Miguel-C
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 2,323
- Reaction score
- 2,685
Like many M owners i have been on the market for a 50mm equivalent lens that i could use for portraits and landscape/Travel images. The canon 32mm is a very tempting lens, due to its sharpness and great video AF (yes, great. I'm not a vlogger so i appreciate focus pulls).
However the Sigma 30mm always looked plenty sharp for what i do, and i always felt - from my online comparisons -the rendering was always smoother and with a great black friday deal i got my copy for under 250 euros on Amazon. We currently have a 1pm curfew on the weekends i have found myself with little time to take some images with my new lenses (including the sigma 16mm which i also purchased during BF) but we decided to take a short trip to the beach, to make the best out of our predicament.
Straight aways my concerns about sharpness went away. I love the way the fine details are rendered as im not a big fan of lots of clarity on my landscapes. Surely the canon 32mm would produce sharper (maybe) results... but really i feel this is more than enough for my 40cmx60cm prints.
But what about for portraits?
50mm equivalent is my second favorite focal length for portraiture. Wide enough for group shots, low distortion and with a decent amount of background separation. The sigma 30mm behaves really well, with a smooth roll-off.
I often have to reduce the sharpness levels on Capture one to provide a smoother image quality. With wider apertures and a limit of 1/4000th, an ND filter is your best friend.
What about the negatives?
The lens displays fringing in high contrast areas wide open. Its relatively easy to remove it... sometimes. There is no such thing as a free lunch and removing purple fringing can mess with the red tones of the image, but thats with any lens really.
If you hope to have tack sharp images at f1.4 the canon 32mm is also your best option. For me 1.4 is for portraitures with nice corner roll offs, so i prefer it that way.
Continuous AF is decent too but i feel that it's too snappy for video. So if video is your priority i would honestly recommend the canon 32mm.
More on the 16mm later
--
Cordial Regards
However the Sigma 30mm always looked plenty sharp for what i do, and i always felt - from my online comparisons -the rendering was always smoother and with a great black friday deal i got my copy for under 250 euros on Amazon. We currently have a 1pm curfew on the weekends i have found myself with little time to take some images with my new lenses (including the sigma 16mm which i also purchased during BF) but we decided to take a short trip to the beach, to make the best out of our predicament.
Straight aways my concerns about sharpness went away. I love the way the fine details are rendered as im not a big fan of lots of clarity on my landscapes. Surely the canon 32mm would produce sharper (maybe) results... but really i feel this is more than enough for my 40cmx60cm prints.
But what about for portraits?
50mm equivalent is my second favorite focal length for portraiture. Wide enough for group shots, low distortion and with a decent amount of background separation. The sigma 30mm behaves really well, with a smooth roll-off.
I often have to reduce the sharpness levels on Capture one to provide a smoother image quality. With wider apertures and a limit of 1/4000th, an ND filter is your best friend.
What about the negatives?
The lens displays fringing in high contrast areas wide open. Its relatively easy to remove it... sometimes. There is no such thing as a free lunch and removing purple fringing can mess with the red tones of the image, but thats with any lens really.
If you hope to have tack sharp images at f1.4 the canon 32mm is also your best option. For me 1.4 is for portraitures with nice corner roll offs, so i prefer it that way.
Continuous AF is decent too but i feel that it's too snappy for video. So if video is your priority i would honestly recommend the canon 32mm.
More on the 16mm later
--
Cordial Regards
Last edited:
