Hello all

Whilst originally I was considering a Tamron17-50mm f2.8 I've decided I'd like a slightly faster lens (f2 or faster) so I'm now considering:

1) Sigma 30mm f1.4
2) Canon EF 28mm f1.8

My main purpose would be to take pictures of my nephews and nieces (ages 2-8 - 4 of them!) and family indoors without flash. I have the 50mm f1.8 but I find this a bit long on my 40D in the house. I also have both my brother and sister's weddings coming up in the next 12 months so would like to use the lens for that as well.

So I would like good AF (for tracking the rapidly moving young ones) and relatively silent AF (for the weddings).

I'm not planning on going FF any time soon though if there is nothing in it I'd get the Canon as you never know what the future holds!

I've ready plenty of bad stuff on the Sigma's quality control / focusing issues, but these appear to be resolved after sending it in for a recalibration.

Could anyone advise which they think would be best for this use?

Thanks in advance

Al

I'd definitely get the Sigma when choosing from those 2. I have it and it's a great lens. Should be great for static indoor shots without a flash. But ff you're trying to shoot these rapidly moving young ones inside, you may be better off with the Tamron and a flash.

Looking for the same type of lens myself, except that I keep leaning towards the 35mm f/2.

morefar wrote:
I'd definitely get the Sigma when choosing from those 2. I have it and it's a great lens. Should be great for static indoor shots without a flash. But ff you're trying to shoot these rapidly moving young ones inside, you may be better off with the Tamron and a flash.

Hi and thanks. You may be right, but I only have the onboard flash at present, but more importantly I get evil looks from everyone if the flash keeps going off so that's why I was really looking for a fast lens. Also for the weddings flash would not be suitable, until the evening anyway.

Thanks

Al

nads wrote:
Looking for the same type of lens myself, except that I keep leaning towards the 35mm f/2.

Hi. I looked at that as well but thought 35mm might stil be a touch long on the 40d. Don't tempt me with other options, it's bad enough with just the two!

35 f2 is a superb lens, but if you need f1.4, then sigma is the way to go. Bear in mind that the DOF @ 1.4 is very marginal. In my tests, the 35f2 was sharper @ f2 than sigma was at f2, though sigma is sharp enough. Also, sigma does have USM, so focusing speed on sigma is a tad bit better than the canon. If you can live with the f2, then 35 is a remarkable lens for the money.

28 1.8 vs sigma 30
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/28v30

canon 35 2.0 vs sigma 30
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/30v35

get sigma 30, the performance is very good (as good as my 35L with smaller body), you wont regret if you can get good batch.

see my comparison test at 1.4 here:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/803504

The sigma 30 is my most used lens around the house. I have no problem taking pics of my 3 yr old or 9 month old.

I own the 28/1.8 and 35/2. The 35 is about as sharp as it gets from the get go (2.0). The 28 is not usable in my mind at 1.8. It's been sent into Canon, but it's still not usable at 1.8. By the way, I'm talking abot FF right now. The 28 feels like the 85/1.8 stepbrother. Build is the same, focus seems the same minus the lag int he 28 for having to move more glass, but the 85 is plenty sharpat 1.8, but the 28 is not. Mine also front-focuses (still usable) at close focusing distances (12-36 inches").

Tad

......then again, why not try learning how to use a flash. The photos will be so much better if you can learn how to control the light. Available light is not always the answer.

Also what SS are you having to use now?

Have you figured it out that you know a 1.4/8 lens will do the job, combined with your highest available iso?

I would pick the Sigma 30/1.4.

As for using flash, there was a little heated discussion a while ago where a disgruntled wedding photographer ranted about the uncle bobs of weddings that got in his way. I think the OP's decision to go for the fastest lens he can get is a wise one.

thedutt wrote:
35 f2 is a superb lens, but if you need f1.4, then sigma is the way to go. Bear in mind that the DOF @ 1.4 is very marginal. In my tests, the 35f2 was sharper @ f2 than sigma was at f2, though sigma is sharp enough. Also, sigma does have USM, so focusing speed on sigma is a tad bit better than the canon. If you can live with the f2, then 35 is a remarkable lens for the money.


Thanks for this. I could live with f2, f1.87 is the fastest i have now anyway so i a sense I don;t know what I'm missing but there have been times where another stop would help.

the USM / HSM etc is important to me so I'd def go with the Sigma on that basis.

Thanks

al

luant16 wrote:
28 1.8 vs sigma 30
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/28v30

canon 35 2.0 vs sigma 30
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/30v35

get sigma 30, the performance is very good (as good as my 35L with smaller body), you wont regret if you can get good batch.

see my comparison test at 1.4 here:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/803504


I guess that seems to be the worry with this lens, getting a good one. Thanks this was helpful and am starting to lean this way.

you're shooting at least 1600, right?

tcamper wrote:
I own the 28/1.8 and 35/2. The 35 is about as sharp as it gets from the get go (2.0). The 28 is not usable in my mind at 1.8. It's been sent into Canon, but it's still not usable at 1.8. By the way, I'm talking abot FF right now. The 28 feels like the 85/1.8 stepbrother. Build is the same, focus seems the same minus the lag int he 28 for having to move more glass, but the 85 is plenty sharpat 1.8, but the 28 is not. Mine also front-focuses (still usable) at close focusing distances (12-36 inches").

Tad


Thanks Tad, that's good to know. I guess you can get good and bad copies of both lenses, Sigma certainly seem to have a highere 'reported' percentage of bad ones.

I'm surprised the OP didn't ask Sigma 30 f/1.4 vs Sigma 28 f/1.8. The Sigma 24/28 f/1.8 are super lenses and aren't croppers. Their AF isn't super fast, butthey are EX lenses, so are well built and have impressively close focus. They have excellent centre sharpness wide open and very good in the corners stopped down.

tcamper wrote:
......then again, why not try learning how to use a flash. The photos will be so much better if you can learn how to control the light. Available light is not always the answer.

Also what SS are you having to use now?

Have you figured it out that you know a 1.4/8 lens will do the job, combined with your highest available iso?



I agree and I plan to in the future but for this as I say the family don't appreciate the flash going off every coupe of seconds and my 40D may be confiscated for the rest of the day by my wife if it does! I may look to get a 430 X flash, but for now I think one of these lenses would fit my needs more and add to my range of lenses better (sig 10-20, kit lens 18-55 non is, 70-200 L f4 + ext tubes).

I tend to go up to about ISO 800, sometimes 1000. I don't know that I specifically need f1.4. At present under 50mm my fast lens is the kit lens from my old 400d, so not very fast and my 50mm f1.8 is too long. I'd like the idea of having a f1.4 lens as it will come in handy as the light fades.

Thanks

Al

Pixel Perfect wrote:
I'm surprised the OP didn't ask Sigma 30 f/1.4 vs Sigma 28 f/1.8. The Sigma 24/28 f/1.8 are super lenses and aren't croppers. Their AF isn't super fast, butthey are EX lenses, so are well built and have impressively close focus. They have excellent centre sharpness wide open and very good in the corners stopped down.

Hi and thanks for the suggestion. When you suggested I couldn't remember why either but just done a quick search and I think the 30mm has HSM which the 28 does not, why I left it off, and I think the 24mm might be a bit short.

OakR wrote:
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I'm surprised the OP didn't ask Sigma 30 f/1.4 vs Sigma 28 f/1.8. The Sigma 24/28 f/1.8 are super lenses and aren't croppers. Their AF isn't super fast, butthey are EX lenses, so are well built and have impressively close focus. They have excellent centre sharpness wide open and very good in the corners stopped down.

Hi and thanks for the suggestion. When you suggested I couldn't remember why either but just done a quick search and I think the 30mm has HSM which the 28 does not, why I left it off, and I think the 24mm might be a bit short.

That's the main criticism, the lack of HSM. The AF isn't fast but it's fine for what I use it for. These would be superb if upgraded to HSM and if they added a 35 f/1.8 HSM version too.

In my comparison, the 28 1.8 was louder and the Sigma was nice at 1.4, whereas the Canon was not at 1.8...Copies seem to matter a lot on both of these, though.

I had the Sigma 50/1.4 and save from AF, liked it a lot. I had the Canon 28/1.8 and save from IQ, liked it a lot. Hummmmmm............ tough cooky. I think I'd try both a 30/1.4 and a second copy of a 28/1.8 together.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.