I have to say I have never be disappointed from using this lense. It is brilliant. I can shot everything from this lense, a bit of landscaping, a bit of distance shot that I can crop to an actual image size and use it right away. The colour and the sharpness from this lense is the top of the range. Never regret of buying this one.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
It is the must have lense for SonyNEX user
- Thread starter Sutlore
- Start date
Last edited:
AlphaPhotography
Senior Member
Here are some samples showing the versatility of the 24mm including portraits, landscapes, and macro:
--
www.flickr.com/photos/sonyartisan/
I might be misreading your intent but I think that "soft in the head" comment is pretty insulting actually and typical of those who choose less expensive options then justify their own choice with this sort of comment. And the 5 x value comments are similar. Price extremes occur in all sorts of items with marginal improvements in performance. Take computer processors for example. An i7 might be twice the price of an i5 and 5 x an i3 but yield only modest speed gains. But those with the means or need for speed will buy and its up to them to justify the cost. There's no need to say those who pay extra are witless fools with their money.
It all comes down to perceived value. I don't have the CZ 24/1.8 myself because I won't use one enough to get value from it. Instead I have a nice little Canon 24/2.8 pancake and adapter that is incredible value because it's images aren't too far behind the Zony and very low cost. It will never perform like the Zony but the compromises it has are easy to accommodate for when I want to shoot with it.
On the other hand, the one Sony Zeiss I do have is the often maligned 16-70/4.0. Yep, mine is slightly soft in the corners at 16mm/f4 but unless I'm shooting a brick wall or building on a flat plane to the central focus point, you'd be pressed to take much notice. I love the lens's sharpness at f5.6-8.0 across the frame and through to 70mm and easily justify the cost because the FL range is fantastic as a lightweight travel zoom, is way sharper than the 16-50 kit with longer reach, wider or longer than the FE zooms yet is little bigger than the CZ 24mm subject of this review.
I'm a pretty hard-nosed guy when it comes to spending money and once I finally weeded out the bull dust of many ill-informed or unlucky (the ones who got poor examples) commentators, and tried the lens in-store, I could immediately see the advantages and value for me. No one else matters where it counts. So while everyone has an opinion and right to voice it, I don't see much reason to insult those who have a different set of standards or values.
Vermont3133
Senior Member
No worries Vermont, I see now...
Pragmatic would describe my buying choices. So yes, like you I hate to waste money. Took a lot of gumption to buy the 16-70 because of the hype vs hysteria. ;-) As I said it turned out well for me.
In fact you and I seem to have similar kits. Not listed in my gear are a 100D (I'm in Australia), 10-18, 18-135, 55-250 and 24 STM. They are excellent value for money! And if I didn't like my Sony kit so much I would probably be very happy with that. Only keep them because I can put the lenses on my A6000 if I feel inclined to carry them with me.
--
Cheers,
John
Pragmatic would describe my buying choices. So yes, like you I hate to waste money. Took a lot of gumption to buy the 16-70 because of the hype vs hysteria. ;-) As I said it turned out well for me.
In fact you and I seem to have similar kits. Not listed in my gear are a 100D (I'm in Australia), 10-18, 18-135, 55-250 and 24 STM. They are excellent value for money! And if I didn't like my Sony kit so much I would probably be very happy with that. Only keep them because I can put the lenses on my A6000 if I feel inclined to carry them with me.
--
Cheers,
John
Last edited:
It`s all just sour grapes, with touch of ridiculous like - "3 Sigmas instead". Could be also washing machine and bicycle instead of a a6000, by such "logic".
Vermont3133
Senior Member
Actually it's 5 Sigmas
Please read above...where is the 'sour grapes'?
And sorry....we are talking about lenses...not washing machines, bicycles or camera bodies
To each his own. The SZ Zeiss is vastly superior to the Sigma 30mm 2.8 however and much more versatile. With a small minimum focusing area the 24 can be used as a macro. I could never get this shot with my 30.
I also could never shoot anything faster than 2.8 on my 30. The 24 is sharp at 1.8 and was made to shoot wide open. The 30 is sharp no doubt, but you can see where Sigma compromised. Kurt Munger really disliked the lens and I experienced much the same with it.
"Flare and ghosting control is poor; I see magenta streaks and loss of contrast when the sun is in the image, or just outside the image. A large green blob shows up too when the sun is towards the center. Viewing your images on your camera screen may not always show this stuff, it's much more noticeable when you get home and look at the pictures on a large screen. Use you hand to block the sun from the front element, otherwise you'll be sorry."
"Lateral color fringing is noticeable along the sides of the image, this is about as bad as it gets."
"Overall, the Sigma 30mm F/2.8 EX DN lens is pretty good in optical terms, it's just not a useful combo in my opinion. Add in the poor flare control, small reproduction size, lack of image stabilization, and this lens really doesn't make a whole lot of sense."
"Also check out the superb CZ 24/1.8, it's expensive, but worth it."
For me, I bought the lens used for just over $600 and after using it for 2 years could sell it for the same. I don't know why you would get a camera with class leading sensor capabilities and pair it with average glass.
I also could never shoot anything faster than 2.8 on my 30
. The 24 is sharp at 1.8 and was made to shoot wide open. The 30 is sharp no doubt, but you can see where Sigma compromised. Kurt Munger really disliked the lens and I experienced much the same with it.Loading…
kurtmunger.com
"Flare and ghosting control is poor; I see magenta streaks and loss of contrast when the sun is in the image, or just outside the image. A large green blob shows up too when the sun is towards the center. Viewing your images on your camera screen may not always show this stuff, it's much more noticeable when you get home and look at the pictures on a large screen. Use you hand to block the sun from the front element, otherwise you'll be sorry."
"Lateral color fringing is noticeable along the sides of the image, this is about as bad as it gets."
"Overall, the Sigma 30mm F/2.8 EX DN lens is pretty good in optical terms, it's just not a useful combo in my opinion. Add in the poor flare control, small reproduction size, lack of image stabilization, and this lens really doesn't make a whole lot of sense."
"Also check out the superb CZ 24/1.8, it's expensive, but worth it."
For me, I bought the lens used for just over $600 and after using it for 2 years could sell it for the same. I don't know why you would get a camera with class leading sensor capabilities and pair it with average glass.
Jerry R
Forum Pro
Value is subjective, cost is not.
There is a difference in cost, for me the 24mm, f/1.4 has value because I use it. The 30mm Sigma has no value (for me) because I would not use it. A subjective conclusion.
There is a difference in cost, for me the 24mm, f/1.4 has value because I use it. The 30mm Sigma has no value (for me) because I would not use it. A subjective conclusion.
I do not own either lens but I see lots of close up's on Flickr from the sigma lens like this example:
photo by Rich D.
At the most it would be easy to add an $20 extension tube to get even closer. I guess the 24 would win a point for convenience from not having to add a tube but I do not think it is totally fair to say you can't achieve the same shot.
--
-Chris
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cspics/albums
Last edited:
The Sigma produces a magnification of 1:8.1 while the 24mm is at 1:4 so it's impossible for the Sigma to produce the same shot. Now if you throw in the extension tubes than yes, you can get close, but keep in mind what you can do with an extension tube on the 24 - get even closer as has been demonstrated in this thread.
I guess you can keep adding tubes to the both of them or use the money you save on the sigma and buy a real macro lens also.
The point is I think that either can produce fairly similar shots. But the 24 has a slight edge in convenience and speed as well as most likely slightly better control of CA etc..
In the vast majority of shots it would be impossible to distinguish one from the other.
The point is I think that either can produce fairly similar shots. But the 24 has a slight edge in convenience and speed as well as most likely slightly better control of CA etc..
In the vast majority of shots it would be impossible to distinguish one from the other.
Pixel Pooper
Senior Member
You can add extension tubes to the Sigma to match the magnification of the 24mm, but you have to take the tubes off again if you want to focus at normal distances so it is much less convenient than the 24mm without tubes.
santiclaws
Senior Member
So what? -I guess that is relevant information. At least it would be for me if I where trying to decide to buy it.
-it would be worth the money if you wanted it for more than to get from A-B -for example as a status symbol.
-Did anyone say otherwise?
-not understanding what point you think you are making?
--
-Chris
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cspics/albums
Last edited:
If you are trying to make a buying decision, I would ask myself the follow;
Do i need f/1.8? Will I be shooting indoors or low light? The 24mm is sharp at 1.8 but if you don't need it why spend for it. One stop of light however is a material difference in DOF and exposure, especially for APSC.
Is bokeh important? The bokeh of the 24 is very good for that focal range. The 30 is harsh.
What am I looking to use the lens for? All around type or specialty. 24mm to 30mm may not sound like a big difference, but I noticed it when shooting indoors or at events. The 30 was always bordering on "too tight". In fact when I wanted a "carry around" lens and I had the choice between the 19mm and 30mm I always choice the 19mm. If you have a special need for 30mm then obviously the Sigma is the choice, but it is a limited lens.
Is close focal distance important? The 24mm with the cropping ability of the Sony sensor is great for close up shots. It's not a macro lens but much better than the 30.
Do you like to shoot into the sun? The flaring of the 30mm is a problem.
What is my budget? Obviously the 24 is expensive. I bought mine used - it may be "worth" $1,000 but I wasn't going to pay that (but I don't bash people that do). If my budget was $600-$700 I would buy a good used 24mm. If it was lower I would buy or save up for the FE 28mm 2.0. If it was minimal and I was desperate for a light average 30mm lens then go Sigma.
Do i need f/1.8? Will I be shooting indoors or low light? The 24mm is sharp at 1.8 but if you don't need it why spend for it. One stop of light however is a material difference in DOF and exposure, especially for APSC.
Is bokeh important? The bokeh of the 24 is very good for that focal range. The 30 is harsh.
What am I looking to use the lens for? All around type or specialty. 24mm to 30mm may not sound like a big difference, but I noticed it when shooting indoors or at events. The 30 was always bordering on "too tight". In fact when I wanted a "carry around" lens and I had the choice between the 19mm and 30mm I always choice the 19mm. If you have a special need for 30mm then obviously the Sigma is the choice, but it is a limited lens.
Is close focal distance important? The 24mm with the cropping ability of the Sony sensor is great for close up shots. It's not a macro lens but much better than the 30.
Do you like to shoot into the sun? The flaring of the 30mm is a problem.
What is my budget? Obviously the 24 is expensive. I bought mine used - it may be "worth" $1,000 but I wasn't going to pay that (but I don't bash people that do). If my budget was $600-$700 I would buy a good used 24mm. If it was lower I would buy or save up for the FE 28mm 2.0. If it was minimal and I was desperate for a light average 30mm lens then go Sigma.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum