Lens in 30mm range - torn between several

[rob_hanssen]

<p>After catching 'prime-fever', my 30D has been glued to several of my primes (50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2.8macro) and I noticed that for some pix, the focal lengths are a little too tight. The most logical extension of my collection would be a lens in the 30mm range (24-35).<br>

<br /> Considering my budget (the 24L and 35L are out), I'm looking at the following lenses<br /> Canon 28/1.8<br /> Sigma 30/1.4<br /> Canon 35/2<br>

I've heard many good and bad things about the sigma (focussing is main issue) that I'm tempted to go for the Canon 28. How are the current (last 2-3 months) experiences with the Sigma lens wrt front/backfocussing? How are the experiences with the Canon lenses?<br /> Thanks,<br /> Rob</p>

[bjscharp]

Sigma is a great lens if you have a good one,

 

Canon 28 is just as good if you can live with half a stop less speed

 

Canon 35 is a good lens, but long in the tooth: no FTM, small focus ring, and a full stop slower than the Sigma.

 

I've got the Sigma, and am very satisfied with it.

[matthew_greenwood]

<p>About 18 months ago I had the same choice to make and thought about it for a month. In the end i went with the Sigma and never regretted it. I only sold it a few months ago as I'm getting a 5D to go with my 40D and have a 50mm to put on the 5D so it made it a bit redundent.<br>

I never had a focusing issue with it.<br>

Regards, Matt..</p>

[jmichaelc]

<p>The Sigma 30 F1.4 is a fantastic lens for a 1.3X or 1.6X sensor. However, I almost guarentee that you WILL have to send it back to sigma in NY for calibration after initial purchase. It takes about 1 week for them to calibrate it for FREE. It might not be worth the hassle to you but i promise that, once completed, you will continually be impressed and thankful that you didn't spend almost 3-4 times more for the canon equal - 35 1.4. When mine came back from calibration, it was spot on wide open and sharpness was excellent. Another good choice, would be the 20mm F1.8 if you can live with non HSM. It has taken me about two years to really feel comfortable with this lens but, once you fully understand it, it's a must have for me......and really the only one of it's kind in terms of focal length and aperture speed. The 20 is the only sigma lens that i've owned that i did not have to send it to Sigma for calibration. Many of the images on my blog link (community page) was taken with the 30 and 20 primes mentioned here.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Well, for my money the Canon 28mm (I had the f/2.8, which is much cheaper, but a little gem in Canon's low-cost line-up all the same) or the 35mm f/2 are both really nice lenses. The 35mm f/2 is the one I kept for myself and it is a superb "normal" lens on the 15x22mm sensor cameras. I often use it for low light situations, and it works well with things like my stereo adapter designed for 50mm lenses on 24x36mm cameras. I use it a lot on manual focus (the stereo application, for example) and have found no difficulty in using the focus ring.<br /> If you need f/1.4 of course, then one way or the other you'll have to pay for that extra light.</p>

[andrew robertson]

<p>Just to add this into the mix, I love my Sigma 20 f/1.8. 35 is quite a bit wider than 50, 28 even more so, but 20mm is a whole different world of fast primes.</p>

[gerrymorgan]

<p>I have the Sigma 30/1.4 and the Canon 35/2. I much prefer the Sigma not only because I prefer that focal length on my 20D but also because of the wonderfully soft background blur that I get from the Sigma. The only lens I have whose background blur I consider equal to that of the Sigma is another Sigma: the 50/1.4. The first copy of the Sigma 30 that I bought had a backfocusing issue. The replacement was perfect.</p>

<p>Since buying the Sigma 30 and 50, I've been toying with the idea of getting the 20 as well. Michael's post has set me thinking about that again!</p>

<p>If you are into soft background blurs and shooting wide open, I think you should definitely get the Sigma (don't hesitate, and just send it to Sigma for calibration as Michael suggests if it turns out to be out of spec). If that's less important to you, then I think you should let focal length drive your decision (I would still go for the Sigma).</p><div></div>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>I am leery of claims like "My xxx lens is PIN sharp! So often folks don't have anything <em>really</em> good to compare with. Having used many systems (small, medium, large format) and using the best lenses of each I am pretty critical, so it came as a surprise to me that, given the negative publicity of Canon wides, that I have found the 28 2.8 a pretty nice little lens. The desert plant in my portfolio was shot with it using a wide aperture. I find the sharpness acceptable, colors fine. </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I thought the "long in the tooth" comment about the Canon EF 35mm f/2 wa sort of funny. :-)</p>

<p>Yes, it is an older lens design, but has someone who has been on the planet for, uh, a while I like to think that I still am useful despite my age! The EF 35mm f/2 is really a fine performer - one of the best of the non-L lenses in this general category. The other poster is correct that you must move a small switch if you want to manually focus, but that hardly is an issue in practice. The lens does make a different a slightly louder sound when it autofocuse, but again it really isn't any issue at all in actual use.</p>

<p>Are there any downsides? Let me try my best to report a couple for you. First, when you may see a very slight softening of the image in the furthest corners if you look very closely after shooting at some of the largest apertures. But this is realy pixel-peeping nit-picking. (You can see for yourself in a <a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2009/02/26/canon-eos-5d-ii-early-observations-on-image-quality">short piece on 5D II IQ</a> that I recently posted - the first example is a far corner 100% crop from this lens.)</p>

<p>Let's see... another downside... Ah, yes. The lens is pretty small and wimpy looking. If you want to look like a Real Photographer you might want something that looks altogether bigger and more impressive. On the other hand, actual Real Photographers who recognize that you are using this lens may be impressed with your judgment. :-)</p>

<p>I have no experience with the Sigma, and I can only repeat what I've read about the EF 28mm Canon lens: some like it a lot while others are not so sure.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[dogbert]

<p>FWIW I like the Canon 35 f2, but really wish it has USM. If Canon could do this and keep it affordable they would sell them by the truckload. Unfortunately Canon tacks on a whopping new lens premium on their latest releases which reduces over time, so my hopes of an affordable 35 f2 USM are probably unrealistic.<br>

I tried the 28 f1.8. Very nice lens too, but I sent it back because it struck me as not being value for money for my needs. I am sure others would disagree.</p>

 

[anthony_hicks]

<p>Rob, a while ago I was looking at the same choice of lenses and ended up going with with a Canon 35/2. As others have noted, it isn't perfect and its a shade longer than I prefer. But I decided to stick with it because away from f2 it has relatively even sharpness across the frame, whereas the Canon 28/1.8 and Sigma 30/1.4 are sharp in the centre but are nowhere near as good elsewhere. This may or may not be important to you.</p>

<p>Maybe the rumoured/hoped for Canon 30/2 EF-S might appear and give us all another choice.</p>

[edgars_kalnins]

<p><em> </em>I also had similar dilema couple month ago and eventually after looking at tons of pic samples on flickr and reviews I went for used sigma. the previous user had 400D and that is what i use it on. the focus is not very good if i use the side sensors - i do prefer to use them :(. what I mean is - the lens may lock on the object but later on i get blury picture. it is different with 85L which is hard to lock on objects with side sensors, but if it does the picture is usually in focus. my aim was to use 30/1.4 for full body shots and that means the person is rarely in centre. Well, maybe i should send it off for calibration. otherwise i have no complains - pictures are sharp and even the dreaded vigneting is not very visible.</p>