Canon 28 1.8 vs Sigma 30 1.4 any suggestions?

[nathan_hoefert]

<p>I am sitting here going threw all the pros and cons of each lens and can't really put a finger on which one I am looking for. I have a canon 5D and am shooting journalisticly with a bit of landscape, but not to much to worry about. I was just curious if any of you, the readers, have had experience with this lens. Any help or comments would be greatly appreciated thanks a lot. <br>

NH </p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>If I recall correctly, the Sig 30mm/1.4 HSM is for crop sensor bodies only. Your 5 might not appreciate that.</p>

<p>I do have a 28/1.8 USM that I use quite often, and I quite like it. It does suck on crop sensor cameras (mainly because it's to long to be wide, and to wide to be normal :-) ), but on the 5, it's a great lens. While I'm sure someone will recite all the poor reviews it's received (because I'm <em>constantly</em> taking pictures of test charts *rolling eyes*), I for one have been quite happy with it's performance. I originally chose it over the 28/2.8 (even though the image quality is allegedly similar) because a) USM, and b) I already had a 24-70/2.8, so there was nothing significant to be gained f-wise.</p>

<p>Hope that helps some!</p>

[lester_wareham]

+1 the sigma is crop only.

 

I got the 28/1.8 over the sigma despite shooting crop, this let's me move to full frame with maximum comonality of lens

system.

 

It's a great lens for low light, cheaper and lighter than the 24L or 35L, edge IQ is poor compared to the L lenses but

the centre is very good, good AF also.

[JDMvW]

<p>I'll only note if you haven't already looked at it and passed on, the EF 28mm f/2.8 is one of Canon's bargains for the faithful (like the 50mm f/1.8 or the 35mm f/2). F/2.8 is respectable in these days of high ISO and it's a bargain. Photozone found it weak in the CA area, otherwise sharper, etc. than many more expensive lenses ( <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/156-canon-ef-28mm-f28-test-report--review">link</a> ). They only tested it on the APS-C bodies though. Their test on the EF 28mm f/1.8 didn't suggest it was so very much better than the f/2.8 ( http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/155-canon-ef-28mm-f18-usm-test-report--review?start=2 ), again, only on the APS-C body.</p>

[bueh]

<p>The Sigma is "usable" on the full-frame EOS 5D. But the more you stop down, the more vignetting occurs. Here is an example shot at f/9:</p><div></div>

[William Michael]

<p>I've used the EF28/1.8 on a 5D, but I did not buy it. I concur with Lester:<br>

"It's a great lens for low light, cheaper and lighter than the 24L or 35L, <em>edge IQ is poor compared to the L lenses</em>, but the centre is very good, good AF also."<br>

I did not buy the 28/1.8 because of the edge sharpness: It is not "bad" at the edges, but I wanted better and I do use F/1.8 (and F/1.6 @ F/1.4).<br>

You might not use it wide open - the 28/1.8 is "very nice" at F/2.8 and smaller as I recall. </p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[kerry_grim]

16-35 or 17-40. I have the 17-40 and use on an APS-C camera and love it. If money were no object I would likely go with the 16-35. I don't find either to be heavy lenses.

 

or

 

24L or 35L

 

or

 

24 2.8 if not wanting to spend a lot. I've owed 24 and 28 in the past with film cameras and prefered the 24, which is not really that much different.

[nathan_hoefert]

<p>@Marcus - Thanks for this tips the USM in the 28 does look more likable than the 28.<br>

@Lester - I wish i did have enough for the L lens but money is tight.<br>

@JDM - Looked at the links and the 1.8 just seems to catch my eye a little more.<br>

@WW - What lens would you take over the 28 1.8, keeping in mind that there is a tight budget?</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"I am . . . going threw all the pros and cons of each lens and <strong> can't really put a finger on which one I am looking for.</strong> I have a <strong>canon 5D</strong> and am <strong>shooting journalisticly</strong> <em>(assumed this means candid capture at close range in all lighting situations indoors and outdoors night and day)</em> with a bit of landscape, but not to much to worry about. <strong>I wish</strong> i did have enough for the L lens but <strong>money is tight</strong>. What lens would you take over the 28 1.8, keeping in mind that there is a tight budget?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />My suggestion is that you first decide what lens you what to do the job and to create the vision you want in your photography. Money is not the issue. You first need to decide what lens you want/need.<br /><br /><br />I removed the "tight budget" from my equation by saving harder and doing without other things for a few weeks and bought the 24/1.4. That purchase was in keeping with my final lens kit strategy which was having a 24, rather than a 28 in any case.<br />Subsequently and for another reason we bought a 35/2 which is used mainly on a 400D, but I have used it on 135 format (aka Full Frame). IMO the EF35/2 is a slightly better all round lens on a 5D, than what is the 28/1.8. BUT a 35/2 might not suit what YOU want to do. I don’t know – will 35mm do it for you? And if so will you need F/1.4 - in which case the 35/1.4 is then in contention. . .</p>

<p><br />The 24/1.4 is one of my most used Primes and is for me far more valuable FL than a 28mm Prime. I prefer that I see more, can frame wider and have the opportunity to crop later, than if I were to have bought the 28: (<a href="../photo/9568026">http://www.photo.net/photo/9568026</a> )<br />This means I can work faster and more efficiently with less moving about. Considering (for people pictures) I work close and mostly always in available light my decision was easy: the 24/1.4 was the lens I wanted to use, so I overcame the budget issue from my equation. Notwithstanding these facts I also use F/1.4 ( <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=958772">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=958772</a> ) and F/1.6 and arguably F/1.8 to F/2.4 is better on the 24 than it is the 28.<br />I use F/2.0 to F/3.5 most of the time and I guess one good example of "<strong>shooting journalisticly" </strong>is pulling the hipshot, at close range : ( <a href="../photo/11164431">http://www.photo.net/photo/11164431</a> )<br /><br /><br />I have a friend with whom I have discussed at length the use of my 24/1.4 and they have recently bought Sigma 24/1.8 and I am impressed with the results at wide apertures – the edges suffer a bit but it is still nice glass – the macro is a nice function – the sigma (when first tested out) seemed to not nail focus exactly all the time – but that can be overcome.</p>

<p><br />That is the best I can provide, to answer your question: you see, you might not want to use F/1.4; you might not want to worry about framing wider using a 24 because you might worry too much about barrelling / foreshortening in your subjects; you might be thinking “well I wanted the 28 because it is F/1.8, but really I don’t want that wide a lens anyway so a 35mm would be OK." I don't know.<br /><br /><br />That’s what I mean – my point is I think l you need to get back to what you want the lens to do and how you are going to use it, because at the moment I believe you are approaching the question thus: “I want a wide prime lens, so what can buy, which fits into this budget?”<br /><br /><br />WW <br /><br /></p>

[matthijs]

<p>If budget is tight the 28/2.8 is a good choice.</p>

<p>Not a stellar lens but it delivers.</p>

<p>I like the build quality, the tiny size and the results are pretty o.k.</p><div></div>

[matthijs]

<p>100% crop</p>

<p>Straight JPG from a 400D/XTi, the only camera on me right now...</p><div></div>

[nathan_hoefert]

<p>@WW - Hit it head on William. Thanks for your help, I really don't think you get half the credit you should. I see you posing on every other thread with helpful information. You really do make a difference on this website. Thanks again. <br>

@Matthijs - Thanks for the image example bud.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Thank you for those kind words.<br>

Good luck with it.</p>

<p>WW</p>