Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon, 1.6x needs a good normal prime ...

Go to last post
Samuel MV said:
After reading several reviews seems that the Sigma has better IQ
(but worse borders and QA), while the Canon has better/faster AF
... I would just like to have the best of both worlds ;-)
Click to expand...
Actually then the 30/1.4 is the best of both worlds. :-)

My copy has more accurate AF wide open in low than my Canon 50/1.4 or my 85/1.8. The Sigma has faster AF than the 50/1.4, and is almost as fast as my 85/1.8 (which is blazingly fast). And the 2 Canon primes don't have near the contrast or sharpness that the 30/1.4 has wide open until they are over f/2.5. I usually only take the Sigma when I travel, and I see no problems with borders in any of my 11x14 or 20x30 prints after a year of using the lens.

I have used the 35/1.4-L and my results were the same as those posted in Peacefrog's comparison of the lenses: at f/1.4 the 30/1.4 is slightly sharper in the center, and almost identical at the edges.

I have only had Canon gear for over 25 years and currently have 6 Canon lenses, an XT and 30D, so I have no reason to give this particular Sigma lens false praise. A good copy of the 30/1.4 is a stellar prime if you are shooting 1.6x crop.

Sal
 
I'm kidding

Your request is feable and you are well aware of the current options. I vote for either the 35L, or living with the 17-55/2.8 (which isn't hard to do).
 
My english must be really bad, so I would try to clarify:

1.- I would like a Canon EF-S 28mm 1.4, like the Sigma 30mm 1.4, but with better AF and no 'test & return' iterations. That's all.

2.- IS is a nice-to-have feature (and no so complex for Canon) ... f/1.0 was asking for the moon ...

3.- The Sigma would be perfect if:
  • It had not AF issues.
  • It had not quality issues.
  • I had to try N samples to get a good one.
  • It seems that a good copy is in the 'L' level, but you need to get a good one.
4.- The Canon 28 1.8 is not so good wide open, and has too much CA. In film I had the 50mm f/1.4 and was much better (and also cheaper).

5.- The 35mm 1.4 is much more expensive. I can not spend $1400 in a lens nowadays.

6.- A 50mm is easy to design because is normal (focal length about the diagonal of the sensor), in 1.6x should be easy because is normal to that format.

Best regards.

--
SMV
 
Thank you. The 17-55/2.8 seems very good (in fact, better than Canon primes), but it's expensive (I want to spend only about $500) and very big and heavy, for my taste.
Lee Baby Simms said:
I'm kidding

Your request is feable and you are well aware of the current
options. I vote for either the 35L, or living with the 17-55/2.8
(which isn't hard to do).
Click to expand...
--
SMV
 
My initial idea was to buy the Sigma, but there are so many quality issues and seems so difficult to get a stellar one ...

Maybe I should try one 'iteration' at least ...

Thank you for the feedback.
Sal Baker said:
Samuel MV said:
After reading several reviews seems that the Sigma has better IQ
(but worse borders and QA), while the Canon has better/faster AF
... I would just like to have the best of both worlds ;-)
Click to expand...
Actually then the 30/1.4 is the best of both worlds. :-)
My copy has more accurate AF wide open in low than my Canon 50/1.4
or my 85/1.8. The Sigma has faster AF than the 50/1.4, and is
almost as fast as my 85/1.8 (which is blazingly fast). And the 2
Canon primes don't have near the contrast or sharpness that the
30/1.4 has wide open until they are over f/2.5. I usually only
take the Sigma when I travel, and I see no problems with borders in
any of my 11x14 or 20x30 prints after a year of using the lens.

I have used the 35/1.4-L and my results were the same as those
posted in Peacefrog's comparison of the lenses: at f/1.4 the
30/1.4 is slightly sharper in the center, and almost identical at
the edges.

I have only had Canon gear for over 25 years and currently have 6
Canon lenses, an XT and 30D, so I have no reason to give this
particular Sigma lens false praise. A good copy of the 30/1.4 is a
stellar prime if you are shooting 1.6x crop.

Sal
Click to expand...
--
SMV
 
Samuel MV said:
Hi everybody,

I imagine that I'm not alone in this request. When you look for a
really fast and good normal prime for Canon 1.6x seems that you
only have two options:
  • Canon 28mm 1.8 (not so fast, nor really good)
  • Sigma 30mm 1.4 (AF issues, bad borders, compatibility)
Click to expand...
  • sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX
wait, f/1.8 is only "not so fast"? how much faster do you want?

despite all the rumors i've herad i've never once heard about a compatibility problem from a sigma lens ulness you are using an old film camera. as far as AF issues with sigma lenses and picture quality, the 30mm f/1.4 is one of the best lenses out there, canon sigma whatever. the 30 even has HSM to boot.

i went with the 20mm because it was wider. it's one of my favorite lenses. i have never tested the AF accuracy, it produces about the same amount of out-of-focus pictures as the rest of my lenses (user error, which means focusing is on par with the others)

go check it out, OR you could "ask" canon on these message boards to make a wide prime and you can wait for them to make it...
 
Samuel MV said:
3.- The Sigma would be perfect if:
  • It had not AF issues.
  • It had not quality issues.
  • I had to try N samples to get a good one.
  • It seems that a good copy is in the 'L' level, but you need to
get a good one.
Click to expand...
did you order a sigma? did it have AF issues? did it have quality issues? did you go through several samples to get a good one?

or is this just something you believe is true because you read it?

this "sigma has bad QC" thing is starting to get old. i have 3 sigma lenses, i've never had a problem. but maybe i'm just special........
 
SNGX1327 said:
this "sigma has bad QC" thing is starting to get old. i have 3
sigma lenses, i've never had a problem. but maybe i'm just
special........
Click to expand...
No. It would be old if it was not still happening to an alarming number of people. I had a bad Sigma QC problem just this week (10-20mm lens).

It seems true that you often need several copies or a repair to get a Sigma 30 1.4 or 10-20 working. And yes the 30 1.4 I had front focussed to a dire degree.
 
It's a bit much for family use, but is (for practical purposes) the equal of every Canon prime in that range (35L excepted).
 
you really should consider the Sigma 30

I know the test reports aren't so good, but I've seen a lot of yummy images taken with lens
 
Thank you. I'll take into account all your advices ... and I hope on monday I can post some samples ;-)
KRobA said:
KRobA said:
Lee Baby Simms said:
you really should consider the Sigma 30
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Samuel MV said:
Yes, you are right. Maybe this weekend I start the quest ... ;-)
Click to expand...
Make sure you take your body(s). The shop body (350D) I tested
mine on was nothing like as bad with this lens as my 20D and 350D
on. And make sure that you test near, mid and far distances.

Good luck.
Click to expand...
--
SMV
 
Elwood,

Looking at the world news the last few days, the good Lord would probably find it a whole lot easier to design a good lens than create world peace. Like the good people here, I prefer to "shoot" people than to shoot people.
 
Samuel,

As one of the few who 'bucked the reviews' and went with the 28mm f/1.8, I'd seriously recommend it. It is my most used lens, and produces wonderful results.

Most people have panned based on photozone's review (a site I pay no attention to) without ever having used the lens.

If you're interested, feel free to check out my gallery. Most of the work was done with the 28 f/1.8, along with the 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lmitch
Samuel MV said:
KRobA said:
Samuel MV said:
Lee Baby Simms said:
you really should consider the Sigma 30
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Samuel MV said:
Yes, you are right. Maybe this weekend I start the quest ... ;-)
Click to expand...
Make sure you take your body(s). The shop body (350D) I tested
mine on was nothing like as bad with this lens as my 20D and 350D
on. And make sure that you test near, mid and far distances.

Good luck.
Click to expand...
--
SMV
Click to expand...
 
I also have the Canon 28 1.8 and am quite impressed by it. I tend to use it at about F2.2-2.5, but that's more for a bit of extra depth of field than for sharpness. It's well built and fast focussing. Is your (Samuel) opinion that it's not sharp wide open based on your own experience, or reading reviews on the web?
--
Alastair
http://homepage.mac.com/anorcross/home.html
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Smugmug code for new user discount:
Equipment in profile

 
Hi everybody!!!

Finally this weekend there was not Sigma 30 1.4 available (nor Canon 28 1.8), so I think I would have to wait a little bit before I can start the chase :(

My plan is to change a 28-135 IS (from my film years) with a two primes kit: 28 1.8/30 1.4 + 85 1.8 ... what do yo think???

--
SMV
 
Add me to the list.

It's loud by USM standards, but will focus faster than I expected, and it has produced some very sharp photos as well as gets me faster shutter speed than I can get with my slower zoom lenses when working without flash.
 
Samuel MV said:
...
6.- A 50mm is easy to design because is normal (focal length about
the diagonal of the sensor), in 1.6x should be easy because is
normal to that format.
Click to expand...
In a very simple (pin-hole) lens, the focal length is the distance from the lens to the sensor plane. A large part of the reason that 50mm focal length is a cheap and easy design to do with 35mm film SLRs is that the lens to image plane distance is about the same as the focal length. On EOS cameras the distance from lens flange to image plane is 44mm.

If the 1.6x DSLRs had a lens flange to image plane dimension of 25mm, then it would be possible to make a cheap/simple normal lens for them. But they don't. They share that same 44mm lens flange to image plane dimension with the 35mm SLRs. Even with EF-S, the rear element is only a few mm closer. So a normal 28mm must be a more complicated retrofocus design.
 
I will mention some lenses available for FF, tell me what are the equivalents Canon for 1.6x:

fisheye
20/2.8
24/2.8
28/2.8
50/1.8
50/1.4
85/1.2
70-200/2.8 IS

I am sure there are more, these are just the first that came to my mind writing quyickly this post

--
Antonio
http://www.pbase.com/antonio_2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top