Well I've decided the 5D is a bit out of my price range for now and I'll be going with a 40D in January. I'd like to pick up a normal view (50mm ish) lens but can't decide which one. 35L is out of the price range too since I bought a 580EX II recently. I'm down to the Sigma 30mm f1.4 and the Canon 35 f2 and since I rely on the internet to make all my purchasing decisions its up to you to sway me either way.

I'll be using it as a small light walkaround lens, for lowlight concert work, and for environmental portraits. Sway me people.

Sigma 30/1.4!

- Full stop faster
- Hypersonic motor (like USM) : faster and silent
- Better build (e.g. internal focusing)
- Includes hood and pouch

I have the 35mm f2 and I really like that lens. There is definetly a benefit to the Sigma 30mm f1.4 though for sure. Its way cheaper than the 35L and will give you fantastic results.

You bought a Canon camera... so use Canon lenses Your colors will be consistent and you can ensure future compatibility. In January or Feb the 5D might see a big price decrease if a successor is released, something to consider.

Doesn't Sigma make their own DSLR system now?

The Sigma is fantastic. The difference between 1.4 and 2.0 is very noticeable - the 1.4 gets me shots that would not happen at anything slower. It is perfectly sharp at all apertures, too (of course, it's softer at the corners, but so is the 35.)

I have 237 pictures tagged on flickr with this lens, showing a wide range of uses but mostly environmental portraits and low-light stuff, and even a few concert shots: http://www.flickr.com/photos/penguinchris/tags/sigma30mmf14/

Actually many more of the pictures I have on there are taken with this lens, but they are not all tagged. I'm in the process of going through them all and tagging them with the lens used.

Any flaws in the images are my own - the lens performs flawlessly, but you need good technique at 1.4 and my post-processing is all over the place with the images on there.

Edited by Chris Hacker on Nov 21, 2007 at 02:34 AM GMT

if you are on a budget... I would get the 35/2 + 50/1.8. Down the road, you will still be shooting them on FF, not so for the otherwise well recommended 30/1.4.

I'm a little sour on 3rd party lenses at the moment anyway... after going through 3 Tokina 100 macros and two copies of the Sigma 28/1.8... and am still empty handed.

The EF 35/2 is very sharp and contrasty and focuses pretty close. The 50/1.8 is almost legendary (I liked the MKI better, but images from my MKII are just as good... of course). I think you can still get the pair for less than $300.

I tried the more expensive EF 28/1.8 and didn't really like it... not that it was terrible, just disappointing from a bokeh, sharpness, contrast/flare resistance sense... I am considering picking up a cheap 28/2.8 for small and light... used to like one of these on film eons ago...

j_ambrose wrote:
Well I've decided the 5D is a bit out of my price range for now and I'll be going with a 40D in January. I'd like to pick up a normal view (50mm ish) lens but can't decide which one. 35L is out of the price range too since I bought a 580EX II recently. I'm down to the Sigma 30mm f1.4 and the Canon 35 f2 and since I rely on the internet to make all my purchasing decisions its up to you to sway me either way.

I'll be using it as a small light walkaround lens, for lowlight concert work, and for environmental portraits. Sway me people.



I bought the Sigma based on testing I saw on Lightrules - don't have the link handy but you can look it up. Mine sits in its case since I sold my crop as I don't have much use for it anymore - it was actually a second new copy I picked up and fortunately got a mint one after front focusing issues on the first I bought. You may have to do the same if you go the Sigma route. However, if you know of or if you get a good copy the Sigma will definitely do the job for a lot less than an L. So, it all depends how deep is your wallet and what you are willing to spend. I will be glad to send you some low light pictures I shot this Fall if interested. Good Luck.

Here's the Lightrules link:

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/30v35_2nd


Posted Link:

Edited by tinke on Nov 21, 2007 at 08:03 AM GMT

I think the 35/2 is sharp, but I don't find contrast to be its strong point.
Still a good lens, but the Sigma is in a higher league, in my book.

Either lens will do the job, though.

I wish the Sigma lens worked on my 5D and I would have probably gotten it. Damn crop camera prime lenses.

I love my 28 f/1.8. Every once in a while someone gets a bad copy, but honestly, I feel this is such an underrated lens. Build quality blows the 35 f/2 out of the water, and it focuses better than the Sigma 30. Has the best skin tone rendition of any lens I own, and is very sharp over 80% of the frame right from f/1.8 (corners take a bit to catch up). Contrast is reduced wide open, but it catches up nicely by f/2.2. If you get an accurate focusing copy of the Sigma 30, it's probably the best lens in this area, but that can sometimes be difficult, as a fairly good proportion have focusing issues, especially on objects further than 3 or 4 feet away. A quick send to Sigma will almost always fix that if you do have that problem, though. When my Sigma 30 front focused by 2 feet on objects 6 feet away, I opted for the 28 f/1.8 and double rebates with my 30D. Had the rebates not been on at the time, I'd likely have gotten the Sigma calibrated, though. Sometimes I think of trying another just for the 2/3 stop, but then I look at the pics I've gotten with my 28.

Here are a few samples from my 28 f/1.8:

Yeah, looks like that 28/1.8 works well enough to keep.

Nice job...

I'm one of those that wished the Sigma would work on a FF camera too. That lens is also quite nice from the looks of the images posted.

I would have to throw in my vote for the 28 f1.8 as well. Great little lens. I have the 35f2, and I like how it renders just fine, but it is really loud when focusing. The 28 is silent, and on the 20/30/40d it is a 45, which I tend to prefer over the 55 that results from the 35f2. Some people complain about getting a bad copy, but I have had two copies of this lens, and both were very sharp. Just lucky, I guess.

I tend to avoid lenses that can't be used on a FF camera. When I did finally get my 5d, and then later my 1dmk2n, I was pleased to be able to use all of my lenses. In fact, when I carry two bodies (typically the 5d and 20d), I tend to have the 28f1.8 along on the 5d and an 85 on the 20d. Then with a quick switch, I fill in the gap--so that in the end, I am carrying 28, 45, 85, and 135, all at 1.8. Not bad for two relatively small lenses on two bodies.

second/third/fourth the support for the 28/1.8. i kick myself for selling my copy ... also b&w conversions from it are really nice, too.

i have my 35/2 and 50/1.8 and can recommend them as well. but the 28/1.8 is special.

+1 for the Sigma 30. I sold my 35 L after using them both for a while. The colors and sharpness of the Sigma are just sweet. [This is on 30D and 40D bodies.]

For low light concert work I would think that 30mm is too wide.I would use the 50mm f/1.4-a great little lens and pretty nifty for portraits,Nice bokeh too.Its a reasonable walkabout as well.

Never tried the 35 2.0, but I chose the Sigma 30 over the Canon 28 1.8 or the 35L (for the price).

28 1.8 has great focusing, but the IQ just isn't there compared to the Sigma.

I would never buy a Sigma. This forum and the review section is full of Sigma QC issues. People seem to hold Canon to a higher QC standard and Sigma to a routinely lower standard.
Also the Sigma resale is low too. Checkout the BuySell forum there's an active market in Canon glass at just under street prices. Where's the Sigma stuff if it's so good?

Sigma 30 1.4s that have no QC issues are not low resellers. I had to send mine back 2 times before I got a good one, but the good ones are very good. I have passed up many opportunities to sell it for just under the price I paid for it. However, I have not used the 28 1.8 or 35 f/2 so I can't comment on whether they are as great of lenses.

python2000 wrote:
Sigma 30 1.4s that have no QC issues are not low resellers. I had to send mine back 2 times before I got a good one, but the good ones are very good. I have passed up many opportunities to sell it for just under the price I paid for it. However, I have not used the 28 1.8 or 35 f/2 so I can't comment on whether they are as great of lenses.

I have had mine less than six months and would be willing to part with it if anyone was seriously interested - it has never even gone out of doors. Not really trying to sell it, but if someone wanted one I would consider giving it a new happy home. I too had to return my first copy due to lack of focus, but this new one I ordered several months later is a dandy and is in mint condition.


Edited by tinke on Nov 22, 2007 at 01:16 AM GMT

Well, since the 30 sigma is only for crop camera's, I would not get that for reasons of compatability. i used the 35 f/2 for a while as my primary walkaround lens, and it was terrific, and not really that noisy. Go read the user reviews on this site on this and the 28 1.8. USM might be a good reason to get the 28, but I never used that lens. for 200, you will not be disappointed in the 35 f/2. But now I have the 35L, and whoever it was that decided to sell it was either broke or crazy.

ShaneEngelking wrote:
Well, since the 30 sigma is only for crop camera's, I would not get that for reasons of compatability...I have the 35L, and whoever it was that decided to sell it was either broke or crazy.

Interesting comment. Very interesting. You charge someone/anyone for being possibly "crazy" for selling the 35L for the 30EX (after using both extensively), yet you've never used or touched the Sigma. Maybe this is even more "crazy".

I have tried and used most of the lenses discussed here: Canon 28/1.8, 35/2, 35L, and Sigma 30/1.4. The one that I still have is the Sigma 30/1.4, while the rest are gone. Note: I tend to shoot them all at wide open aperture since I work in low light mostly.

Comments:
28/1.8 - Good focal length on cropped body. However, at f/1.8 the shots had a bit of a "dreamy" look (maybe my copy?). Built fairly well too. But f/1.8 is still 2/3 stop slower than f/1.4.

35/2 - Very compact lens. The cheapest of the bunch. But I'm not a fan of the old design - small focus ring, and lack of USM (and FTM) were big turn-offs. It's also loud and buzzy! Sharp in the centre though, but f/2 is not at all "fast" compared to f/1.4.

35L - Many people love this lens. It's certainly built well. Sharpness was good, but didn't really blow me away (my copy?). Arguably the best lens of the bunch, but very expensive. At 3-4 times the cost of the others, it was not the best value.

Sigma 30/1.4 - Fast aperture at f/1.4. Good centre sharpness. I like the build and feel of it too (heavier than all but the 35L, but very compact). Good value, considering it can deliver quality similar to the 35L, but at a fraction of the cost.

I think small and super light weight are great assets in a prime... but some people don't care... seems crazy to me... but to each their own.

The 35L has better corner performance than the Sigma, so if that's
a big issue in your shooting style, I can see why, even on a crop body,
the 35L would be preferred.

The 35L also has less barrel distortion, but often this is not an issue
in real life shooting.

So, a great copy of the 35L should be all around better than a great
copy of the Sigma for many shooters. It's just that you pay a big
premium for the Canon, so for many of us the Sigma does just fine.

trumpet_guy wrote:
The 35L has better corner performance than the Sigma, so if that's
a big issue in your shooting style, I can see why, even on a crop body,
the 35L would be preferred.

The 35L also has less barrel distortion, but often this is not an issue
in real life shooting.

So, a great copy of the 35L should be all around better than a great
copy of the Sigma for many shooters. It's just that you pay a big
premium for the Canon, so for many of us the Sigma does just fine.

In looking at the Lightrules tests in the link provided on the 1st page of this thread that is not what his testing showed. I actually sold my 35L before I got the Sigma 30 1.4, so I have no test data to compare.

Don't undersell the Sigma because it is 1/3 less in cost. If you get a good copy, and admittedly QC is an issue, I think you will see the same kind of IQ as noted in the Lightrules testing. That was my experience.