Thanks for the comments and the sample pictures everyone.
Yes, I'm pretty new to this. I've done a ton of research, but do not have a lot of experience.
I have the kit zoom with my T1i, and also a zoomy 18-250 Sigma. I was hoping the Sigma 30mm prime would fill in the image quality gap - for indoor, low light, and some portrait pictures.
I considered the Canon 50mm prime, but it would only be good mostly for close portraits - it's too much telephoto to shoot around the house. I wanted the flexibility to take pictures of a group of people sitting on the couch without having to knock down walls. I realize even with the prime, I'll have to use a smaller aperture (f/4 or f/5) to get everyone into the frame. So, maybe at these higher apertures, the Sigma prime isn't any different than my kit zoom?
I see the advantage of the prime for close portraits. For the Sigma 30mm users, any thoughts on IQ compared to the kit zoom for group shots where you need a smaller aperture anyways?
I've also considered getting another 18-50mm lens, but I wasn't convince anything out there under $600 would be much better than my existing canon kit lens. I could be wrong - so any input here is welcome. The nice 18-55mm Canon w/ USM was pretty expensive, and I thought I could duplicate the image quality of an expensive lens with a cheaper prime (the Sigma 30mm). I'll just have to work at harder for the pictures.
some people seem to love their sigma 30's, but they are crop only. the EF 35/2 is a great prime, have you considered that? You can get the EF 35/2 and the EF 50/1.8 (as sharp as the 50/1.4 by f2) for the price that you will pay for either of the primes you mention, I'd get those two instead... regarding the EF 28/1.8, I wasn't impressed... it was ok, but not stellar and something just didn't look pleasing to my eye.
They're different focal lengths, so a comparison might not be fair, but from the 100% crop samples, it seems the Sigma isn't any sharper than my Canon kit zoom (18-55mm IS). I thought that primes were suppose to be appreciably better than zooms?
Normal lenses are inherently less sharp than telephoto lenses.
Wide aperture lenses are inherently less sharp than narrow aperture lenses.
Primes are inherently sharper than zooms, yes, but that's modified by the statement above.
You are buying the Sigma 30mm not because it's sharper than the kit lens, but because it's a whopping 3+ stops faster (or something like that). It may also be sharper at the same f-stops--not sure.
I've had both lens. I got the canon 50 f1.4 first and then bought the sigma 30. My sigma required a trip to sigma in NJ for a calibration. Once I got it back, I've rarely mounted my canon 50 on my camera. That lens felt like a toy compared to the sigma. I eventually sold the canon 50 f1.4 and got a canon 60 macro.
My sigma was sharper and also didn't hunt as much in low light.
Supa Lao wrote:
I've had both lens. I got the canon 50 f1.4 first and then bought the sigma 30. My sigma required a trip to sigma in NJ for a calibration.
Makes you wonder why Sigma doesn't just calibrate the lens at the factory before putting into the box.
I went thru several copies of the dirty 30 and got tired of the whole lens roulette scene to find one that AF'd properly.
Then I switched to Nikon and thought...let me buy one "used" that the seller says is sharp wide open/focuses dead on.
I did, it is, I'm happy. Moral of the story, look for a used copy that someone sent in for calibration....chances are you'll
love the build/speed/IQ at this very reasonable pricepoint. FWIW my profile lists some stellar glass, this is my "go to" lens
for available light crop body pubbin'
I just received my Sigma 30mm last week. Wide open its not pin sharp, nor is it supposed to be. For me anyway, if I can get shots like these at night when the only available light is 1 light bulb, then its good enough for me.
Uncle Mike wrote:
Makes you wonder why Sigma doesn't just calibrate the lens at the factory before putting into the box.
Even if they did make sure 100% of the lenses focused perfectly from leaving the factory, that wouldn't stop the UPS guy from knocking a lens out of alignment by throwing around a box or the circumstance where someone's camera body is the culprit rather than the lens.
How long was the turn-around to get the lens to Sigma and have it come back?
I'm pretty new to SLR photography...is auto focus (on a properly working lens) generally preferable to manual focus? Does the computer generally do a better job of focusing than you can do by looking through the view finder?
. I was only out of the lens for a week, so it wasn't that big of a deal.