lot. I usually try to do a bigger difference between my focal lengths, in the film days I used a 24 and a 50. But there aren't too many fast wide angles that are good so pick carefully...

[alex_sotelo]

Matt,

 

Thanks for the reply. I find many of the opinions I read on the lenses I am considering quite interesting. Most

interesting are opinions from people that don't own or have never tried a lens but yet regurgitate information

posted by others. I find that this is not isolated to cameras and lenses. The same happens on the Electronic

forums I frequent.

 

With that said, I am actually leaning towards the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. The most important thing I want from this

lens is the ability to get the shots that I am missing today with the slower kit lens I have. I don't mind some

softness or some light loss at the edges. It's a lot better than not getting that perfect candid shot of my

daughter or nephew because my lens was too slow.

 

I have seen many sample photos taken by the Sigma 30mm and have to say that I am quite impressed with what I have

seen. I think it's all relative to what I am looking for... I am not a professional and am simply looking for a

lens that is going to catch some nice low-light candids without the use a flash or a tripod.

[Matt Laur]

Then, Alex, it strikes me as the right lens for the job. Particularly because, with the D300's good behavior at higher ISOs, you should be able to work in very modest light - though you will indeed have to learn to anticipate the behavior of the in-focus plane when shooting wide open. For example, if you're looking at a somewhat down-angle on two kids, one in front of the other, you've got a real challenge getting them both precisely in focus if you're up close and shooting wide open. But you'll get the hang of that. What you'll really like about that focal length is that the perspective (on your DX sensor body) is so close to what you see with your naked eyes that when you see a scene in front of you, you'll know instinctively how it's going to frame when you pull up the camera. Have fun!

[bruce_stenman1]

The Sigma 30mm f1.4 is a very fast focusing and very sharp lens. On the DX it provides a "normal" perspective equal to a 51mm lens on a film body (it really provides the FOV of a 34mm FF lens not a 30mm per Sigma's own specs).

 

Going wider and slower you might as well get a 17-55mm f2.8 or equivalent lens that will be a lot more versatile, especially indoors, than a fixed focal length lens. With clean ISO 1600 you will have enough light in most situations and there is nothing to keep you from turning on additional lights or using a external flash.

[joseph_wisniewski]

Hey Matt - "And yet, curiously, it seems to be a rather small number of people that one finds most frequently making those observations."

 

Well, you've probably heard me do nothing but praise my Sigma 30mm f1.4 for the last two years, so here's a brand new observation. I still love the sharpness and contrast, the bokeh is better than a 50mm f1.4 on a D3 near image center, and about equal in the corners, and I think its 45mm equivalent is a better "normal" than 50mm on full frame, which always struck me as a little too long. It's only the recent purchase of a D3 that's led me to part with my 30mm Siggy. And here's where I join the "rather small number of people that one finds most frequently making those observations."

 

The high reliability of my Sigma 30mm f1.4 and 8mm f4, and the speed with which they fixed my 14mm f3.5 under warranty a few years ago, had convinced me that there was something to this "we're better, we're a whole new Sigma" stuff, after all. After getting the D3 in November, my 30mm sat in fairly benign conditions, pretty much unused, for about 6 months. My 8mm got a much heavier workout, I love it "full round" instead of the "jelly bean" you get on the crop cameras. Both my 14mm were out on loan. Found the box, manual, etc. cleaned the front and rear elements, mounted her up on a D2X, ran some test shots, same old Siggy. Ran my ad. Someone came over to check out the lens. Mounted it up, shot some test shots at eye level, everything was fine. Pointed it upwards about 60 degrees, and it made some horrid noises focusing. Pointed it downward, and same thing. (I guess focusing pointed up and down has to be part of my standard "check out" procedure from now on).

 

Just got my 14mm f3.5 Sigma back from the friend I loaned it to. Something is all over the rear surface of the front element, either fungus or some sort of spattered lubricant or really nasty condensed substance. It's totally useless at the moment, shoots nothing but soft masses of flare. So, since I have two dead Sigmas in the house, off they went to repair. The 30mm is their problem, the 14, unfortunately, is my problem, so I told them I wanted an estimate on that one. The 14 did go in for warranty work, years ago, though.

 

The focus scale on my 8mm fisheye has always been way off, about 10mm on the focus scale. If you set the lens to infinity, it ends up focused well past infinity. Infinity is at the 3 foot mark. Sigma warned of that in the manual, so I never looked at it as a serious problem, just an annoyance. So, it's the only Sigma product I've ever owned that's never made the pilgrimage to Sigma service.

 

The 400mm f5.6 APO has also been to Sigma repair twice, warranty both times. That one is more from the SIG-nificant MA-lfunctions days of Sigma. The others are all supposed to be representative of their high line "EX" lenses from the "new Sigma".

 

My recent Sigma SD-14 camera operated for two days, before dying. Sent that one in for a refund, since my intention was to void its warranty by removing the Sigma SA lens mount from the camera, and giving it a Nikon mount. I decided I needed a warranty.

 

So, basically, five out of 5 Sigma products I've owned have died, under warranty. But they've been great about fixing them ;)

 

By the way, did you mean "No, I'm NOT some Sigma fanboy" instead of "No, I'm some Sigma fanboy"?

[Matt Laur]

<i>By the way, did you mean "No, I'm NOT some Sigma fanboy" instead of "No, I'm some Sigma fanboy"?</i>

<Br><br>

Why, yes! Yes I did! So, my good luck so far (two working-correctly Sigma products) seems to have been paid for with a mysterious degredation in my typing skills. Oh well, I'll trade that shallow vocabulary for a shallow-on-demand depth of field as needed, in focal lengths that I'd love to buy from Nikon... if they only made them. Sorry you've had a rough go with some of what you've purchased. Sounds dreadfully not right, statistically.

[eric_arnold]

hey matt,

are there actual sigma fanboys?

 

i know of some dp14 users (all eight of them) who swear by the foveon chip, but i personally could care less who makes the lens as long as it works!

[Matt Laur]

I'm with you Eric. I don't think that Sigma has any particular cult, the way that some other makers do. If anything, there are some people (gee, like me, I guess) who are just generally annoyed by what sometimes sound like uninformed or irrational spouting on any similar subject, and just feel obliged to play the foil. But then, that's just my nature. I also don't mind reporting my experience with a product, especially if I feel that such a perspective is positive - since much of the communication online tends to dwell on the cranky rants. I've certainly encountered musings from people for whom the 30/1.4 just happens to also be their first ANY f/1.4 lens - and they blame the laws of physics on the manufacturer.

[kaiyen]

I don'y consider myself a "fanboy" either, but I do applaud Sigma for coming up with some lenses that just aren't out there otherwise. The are really targeting some holes in various line-ups and filling the gaps. I blogged about this a while ago, mostly about whether brand-name lenses were inherently better than 3rd party ones, but also how there are some Sigmas for which there are no counterparts.

[joseph_wisniewski]

Matt - "Sounds dreadfully not right, statistically." Very much so. If my experience were representative of the norm, Sigma would be out of business by now. I guess it's just my luck... ;)

 

"I don't think that Sigma has any particular cult, the way that some other makers do"

 

You, sir, have never visited the Sigma forum at dpReview.

 

Especially check out posts by Laurence Matson, DaSigmaGuy, gary mercer, and Just Looking.

[Matt Laur]

<i>You, sir, have never visited the Sigma forum at dpReview</i>

<br><br>

Well, then! One more reason to like it right here at the lovely, level-headed photo.net... where even the fanboys tend

to have a fairly even keel. Well, except for the Leica people, but that's just part of the territory when it comes to that

particular disorder. :-)

[eric_arnold]

"I do applaud Sigma for coming up with some lenses that just aren't out there otherwise. The are really targeting some holes in various line-ups and filling the gaps. I blogged about this a while ago, mostly about whether brand-name lenses were inherently better than 3rd party ones, but also how there are some Sigmas for which there are no counterparts."

 

well, certainly the 30/1.4 and the 50-150/2.8 have changed my mind about sigma lenses. both work as advertised, and it's always interesting when nikon purists complain about the lack of AF-S primes or the weight of the 70-200.

[kaiyen]

Eric,

Indeed, but those are only two examples. Mind you, I know the 30 and the 50-150 are more proven, but consider:

 

-120-400 with OS and HSM

 

-150-500 OS HSM

 

-120-300 2.8

 

-300-800 5.6

 

-50 1.4 HSM

 

-100-300 f4 HSM

 

Those are off the top of my head. Sigma has undeniable issues with QC, esp. when lenses are new, but they seem

to have gotten better (fingers crossed) and none of those lenses are counterparts at this time.

[eric_arnold]

allen, you're absolutely right. i was just speaking from personal experience, but the 120-300 looks great, spec-wise, and if i was going to spend $2500 on a long zoom, it would definitely be on my list.

[kaiyen]

Eric - I wasn't thinking otherwise - I have seen from other posts that you have those specific two lenses - I do, too, actually. I also have the 120-300 and almost pulled the trigger on the 300-800 except for all the extra costs - new tripod, gimbal head, etc. The 120-300 is a nice lens for sports. But dang if it ain't heavy :-).

 

Sorry for hijacking the thread!