Sigma 30mm 2.8 vs. Sigma 30mm 1.4

[PRS CU24]

Hi everyone,

I was really excited to hear about the new sigma 30mm 1.4 lens, because I've been reaaaally loving my Sigma 30mm 2.8 but thought it would be perfect if I could have just a little wider aperture and maybe a bit faster auto-focus outside of the center area

Moreover, now that I'm expecting a baby next month (gulp) I'm thinking the wider aperture might be more helpful for taking pictures inside the house

The 30mm 1.4 seems to take care a lot of my prior nit-picking and I'm seriously considering getting it. However, since I have a limited budget, I'll probably have to sell my f2.8 to get the money. Besides, I probably couldn't justify having two 30 mm lenses, when I'm a light, casual photographer at best

However, because I loved my 2.8 so much (light weight, sturdy construction, great IQ) I'm a little hesitant..

How would you compare the two lenses? Also, would it be a good idea to replace my 30mm 2.8 with the 1.4 considering my needs? I use an a5100 and usually shoot casually (usually people & environment) while walking around or when traveling. I'll probably be shooting a lot of baby pics in the future and am also planning on shooting more videos because of the baby.

 

[val1]

off camera bounce flash will probably help more than the new lens. Keep in mind that at short distance the DOF may be too narrow for your baby...

 

[1sol3ss]

IQ of the 2.8 is better IMO

the f1.4 will make you gain 2 stops of light, so it will be handy for photos taken indoor , if you are distant enough shallow DOF won't be a problem.

so it will be a compromise whatever you choose.

If you really like the 2.8 , may be you could keep it and with the money you save add a fast 50mm , either the Sony (which is very good) or a legacy lens to use with adapter.

 

[blue_skies]

Hi everyone,

I was really excited to hear about the new sigma 30mm 1.4 lens, because I've been reaaaally loving my Sigma 30mm 2.8 but thought it would be perfect if I could have just a little wider aperture and maybe a bit faster auto-focus outside of the center area

Moreover, now that I'm expecting a baby next month (gulp) I'm thinking the wider aperture might be more helpful for taking pictures inside the house

The 30mm 1.4 seems to take care a lot of my prior nit-picking and I'm seriously considering getting it. However, since I have a limited budget, I'll probably have to sell my f2.8 to get the money. Besides, I probably couldn't justify having two 30 mm lenses, when I'm a light, casual photographer at best

However, because I loved my 2.8 so much (light weight, sturdy construction, great IQ) I'm a little hesitant..

How would you compare the two lenses? Also, would it be a good idea to replace my 30mm 2.8 with the 1.4 considering my needs? I use an a5100 and usually shoot casually (usually people & environment) while walking around or when traveling. I'll probably be shooting a lot of baby pics in the future and am also planning on shooting more videos because of the baby.

You will get better results for video with OSS than with a fast lens. Do consider the E35, which has OSS, or even the lower priced E50, which also has OSS.

Your kit(?) lens E1650 has OSS and is also good for video.

OSS doesn't always help with people, or baby's, as min SS is another challenge, and for this, the fastest aperture wins.

For its price, it is a great option. I do expect to have to stop it down for good sharpness, and I see some fringing and softness being reported by early reviewers,when the lens is used wide open.

If at rest, OSS can get you 3 stops, wheres f/1.4 versus f/1.8 is less than 1 stop. But then again, the extra light and extra bokeh might be worth it.

 

[PRS CU24]

Ahh... decisions decisions....T^T Now I'm even starting to consider SEL35F18.....

Thanks everybody for the replies!

 

[Thasiet]

I have both. The 2.8 is a teeeeeny bit sharper in the corners at wider apertures due to greater field curvature on the 1.4 and the 2.8 has slightly punchier contrast. Neither of these differences remotely outweigh the advantage of two full stops and full autofocus support vs the center only pdaf you deal with on the 2.8

 

[Marky12]

Ahh... decisions decisions....T^T Now I'm even starting to consider SEL35F18.....

Thanks everybody for the replies!

I have the 30mm f/1.4 and the SEL35F18. The 30mm is sharper for sure but the 35mm's af is better.

 

[Vermont3133]

For what it's worth, at this stage.....I have both lenses.

The 2.8 was my favorite lens... for all it's image producing qualities and it's stupidly low price.

The 1.4 should be better...it's bigger..longer...faster...a lot more expensive!

Well...it is better....it's just not too big....the [easily knocked off] hood adds considerable length [and I'm inclined to go with a simple screw-in vented, metal hood anyway]...but it feels OK in the hand.

A tad soft at f/1.4 [but there will be times when f/1.4 is the gold standard and nothing else matters]

I'm feeling it is as sharp or sharper than the f/2.8 lens @ f/2 and higher....it's going to be very interesting to see some MTF scores and comparisons.

The bokeh is great.

The AF hunts a bit more than the f/2.8 lens.

I had a few auto focus misses a while ago...but not recently.

All in all....the lens...for the price...and image quality, makes it a keeper and I'm happy to live with it's flaws.

I just might find a special place in my bottom drawer for the f/2.8 lens...rather than selling it...

 

[wb2trf]

I also have had the Sigma 30 2.8 for years and used it a lot. I use it for indoor informal portraits of children (usually while playing) and, less frequently, for landscape shots. (I also have the 19mm and the Sony 50mm, and a bunch of other primes)

I'm thinking of getting the 1.4. What I want from it is shallower dof for those child portraits and also, sometimes, a lower ISO. Probably shoot at 1.8 most often, sometimes 1.4. I don't care about the AF improvements much, as I can work with the 2.8 limitations without any problem.

I read a review (I think it was at luminous landscape) that said the 1.4 wasn't as sharp as the 2.8 for edge to edge. This is a non-issue for portraits, but important for landscape. This makes me think I might want to keep the 2.8. Keeping another 30mm lens just for landscape shots is annoying to me, but maybe that's what I'll do.

Any comments from those with both?

 

[dbronson]

for baby pics, i like no flash, high speed(1/125 or more) to freeze motion, i like the sigma 30 for this reason...oss isn't good, as mentioned, for moving subjects...like this rascal below.

keep shooting.

 

[Nesvetay]

Using flash is not recommended for babies..

 

[Nesvetay]

30 1.4 also has high field curvature as I saw in one of the reviews.

 

[geopapa]

Of course the 1.4 is a great lens and I would certainly go for it if it was smaller size, but even Sigma in its page for the Contemporary line confirms that the 2.8 has better optical correction in terms of chromatic aberrations and distortion:

"In addition, the SIGMA Art line includes three lenses for mirrorless cameras that cover a range of photographic needs: 19mm F2.8 DN | Art, 30mm F2.8 DN | Art, and 60mm F2.8 DN | Art. These lenses require no digital processing to correct for optical aberrations, instead using the optical system to minimize them."

https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/contemporary/c_16_14/features/

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/146655216@N05/