im looking at the sigma 20mm f1.8 and the canon 20mm f2.8 USM. i see that the sigma was the 2001-2002 euro lens of the year and i think im leaning towards that lens. i was just wondering if anyone has any experience with either of these two lenses. thanks
The Sigma is noticeably soft wide-open, but plenty sharp for me stopped down to 2.5 and beyond. I usually use it stopped down a bit, but it's nice to have the 1.8 when I really need it, e.g. low-light candids. The autofocus is a bit noisy but not too slow. It is bulky, that's the downside in using it for candids. That huge front element in a 82mm filter ring is a bit intimidating for subjects. The AF/MF clutch is cumbersome and a pain (you have to flip a switch _and_ pull the focusing ring forward to switch into MF, and the large focusing ring sometimes catches a bit and doesn't switch to MF mode smoothly). On the bright side MF is very smooth and well-damped.
The Canon is significantly smaller than the Sigma and somewhat lighter; USM is fast and silent, and full-time manual is nice. It's probably more convenient than the Sigma for a smallish walkabout lens on a D30. The disappointing thing is that it is not as sharp as the Sigma when both are stopped down (at least on my copies). The Canon is more neutral in color balance; my Sigma is fairly warm (not that big a deal on digital cameras with WB). Both are well-built and quite solid chunks of glass. Both have a little bit of distortion near the edges but it's really not noticeable.
I am keeping my Sigma and probably will get around to selling the Canon sometime. Resale value of the Canon has fallen significantly in the last year; I see it going for $250 sometimes with no takers. It used to be $420 new. The Sigma, meanwhile, has held steady at $300 used/new. I think both have fallen out of favor a bit, ever since the 17-40L came out. I like my 20's, though!
I have the sigma and find that while i dont use it all the time when i do need it it performs rerally well! It's not pin sharp wide open but then no lens for this money really is. I find the ability to shoot at F1.8 very handy, i would reccomend this in a heart beat!
Chris
Nov 16, 2004 at 05:32 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I think that the Sigma lens is better. Non of those two lenses are sharp wide open. But the sigma is a lot sharper at f/2,8 than the Canon at f/2,8. For it's price i think the Sigma is a very nice lens.
I have the Sigma as well. I find that it is really handy in low light situations and it is a fairly good performing lens (AF Speed) for the price. Seems to be very well made.
RA
Guy Mancuso wrote:
I found the Sigma sharp from corner to corner on the 1ds at F5.6 that is better than the 16-35 at the same focal length which was F8. I am going to keep it
Very useful info. Never had any misgivings about the Sima 20 performance on a 1.6 crop sensor but often wondered about FF.
I couldn't have said it any better than Sean. I have quibbles with this lens, but in the end - if you've got one you'll be shooting in situations where other photographers would have either packed up and gone home or at least start digging around for their Flash. I think about selling mine every once and a while, but then it saves my butt big time and I remember why I keep it around.
I read somewhere that one 20/1.8 owner uses the two-step MF/AF switch as a sort of MF-lockout -- when he's doing MF landscape work, after the focus is set to hyperfocal, he pushes the focus ring forward to AF position (leaving the switch set to MF). At that point the focus is locked; neither the camera nor the focus ring can inadvertently bump the lens off hyperfocal. Sounds like a neat trick, but to me seems a rather esoteric use.
Also, don't try to do the reverse -- i.e., setting the switch to AF but focus ring on MF. The lens makes grinding noises when the camera tries to AF (ok, _louder_ grinding noises than usual), and it just doesn't sound good. Someone once said something to the effect of, "it's the only lens I know of that has a builtin self-destruct mode".
