I realize the 28mm is the cheapest of the bunch and probably most to my liking - being that its a good balance between the two more expensive focal lengths. The 24 and 35 are a bit more expensive, but look equally amazing, what would you guys choose?
I do a lot of hiking so landscapes are my thing. I own a 17-35mm which I love but don't have a favored focal length.
I choose the 28G because it's a very decent lens for it's price and lightweight. I don't use primes that much so I don't want to have too much money invested in these lenses.
What these two lenses? Sigma AF 24mm f/1.8 EX DG macro (FX) or Sigma AF 28mm f/1.8 EX DG macro (FX)? I believe these two have been in production for some time now but I've failed to find any recent posts on FM about these. I've seen old posts on POTN from Canon users that quite liked the 24 1.8 but nothing too recent.
Any one compare the Sigma 28 1.8 to Nikon 28 1.8? I've been very curious about the Sigma 24 1.8 especially the pseudo macro ability (not 1:1 magnification). I really want a fast wide-angle prime for night work but can't quite decided if 24 is not wide enough - seems to be. Unfortunately, Nikon's 24 1.4 is just too expensive which makes their 28 1.8 more desirable.
I'm shooting with a D700 right now, and don't plan on switching from FX ever! Will likely upgrade someday to a D900 or whatever eventually replaces the D800. I've had my D700 for going on 4 years now (longest I've ever kept a camera) purchased it brand new and plan on keeping it until it breaks.
kinconorb wrote:
I'm shooting with a D700 right now, and don't plan on switching from FX ever! Will likely upgrade someday to a D900 or whatever eventually replaces the D800. I've had my D700 for going on 4 years now (longest I've ever kept a camera) purchased it brand new and plan on keeping it until it breaks.
I purchased an almost new D700 back in November and love it! Still learning the camera but so far very impressed.
Now, I'm searching for a fast prime for night work which is why I asked about the Sigma 24 f/1.8 and Sigma 28 f/1.8 (both are for full-frame). These two lens haven't shown up in any recent FM forum topics so thought I'd ask about them especially given all the prime talk lately.
I have been enjoying my (relatively) fast 28/2AIS for the last year or so, since accidentally discovering how effective it is for night street photography on an FX body. Also have a 35/2AIS, but it seems too restrictive in comparison. Wider lenses distort too much for my taste, Guess I could fix in PP.
Maybe a point of personal preference but I love 35mm on FX. I'm a landscape guy too but I almost solely shoot 24 or wider for my work (or tele), 35 is more of a general-purpose focal length for me.
I used to own a 14-24, sold it on FM a year or two back, then purchased the 17-35 My main dislike with the 14-24 is the front element design and slip on cap. For my needs the 17-35mm is 10x easier to take along hiking - less to worry about and the UV filter protecting the front element can be easily cleaned with a shirt, towel or rag.
If you want a prime, it's really all about FL. Tape your 17-35 to each FL and shoot them for awhile to see what you like. 35mm is my favorite FL on 35mm, but 28mm is generally what I reach for if I need a wide angle as I like to carry it paired with a 50/1.2AI-S
I have a 28/1.8G, but if I had known about the Sigma 35 last summer, I would have saved my money and looked long and hard at it too. It's such a great lens from what I've seen, and the price could easily be much higher.
and plan on keeping it until it breaks. 
My main dislike with the 14-24 is the front element design and slip on cap. For my needs the 17-35mm is 10x easier to take along hiking - less to worry about and the UV filter protecting the front element can be easily cleaned with a shirt, towel or rag.