I'm looking at picking up a 28 1.8 (Canon or Sigma), a 24 1.8, or a 35 f2 for use as an indoor, low light lens. Anyone have experience with these options and how they compare against one another. Low light AF is important as is overall sharpness pretty wide open. I'm shooting on a 5d2 and 60d. Thanks.
(P.S. I can't justify the 24 or 35L and need AF, so the Ls, Zeiss and Rokinon lenses are out).
I Had the sigma 24 - returned it. It couldn't me MA enough to work right, and at that time I didn't care to play the 'get a good copy game'. When focused manually the results were very nice. I'd try it again, but I wouldn't buy it used for the most part.
Snopchenko wrote:
I'll join this thread again cause it's that time of the year again and I'm still looking for a fast&wide something.
No need to look any further: Canon 24mm f/1.4L Mark II . True, it is on the pricey side. I hope I don't come across as a snob but somehow "fast and wide" are not associated with "cheap", especially if the attribute "quality" is also included.
Snopchenko wrote:
I'll join this thread again cause it's that time of the year again and I'm still looking for a fast&wide something.
Ilia , you still shooting 1.3 crop ? If so then I'm told the sigma 30/1.4 goes out that wide. Never had the 2 at the same time tell for sure but the siggy is a great little lens
It is a fantastic lens, and my copy is quite sharp out of the camera. It's a small lens, fits in your pocket, and performs well in low light (not as good obviously as a 24 1.4, but considerably less).
As for any complaints? The low light AF isn't fantastic. It's not terrible, but not as good as say, the 85/1.8.
Within it's focal range against a 35/2, it's a much better lens inside and out. You can pick these up for around $380-$430. It's a pretty good price if you need a solid prime in that FL that's below f/2. Otherwise you jump way up in price to a 24/1.4.
When I get the chance, I can provide out of camera shots once I dig them up.
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
Ilia , you still shooting 1.3 crop ? If so then I'm told the sigma 30/1.4 goes out that wide. Never had the 2 at the same time tell for sure but the siggy is a great little lens
Yep, that and APS-C. I'm looking out for alternatives - and I didn't forget about the 30/1.4 - even though lately I'm looking at augmenting my wife's NEX with a 24/1.8 and other lenses instead. Her italian pics are much better than what I brought from Kashgar quality-wise but her photography suffers from a lack of fast lenses, photographing all those dim cathedral interiors and exhibition halls...
That said, I still need something for myself, though not as pricey as 24/1.4 L or Zeiss 24/1.8.
BTW once we're talking of L... anyone has an original 24/1.4? What's the catch with it?
stebesplace -- I would really appreciate your examples showing the quality of the 28/1.8, especially on the 1DII. I'm waiting on a 1DII myself, and thought the slight crop might improve on the edge quality of the 28. I've heard/read mixed reviews on the 28, but it seems like a great lens if it can hold together on FF or the 1.3X crop.
FF images would be appreciated if others have them.
I have the sigma 24/1.8. I think it's fine for its price.
weird mf/af two switch system (flick the common style switch, then pull the focus ring back), not the best manual focus feel, buzzy/noisy, but not so slow (much faster than my 30/1.4 sigma).
it's large. 77mm filter thread.
I've never really looked at it for corner sharpness or compared it to other 24s.
very close focus (I think it's around 1:2.7).
I like the look the sigma 30/1.4 puts out better, but the 30 wont fly on a full frame.
Snopchenko wrote:
There have been samples posted here, but can't remember when & where. I only remember that the 28 looked rather better than I expected.
Here's a 28 1.8 sample on full frame that I've probably posted before. This was shot at f/2.0 on a 5D Mark II.
My observations:
My copy shows some halation and center softness wide open, so I just treat it as an f/2.0 lens; at f/2.0 it's solid near the center (as you can see here).
Bokeh is a bit rocky near wide open, but is fine by f/2.8.
Corners are weaker than other Canon wide angle primes, so this is not my first choice for landsacpes or architecture, but it is a very nice photojournalism lens.
Contrast and colors are a notch below the current 'L' primes, but still fine with PP.
Sigma 24 f/1.8 is a great lens. Surprisingly sharp even wide open on FF. Only real weakness is lazy AF and clutch mechanism for MF, which I don't like. If they make a HSM version of this lens it'll be a great alternative to the 24L for the cost conscious.
Yeah, I'm still waiting for Sigma to do some bright wide primes with better quality. After all they did the 50 and 85, and even Samyang has a 24 and 35 now.
Bummer if they choose to develop a 135 instead. (at least for me)
garyvot - thanks for the images! I think that some day I'll bite the bullet. This and Sigma 85 would probably be a nice combo.
Snopchenko wrote:
Yeah, I'm still waiting for Sigma to do some bright wide primes with better quality. After all they did the 50 and 85, and even Samyang has a 24 and 35 now.
Bummer if they choose to develop a 135 instead. (at least for me)
agreed.
I think the wide sector could do with some new blood. I think Sigma would do pretty well in the fast (ish) FF 24 and 35mm sectors if they come up with a couple of well priced 1.8's or 2's .
and a crop 21/1.4 would be nice as well
Or a FF one, a la Leica.
I'm a proponent of Sigma licensing the optical designs from Samyang, adding HSM AF, and even increasing the price by, oh say, 40 to 50 percent. Really, I'd be cool with that.
Snopchenko wrote:
Yeah, I'm still waiting for Sigma to do some bright wide primes with better quality. After all they did the 50 and 85, and even Samyang has a 24 and 35 now.
Bummer if they choose to develop a 135 instead. (at least for me)
garyvot - thanks for the images! I think that some day I'll bite the bullet. This and Sigma 85 would probably be a nice combo.
Given the IQ of the 50 and 85 f/1.4, I just hope they do a 35 f/1.4 next.
. True, it is on the pricey side. I hope I don't come across as a snob but somehow "fast and wide" are not associated with "cheap", especially if the attribute "quality" is also included.