Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 vs. Sigma 30mm f/1.4 vs. Canon EF 50mm f/1.4

[ari_morcos]

<p>Hey all,<br>

I'm new to the forums and excited to learn! I'm a new photographer looking to upgrade from my kit lens on my EOS 60D and was trying to decide between these three lenses. What do you think?<br>

Thanks!</p>

 

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>Welcome to the forums! If you let us know what you want to accomplish with a new lens (what sort of photography do you do or want to do) and what it is about your current lens that you don't like, we can be far more helpful.</p><p>Absent that all I can say is that the the Canon 28/1.8 and Sigma 30/1.4 aren't going to be any sharper than your current lens, though if you like narrow depth of field photographs with a fairly wide angle of view, both are good for their price. The 50/1.4 is a nice lens, but a lot of people would say that it is a bit long for an APS-C body like your 60D. It really comes down to taste and what works for you.</p>

[ari_morcos]

<p>Thanks! I'm currently using the kit 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6. I'm mostly looking to do a little more wide angle portraiture with shallow depth of field, as well as maybe doing some landscape photography. It seems like the Canon 28 f/1.8 and the Sigma 30 f/1.4 seem relatively equal, so I'm mainly trying to choose between them. It seems like a lot of people like the 40 f/1.4 though, so I thought I'd include it. </p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>The 50/1.4 isn't going to be terribly wide on the 60D so it doesn't sound like it will be terribly useful for your portraiture or landscape. </p>

<p>For the two wider lenses, there isn't a whole lot to pick from. The Sigma is a bit sharper (but not by much) but has been rumored to have a slightly less accurate AF. I'd recommend the Canon, but I don't have much experience with either of these lenses.</p>

<p>If you can live without an extremely shallow depth of field, you might want to consider the Tamron 17-50/2.8 non-VC. It's a bit cheaper than any of the other lenses and quite a bit sharper. Plus, I really don't know of many people who shoot either the 28/1.8 or 30/1.4 at their maximum aperture as the image quality is fairly lousy. They're both pretty good stopped down to 2 or 2.8, but the Tamron is better (and gives you the flexibility of a zoom). </p>

[lester_wareham]

I have found the 28/1.8 very sharp in the centre but less so

at the edges, af is excelent.

The sigma 30/1.4 is aparantly sharper at the edges, but

some report the af is not so good.

Nb that fast lenses wide open genraly are not as sharp as

stopped down.

[taner]

I cannot give enough praise for the

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens... Sharpness,

and focus. Although I would normally

choose Canon lenses over third party

lenses, this focal length is an

exception, and having tried both the

f/1.8 and f/2.8 lenses from Canon, I

would say go with the Sigma.

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I owned the 28/1.8 for several years and found that it is an outstanding lens on crop sensor units. The edge sharpness (which is a severe issue on my 5D2) is largely moot by f2, and gone completely before f2.8. By f4, it's output equals that of L primes.<br>

While I never owned a 30/1.4 (no point, as I had the 28/1.8, plus it doesn't have full frame coverage), I did use it a few times, and I found it was pretty much <em>identical</em> in performance (aka soft below f2, usable from f2-2.8, and very sharp @f2.8+), though I hear numerous people go through more than one copy before they are satisfied enough to keep a copy. Price is pretty similar too...<br>

Both are pretty 'normal' on the crop, but the 50/1.4 isn't. it's ~80mm and much weaker optically (plus it's AF system is prone to unexpected failure.), but as a portrait lens, due to it's length, it's much easier to use for that purpose than the 28/1.8.<br>

I too would second considering the 17-50/2.8, which produces very useable results WO @f2.8, plus it will give you a bit more flexibility (actual wide angle, unlike the 28/30/50, on the crop). Not quite as good DOF, but then you don't have to worry about optical performance at those ranges.</p>

[paulo_fonseca1]

<p>Been there, done that.<br>

I got the 18-135 as a kit lens. I think it is a very good lens. I just wish it had USM and then it would be great! Then I got both the 28mm f/1.8 and the 50mm f/1.4. The 28 makes a great normal lens on a crop sensor. My copy is not fantastic wide open in bright light with contrasty subjects (does it matter?), but if I stop down to f2.2, it is fine. At f2.8 it is excellent. In low light, even wide open it is fine for me, although I always try stop down a bit to increase sharpness and have some more DOF. In particular for portraiture, I'd say sharpness is not an issue with this lens. However at this focal length, subject isolation/background defocusing may be not enough for your taste unless you move quite close to the subject. For environmental portraits, I'd say it is fine. For landscapes, I think it is just not wide enough, but your kit lens will do the the job remarkably well at f/8-f/11. The 50mm f/1.4 can be a terrific portraiture lens although, to be honest, as a casual/family shooter, I've seldom used it during this year I've owned it. <br>

So, I pretty much agree with what Marcus said. I'd only suggest that you experiment with your 18-135 lens to see which focal length suits your needs better.</p>

 

[kerry_grim]

I am a bit confused. Why would you use a wide angle lens on a crop body and try for a shallow depth of

field? Usually, when using a wide angle lens for portraits, you are trying to get the background in focus.

The so-called environmental portrait. The 28 or 30 does not provide a wide angle on a 60D. It will work

similar to a 50mm lens on a full frame camera. Lenses fro landscape are usually though of as having a

wider angle. However, landscape photography can be done with any lenses. One should not consider wide

angle only for landscape.

 

The 17-50 would provide a decent angle for landscape and portraits. But if you want a blurred background

and say not a full person portrait, the 85 1.8 or 100 2.0 would be a very nice choice.

 

You do need to figure what type of photography you will be doing. A lot of people may like the Sigma 30

1.4 but that does not necessairly make it the best choice for you,

[kbroderick]

<p>I had the Tamron 17-50/2.8 (non-VC) for a couple of years before getting the 28/1.8. Since then, I've found that I'd almost always prefer the 28 except when going into particularly rugged environments (e.g. shooting rally racing) where swapping lenses in the field is ill-advised. In my experience, the image quality out of the 28 is lightyears ahead of the 17-50, both in terms of sharpness and in terms of color rendition.<br>

Based on what others have said in comparing the two, I'm guessing that perhaps I have a bad copy of the 17-50 (and we'll see what happens when it comes back from the shop; it's currently under repair due to the zoom mechanism crapping out, among other issues).</p>

[jack_rosenberg]

<p>You are looking for the wrong place to put your money. You would do better to take some formal photography classes and really learn how to photograph. The best equipment in unskilled hands will ALWAYS produce less than perfect results (absent the 100 monkeys typing). Don't believe me? Go back and look at some of the photographs that were done on the equipment of yesterday (Stieglitz, Strand, Cartier-Bresson, Adams, Callahan and so on). They had glass on their cameras that none of us would use. <br>

Learn how to compose and frame a subject. Learn when to shoot with a wider aperture, higher ISO, flash or whatever you need to make the image work. You will not find this in a new lens. </p>

<p>Do buy new lenses, but not until you know what to do with them first.</p>

[franklin_white]

<p>I'm another who has both the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (non-VC) and the EF 28mm f/1.8. I generally prefer to use the Tamron lens for the versatility, but I do believe that the 28mm prime is better at f/2.8 than the zoom. I would never hesitate to use the 28mm at f/2.0 or smaller apertures. I will not use it at f/1.8, however. My $.02.</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>The reason mot photog's buy a 1.8 or 1.4 lens is to shoot it wide open. I have several lens which cover the 28 range. Canon 17-40 F4l and Tamron 28-75 F2.8 but only the Canon 28 1.8 can shoot at 1.8. This speed advantage makes a huge difference when shooting sports or video in low light. Increasing ISO or using a slower shutter speed is not always possible. So it doesn't matter to me the image quality of the 28 1.8 on my Canon 5D Mark II only that it can not only shoot, but I can actually see what I am focusing on at night. For me I love using both the 50 1.8 and 28 1.8 @ 1.8. I am even looking to sell my Canon 85 1.2L and trade it for the 85 1.8 because it is so much smaller and lighter weight.</p>

[linda_jones1]

<p>The 50 is a little long for in rooms with people. I'd get one in the 28 or 30mm range. Frankly, I'd love to have the 30mm!<br>

You can't go wrong with a good zoom also. Take your time deciding. I wish you the enjoyment that I have had!</p>

[jussihirvonen]

<p>I currently only have 2 lenses, 30/1.4 Sigma and 50/1.4 Canon. The Sigma is a great allaround lens, which will cover most situations surprisingly well in indoors. I need the 1.4 to 2.0 aperture quite often and am ok with the IQ. I rather use the larger apertures than too high ISO's. Sometimes you need both, that's when you appreciate the extra stop or two on your lens.<br>

The 30/1.4 is not an ideal landscape lens for me since the minimum aperture is only f16, I find that too large many times when I want to blur the water or whatever. You can use ND filters, but that's always extra hassle.<br>

Autofocus wise, I was actually surprised the difference between the Sigma and the Canon is so small. The Sigma will focus consistently in good light, will drive you crazy when you try to get a focus in the dark or backlight, but so will Canon. Though the canon may be slightly more consistent in difficult situations, but only marginally.</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>I'd add Canon's 50/1.8 to your list. Most of the time it will be just as good optically as the 50/1.4, although it autofocuses slower (at least until the 1.4's autofocus mechanism seizes up, as often happens after a few years). You can buy the 50/1.8 now and if you decide you don't like the relatively narrow field of view it will give on your 60D, you have not wasted much money.</p>

<p>You might also consider Canon's older fix-focal lenses like the 24/2.8 or 35/2 if you can get them for a good price.</p>