Sigma 30 and 19... which one to keep as a general purpose / portability lens ?

Started Jun 25, 2014 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Amamba
Amamba Senior Member • Posts: 1,852
Sigma 30 and 19... which one to keep as a general purpose / portability lens ?

So, after much trial & error, I finally settled on 18-105 as my walkabout lens.

I feel that I have too many lenses now. They don't burn a hole in my pocket, but I'd rather not have lenses I use little.

What I have in E-mount is Sony 18-105/4, 18-55, 50/1.8, Sigma 30 and Sigma 19. Plus, a few A-mount and manual lenses.

With the purchase of 18-105, the 18-55 will go. It's a black version and very good as long as the kit lenses go, but it's outclassed by 18-105 and the portability factor can be relegated to one of the primes.

I will not sell 50/1.8 as it's probably the best IQ lens on Sony E-mount, plus the only other lens that's as good in low light is a much more expensive and less sharp 35/1.8.

So, I now need to figure which of the Sigmas to keep. I don't think I need both.

30/2.8 is a tad sharper (not drastically) and a bit better for portraits, plus just a tiny bit smaller. However, too long for landscapes.

19/2.8 is good for walking around in a city, still usable for portraits (full body), not noticeably longer, less of a universal lens but I feel it would complement 50 better.

So, 18-105, 19 and 50 less 30 ?

What would you do ?

 Amamba's gear list:Amamba's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony Alpha NEX-F3 Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony E 16mm F2.8 Pancake Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +8 more
captura Forum Pro • Posts: 21,877
Re: Sigma 30 and 19... which one to keep as a general purpose / portability lens ?

Amamba wrote:

So, after much trial & error, I finally settled on 18-105 as my walkabout lens.

I feel that I have too many lenses now. They don't burn a hole in my pocket, but I'd rather not have lenses I use little.

What I have in E-mount is Sony 18-105/4, 18-55, 50/1.8, Sigma 30 and Sigma 19. Plus, a few A-mount and manual lenses.

With the purchase of 18-105, the 18-55 will go. It's a black version and very good as long as the kit lenses go, but it's outclassed by 18-105 and the portability factor can be relegated to one of the primes.

I will not sell 50/1.8 as it's probably the best IQ lens on Sony E-mount, plus the only other lens that's as good in low light is a much more expensive and less sharp 35/1.8.

So, I now need to figure which of the Sigmas to keep. I don't think I need both.

30/2.8 is a tad sharper (not drastically) and a bit better for portraits, plus just a tiny bit smaller. However, too long for landscapes.

19/2.8 is good for walking around in a city, still usable for portraits (full body), not noticeably longer, less of a universal lens but I feel it would complement 50 better.

So, 18-105, 19 and 50 less 30 ?

What would you do ?

I have both. And sometimes I do wides, but mostly not. So for general purposes, such as street shooting, I would choose to keep the 30.

RUwithME? Regular Member • Posts: 460
Re: Sigma 30 and 19... which one to keep as a general purpose / portability lens ?

I would keep 18-105 and 50/1.8. You'll be covered from 18 to 105 with 50 for portrets. If you still want something really small, than 30 is more versatile.

 RUwithME?'s gear list:RUwithME?'s gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V1 Sony Alpha NEX-3 Sony a6000 Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS +5 more
wb2trf Senior Member • Posts: 2,313
Re: Sigma 30 and 19... which one to keep as a general purpose / portability lens ?

Amamba wrote:

So, after much trial & error, I finally settled on 18-105 as my walkabout lens.

I feel that I have too many lenses now. They don't burn a hole in my pocket, but I'd rather not have lenses I use little.

30/2.8 is a tad sharper (not drastically) and a bit better for portraits, plus just a tiny bit smaller. However, too long for landscapes.

19/2.8 is good for walking around in a city, still usable for portraits (full body), not noticeably longer, less of a universal lens but I feel it would complement 50 better.

So, 18-105, 19 and 50 less 30 ?

What would you do ?

You don't say what you like to shoot, but here goes.  I have both and would keep both, if forced into a choice, I'd keep the 30.  My reasoning would be that I tend to use the 19mm mostly for landscape, where I appreciate its sharpness but generally don't need the 2.8 advantage over the f4 of your zoom.  (If you don't actually want to carry the zoom because of bulk, that's a different story.)  At 30, I'm more likely to be shooting indoors in modest light and want the f2.8 that the zoom can't give me.  I know you have the 50mm but in some moderately tight situations for informal portraits the 30mm works better and you want that faster f stop.  The 30 is fully up to this role as it remains quite sharp even at its full aperture.  That would be my reasoning.

rogjil Junior Member • Posts: 44
Re: Sigma 30 and 19... which one to keep as a general purpose / portability lens ?

Amamba wrote:

So, after much trial & error, I finally settled on 18-105 as my walkabout lens.

I feel that I have too many lenses now. They don't burn a hole in my pocket, but I'd rather not have lenses I use little.

What I have in E-mount is Sony 18-105/4, 18-55, 50/1.8, Sigma 30 and Sigma 19. Plus, a few A-mount and manual lenses.

With the purchase of 18-105, the 18-55 will go. It's a black version and very good as long as the kit lenses go, but it's outclassed by 18-105 and the portability factor can be relegated to one of the primes.

I will not sell 50/1.8 as it's probably the best IQ lens on Sony E-mount, plus the only other lens that's as good in low light is a much more expensive and less sharp 35/1.8.

So, I now need to figure which of the Sigmas to keep. I don't think I need both.

30/2.8 is a tad sharper (not drastically) and a bit better for portraits, plus just a tiny bit smaller. However, too long for landscapes.

19/2.8 is good for walking around in a city, still usable for portraits (full body), not noticeably longer, less of a universal lens but I feel it would complement 50 better.

So, 18-105, 19 and 50 less 30 ?

What would you do ?

When I checked lens usage in lightroom, I found 43℅of my images shot with the Sigma 19 and about 30% with the Sigma 30. So for me I would keep the 19. However I have just spent two weeks using a Samyang 12 mm just about exclusively, so my preference is for wider angle lenses.

Also checking images I really like I have way more from the 19, so rather than think about which lens is sharper or maybe a better focal length, which of the two lenses for you has provided the better result. Pick that one.

 rogjil's gear list:rogjil's gear list
Sony a6000 Sigma 30mm F2.8 EX DN Sigma 19mm F2.8 EX DN Samyang 8mm F2.8 UMC Fisheye Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS +2 more
007peter
007peter Forum Pro • Posts: 10,493
I had both, end up keeping the 19mm, because of Landscape

I have both, and I loved them both.  But between the two, I endup keeping the S19:

1. There is no Good Landscape Prime for Sony aside from CZ-24mm, and that is $1200

2. Sony 16mm is extremely soft, not worth its money

3. the same can be said for 16-50 soft corners and extreme vignetting

4. Sony 50mm f/1.8 make a better Portrait prime than Sigma 30/2.8

5. 30mm is too tight for decent landscape, yet kind of too wide for portrait too

Anyhow, I think a Sigma 19mm + Sony 50mm f/1.8 is the ultimate "DUAL LENS" setup.

 007peter's gear list:007peter's gear list
Canon EOS 550D Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF6 Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 15mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 25mm F1.7 ASPH
GaryW Veteran Member • Posts: 8,268
Re: I had both, end up keeping the 19mm, because of Landscape

007peter wrote:

I have both, and I loved them both. But between the two, I endup keeping the S19:

1. There is no Good Landscape Prime for Sony aside from CZ-24mm, and that is $1200

Yeah, people don't seem too excited about the 20mm, but the wide-angle zoom seems popular as another option.

2. Sony 16mm is extremely soft, not worth its money

It's the cheapest Sony lens!  I think it's pretty sharp overall, just in the extreme corners, it suffers.  Needs stopping down for best results, and CA is a bit of a problem, but I found this lens better than some say.

3. the same can be said for 16-50 soft corners and extreme vignetting

I'd rather use the 16mm prime than the 16-50.  The 16-50 also has soft corners, but seems worse than the 16mm when stopped down, but maybe it's just me.

4. Sony 50mm f/1.8 make a better Portrait prime than Sigma 30/2.8

True.  It's a better focal length plus wider aperture.

5. 30mm is too tight for decent landscape, yet kind of too wide for portrait too

It's a bit tight for my preference, but if you were forced to use one lens, it might be OK as a general purpose lens.

Anyhow, I think a Sigma 19mm + Sony 50mm f/1.8 is the ultimate "DUAL LENS" setup.

I'd say that a 19/20 and 30/35 combo would be more practical unless you did a lot of portraits.

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Sony Alpha NEX-5 +8 more
Amamba
Amamba OP Senior Member • Posts: 1,852
Re: I had both, end up keeping the 19mm, because of Landscape

GaryW wrote:

007peter wrote:

I have both, and I loved them both. But between the two, I endup keeping the S19:

1. There is no Good Landscape Prime for Sony aside from CZ-24mm, and that is $1200

Yeah, people don't seem too excited about the 20mm, but the wide-angle zoom seems popular as another option.

but pricey... $800 or so is hard to justify unless you do many wide angle photos. I wish someone came out with a cheaper alternative, even if it's manual. I am currently using Sigma 12-24 and LA-EA2, but it's a large combination for just an occasional use.

2. Sony 16mm is extremely soft, not worth its money

It's the cheapest Sony lens! I think it's pretty sharp overall, just in the extreme corners, it suffers. Needs stopping down for best results, and CA is a bit of a problem, but I found this lens better than some say.

3. the same can be said for 16-50 soft corners and extreme vignetting

I'd rather use the 16mm prime than the 16-50. The 16-50 also has soft corners, but seems worse than the 16mm when stopped down, but maybe it's just me.

4. Sony 50mm f/1.8 make a better Portrait prime than Sigma 30/2.8

True. It's a better focal length plus wider aperture.

5. 30mm is too tight for decent landscape, yet kind of too wide for portrait too

It's a bit tight for my preference, but if you were forced to use one lens, it might be OK as a general purpose lens.

That's what the 18-105 is for. If I need a general purpose compact lens for when I don't want to carry it, I am leaning more towards 19/2.8.

Anyhow, I think a Sigma 19mm + Sony 50mm f/1.8 is the ultimate "DUAL LENS" setup.

I'd say that a 19/20 and 30/35 combo would be more practical unless you did a lot of portraits.

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

I do lots of portraits... which is one of the main reasons to go with 18-105, as it has very nice bokeh in tele range.

I think I will keep the 19, as a "portable walkabout" it would be useful in more situations than 30. Just need to wait for the current sale to end before putting it on the market.

 Amamba's gear list:Amamba's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony Alpha NEX-F3 Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony E 16mm F2.8 Pancake Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +8 more
Amamba
Amamba OP Senior Member • Posts: 1,852
Re: I had both, end up keeping the 19mm, because of Landscape

Amamba wrote:

GaryW wrote:

007peter wrote:

I have both, and I loved them both. But between the two, I endup keeping the S19:

1. There is no Good Landscape Prime for Sony aside from CZ-24mm, and that is $1200

Yeah, people don't seem too excited about the 20mm, but the wide-angle zoom seems popular as another option.

but pricey... $800 or so is hard to justify unless you do many wide angle photos. I wish someone came out with a cheaper alternative, even if it's manual. I am currently using Sigma 12-24 and LA-EA2, but it's a large combination for just an occasional use.

2. Sony 16mm is extremely soft, not worth its money

It's the cheapest Sony lens! I think it's pretty sharp overall, just in the extreme corners, it suffers. Needs stopping down for best results, and CA is a bit of a problem, but I found this lens better than some say.

3. the same can be said for 16-50 soft corners and extreme vignetting

I'd rather use the 16mm prime than the 16-50. The 16-50 also has soft corners, but seems worse than the 16mm when stopped down, but maybe it's just me.

4. Sony 50mm f/1.8 make a better Portrait prime than Sigma 30/2.8

True. It's a better focal length plus wider aperture.

5. 30mm is too tight for decent landscape, yet kind of too wide for portrait too

It's a bit tight for my preference, but if you were forced to use one lens, it might be OK as a general purpose lens.

That's what the 18-105 is for. If I need a general purpose compact lens for when I don't want to carry it, I am leaning more towards 19/2.8.

Anyhow, I think a Sigma 19mm + Sony 50mm f/1.8 is the ultimate "DUAL LENS" setup.

I'd say that a 19/20 and 30/35 combo would be more practical unless you did a lot of portraits.

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

I do lots of portraits... which is one of the main reasons to go with 18-105, as it has very nice bokeh in tele range.

I think I will keep the 19, as a "portable walkabout" it would be useful in more situations than 30. Just need to wait for the current sale to end before putting it on the market.

Well, as I always do when deciding to sell a lens, I took both 19 and 30 for a week long spin. I decided to keep the 30,  it is a more useful FL but equally importantly, it's the most portable lens I have.

 Amamba's gear list:Amamba's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony Alpha NEX-F3 Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony E 16mm F2.8 Pancake Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +8 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads