Alternate to Sigma 30mm 1.4 lens?

[rohin2k]

<p>My fellow photo.net’ers, I write here after continuous attempts and long contemplation regarding the decision whether I should keep my Sigma 30 mm f/1.4 DC HSM lens or not (this is the original 30mm lens not the “Art” version) which only works for APS-C cameras. <br /> I’ve had this lens for a while (going on the fourth year now) and have had some good initial phases of luck with it. However, it started giving me focus issues after a few months I had bought it and to date I’m underwhelmed with the focusing. I’ve even had it calibrated by Sigma once and yet it focuses wherever it pleases (in low-light). My main purpose is to use it in indoor low-light scenarios where it has proven not so friendly as far as the auto-focus goes.<br /> Another thing I’ve tried is using a 2.5X viewfinder over the screen to manually focus (Live View) especially for the video. However, even then, I sometimes feel that it lacks the sharpness that I expect from a prime. I know there are several people who are happy with this lens but I’m just about ready to find something to replace it.<br /> So, what do the experts recommend as an alternate 30 or 35 mm lens that will give Quality sharpness and accurate auto-focus especially in low light scenarios? I’ve heard good things about the New Sigma 35 1.4 or the 30 1.4 “Art” lens which also has a USB-dock for correcting the focus issues. However, I'd like to stay away from Sigma until someone can convince me otherwise. Another possibility I see is the trusty Canon EF 35 1.4 L or the New 35 F/2 IS lens. I’m looking for some actual experiences from the users and their advice/recommendation on the particular application for me which is mainly low-light scenarios. I also would like to do some videos with this lens (home use only – nothing professional). One more thing I'd like to add is that the bokeh quality and rendition also is important in this consideration.<br>

<br /> Please advise and thanks for your input in advance! -RM<br /> P.S.: I’m an amateur photographer and currently own a Canon 550d (T2i).</p>

[massimo_foti]

<p>I use Canon 35 mm f/2.0 IS on my 5DIII and like it a lot. I pretty often shot hand-held, indoor, in low-light (mostly museums where tripod is forbidden). Since my subjects are static and I don't need thin depth of field, a state of the art IS (who gives 2-3 stops) is more valuable for me than an f/1.4 aperture. That's the main reason I went with the F/2.0 lens instead of the f/1.4 from Canon or Sigma.<br>

I don't have first hand experience on the f/1.4 lenses, but you can find plenty of reviews online.</p>

[kari v]

<p>I don't know about the 30/1.4 Art but Sigma 35/1.4 is absolutely stunning in every aspect, tested on 35mm and aps-c sensor. Focusing is spot on and fast in low light and build quality top notch, it feels more like Zeiss than Sigma or Canon consumer grade.<br /> I understand your feelings towards Sigma products but as far as I'm concerned this lens has *nothing* to do with older Sigma designs. I'd pick it before Canon 35/1.4L any day (and did) - Sigma's just about the best fast 35mm lens there is.</p>

<p>That said. 35/2 IS sounds interesting. Small lens, sharp enough I presume, and IS. For handheld video IS is very nice indeed.</p>

<p>Edit: Sigma 35/1.4 will look monstrous on 550D. :D<br>

It really is large and heavy. Not necessarily an issue but perhaps makes 35/2 IS even more interesting...</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p> sharp enough I presume</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most definitely - as sharp if not better than the 35/1.4.</p>

[robert_turner5]

<p>Canon 35 f1.4L's I have used have been completely reliable, with terrific focus and wonderful color/contrast/bokeh. I'd suggest renting one, you may be surprised how satisfying that lens is.<br>

It sounds like your Sigma experience is a lot like mine with the 50 f1.4. The Sigma's IQ is really, really nice, but it doesn't handle anywhere near as smoothly as Canon's 50mm f1.2L. Focus is way more jumpy and less reliable in low light. The Canon I used never disappointed. But with that said, I didn't have the economic resources to justify the Canon at a $1,000 premium over the Sigma so that was my call. </p>

 

[PuppyDigs]

<p>The EF 35 2.0 IS focuses like a champ in low light on my 6D.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Although I've never used (or even seen!) a copy of the reportedly stellar Sigma 35/1.4 ART, I would heartily endorse the EF 35/1.4 L. It's my favourite EF prime lens, delivering, as Robert says, superb resolution, colour rendition, contrast, and bokeh.</p>

[christian_irgens]

<p>I have owned the original Sigma 30/1.4 for many years, using it on all my Rebels up to the T3i, and I have been exceedingly pleased with both sharpness and low light focusing accuracy. Since a lot of my work is events, low light ability is a must. Since October last year I have also used the Sigma 35/1.4 on my 5D III and am ecstatic about the results. At PhotoPlus Expo last year I talked with a Zeiss tech guy who admitted (in a low voice) that the Sigma was an excellent lens.</p>

<p>Generally I have always first looked to Canon for my lens needs, but if other manufacturers have a lens that Canon does not offer, or a better lens, I am perfectly willing to buy it. I bought the Sigma 50/1.4, but returned it since I saw no improvement over the similar Canon. That, however, may indeed have been a focusing issue. When Sigma redesigns the 50 as an Art lens I will probably try it again. What I hope Sigma will do is reformulate it as a 50-55mm f/1.2 retrofocus lens like the Zeiss Otus Distagon 55/1.4 and keep the price under $ 1,000. (Why has there been no discussion on this forum about the Distagon? It seems to me to be the most significant rethinking of the normal lens formulation in about 65 years; Zeiss finally feeling that they have a design superior to the Planar/double Gauss formulation that is used in literally every normal lens manufactured today. Of course, if you use the 35/1.4 on a crop camera, you are indeed using the equivalent of a 56/1.4 retrofocus design!)</p>

<p>About a decade ago I talked with the late CEO of Sigma and complimented him on his 14/2.8 that was better than the Canon at 1/3 the price as well as the Tamron at 1/2 its price. He answered that the Canon was a carryover manual focus design, while his design was two decades newer, reaping the benefits of newer glasses and more powerful design software. Sigma is the only independent lens brand I own and I have generally been very satisfied with the brand. This is not to say they are all great, my 20/1.8 is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I was willing to trade a bit of sharpness for shallower depth of field, 1 1/3 stops worth compared to the EF 20/2.8.</p>

<p>Returning somewhat circuitously to the OP's search for a 30/1.4 alternative, I used the EF 28/1.8 as a crop normal for about five years and was quite satisfied with it. Now that I am dual format the 28 serves as a wide angle lens; which of course was its original purpose when I acquired it in my distant film days. As for the new versus old 30/1.4, the new one has been optically redesigned, going from seven to nine elements. The focusing ability may also have improved; although that was never a problem for me.</p>

<p>Oops, update! Just checked Sigma website. I had failed to read their entire email of 01/08/14. Significant egg on my face! 50/1.4 has been entirely reformulated, seemingly along retrofocus principles but somewhat different from the Zeiss. No price or availability info yet, but I sure want one!</p>

<p>Chris</p>

[rohin2k]

<p>Thanks everyone for the responses and input so far! One more thing I'd like to add is the fact that since I also own the Canon 17-55 F/2.8 IS lens, I do think I'd like this replacement lens to differentiate from it as well. <br /> Massimo, Robin and Puppy Face - Thanks for recommending the 35 F/2 IS, but I do feel like that by adding a F/2.0 lens, I won't gain much over the 17-55 lens.<br /> So, I guess the real question would boil down to - whether to go all out on Canon 35 f/1.4 L or pick the New Sigma counterpart (35 1.4). At this point I've heard all good things about the Sigma, but my past experience makes me stay away from it. Yet, if someone can convince me to go Sigma route, I'm all ears!<br /> I guess I'm looking for some more input from more experienced Canon users who have tried the sigma and want to voice their opinion in regard to the low-light auto focusing. Also, any nuances between the real world usage of the two. -RM<br /> P.S.:Christian - I'm glad the 30 mm lens worked for you :)</p>

[rohin2k]

<p>Also, I'm making an assumption that the 35 f2.0 IS lens will not add much compared to the 17-55 2.8 IS that I already own. Anyone have experience using both? What are your thoughts on that? -RM</p>

[robert_turner5]

<blockquote>

<p>Oops, update! Just checked Sigma website. I had failed to read their entire email of 01/08/14. Significant egg on my face! 50/1.4 has been entirely reformulated, seemingly along retrofocus principles but somewhat different from the Zeiss. No price or availability info yet, but I sure want one!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not to hijack the thread, but that is interesting.. Any predictions as to street pricing, or hands on "previews", perhaps?</p>

[kari v]

<blockquote>

<p>So, I guess the real question would boil down to - whether to go all out on Canon 35 f/1.4 L or pick the New Sigma counterpart (35 1.4). At this point I've heard all good things about the Sigma, but my past experience makes me stay away from it. Yet, if someone can convince me to go Sigma route, I'm all ears!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well... There are no bad reviews of the Sigma and here, too, you have positive feedback. How much more does it take? ;)<br>

Seriously though, focusing and the whole lens is a completely new design and it really shows. Is there a store near you where you could test it?<br>

There's nothing wrong with the 35/1.4L it's just starting to show its age and the price is much higher.</p>

<p>I enjoy my Canon 50/1.4 because it's flawless across the frame at f4-5.6. and "dreamy" at f1.4 - that is to say it has low resolution and massive aberrations. :D But I like it and it's small, cheap and reliable. 35/1.4L is similar old design. Perhaps not as "bad" but Sigma's a clear winner here technically and Canon really has some updating to do.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Also, I'm making an assumption that the 35 f2.0 IS lens will not add much compared to the 17-55 2.8 IS that I already own. Anyone have experience using both? What are your thoughts on that? -RM</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well it's better optically at 35mm at f2 and f2.8, but if you are after more bokeh then an f1.4 is better. Although the Sigma 1.4 ART is great, it is even bigger than the 35L, so beware of that. Large size can get annoying very quickly. The 35L is excellent even if the Sigma is supposedly better -it's also big. In your situation, I am not sure I would get a 35mm at all. Why not go for the Canon 50/1.4: more bokeh and cheaper and smaller? I share your unease at Sigma's AF. I have the 85/1.4 and it's optically excellent but I am not convinced with the AF - not that I mind at present.</p>