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?
On the other hand, the Canon 50mm prime is sharper than the kit zoom.
Is this a fair way of accessing the performance of these two primes vs. my kit zoom? I realize that there are areas other than sharpness that aren't as empirically determined, like color rendition. Do primes do better than zooms in this area generally?
I really want to get the Sigma 30mm prime due to a nice focal length, but I don't want to get it if the performance is the same as my kit zoom. I'd rather get the Canon 50mm prime instead for the improved sharpness.
The Sigma should be as sharp, if not sharper than the Canon, especially wide open and at the corners.
If you are just looking for sharpness, most primes will give no less than exceptional performance in terms of sharpness. I would strongly suggest if you are not looking for low-light performance or strong background blur, a higher end zoom might be more appropriate for you. The Tamron 17-50mm is a fantastic performer in terms of sharpness and definitely trumps anything else at the same price range. The Canon 50mm f1.4 will be a nice portrait lens, but unless you find yourself zoomed to 55mm all the time on your kit lens, it will be very limiting in terms of focal length.
OK first of all it seems the some of the kit IS lenses are very good. But are you compareing both lenses at their widest setting? the Sigma is 1.4 and the canon kit lens will be between f4-5.6 at 30mm. I bet if you stopped the sigma prime down to that then it would beat it by a long way.
The Tamron is a very good lens and is a good alternative to the Canon 17-55 IS. Tamron have now announced a VC version which should be able to go head to head with the Canon but unless the price is very competative I think I would rather have the Canon for its better AF.
Unless you find yourself wanting to use the lens in very low light or require very narrow depth of field then I would suggest you dont go for one of these prime lenses. It sounds as if you expect these lenses to suddenly make you a better photographer which they wont. They merely allow you to take a different style of photo and it doesnt sound as if you know what that style is, so buying one would be a waste of money.
Your 18-55IS kit lens is actually very good for the money, the only real improvement you can get on that lens is the 17-55IS or the Tamron 17-50 as they both offer f/2.8 and great IQ but they are expensive.
What do you find limiting with your kit lens? Have you considered a longer lens? something like the 55-250 IS?
You seem to have done some research, which is great and I'm taking a guess that this is fueling your curiosity about a new lens. Since your collection is rather bare, I would strongly suggest building a solid arsenal of zoom lenses (one standard and one telephoto, and maybe a wide angle) before grabbing some good prime lenses to compliment your collection.
I'm a prime lens guy myself, but I would recommend zoom lenses just for their versatility and features. I highly recommend grabbing the 50mm f1.8 (a mini-wonder) to see whether you are more of a prime lens person and see what type of sharpness and bokeh a prime lens can offer.
Luckily for you, Tamron has just announced a version of the 17-50mm with image stabilization (VC as they call it), so keep an eye out for the Canon version soon.
deeprblue wrote:
Luckily for you, Tamron has just announced a version of the 17-50mm with image stabilization (VC as they call it), so keep an eye out for the Canon version soon.
Unfortunately no news on price or release date which from a few of Tamrons previous releases could be a fair way away.
deeprblue wrote:
Luckily for you, Tamron has just announced a version of the 17-50mm with image stabilization (VC as they call it), so keep an eye out for the Canon version soon.
There already is a Canon version, the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS and it rocks!
I don't know what samples you are looking at, but the Sigma 30 is only a slim step behind the 35L in optical performance. It's sharp straight from f/1.4 and has has lovely bokeh and good color response. I've owned the Sigma 30, the 35L and the Canon 50/1.4, and the 30 is better than the Canon 50 at large apertures, and only ever so slightly behind the 35L...with the 35L being a tiny bit sharper at f/1.4 and f/1.6, with a little nicer color.
I'll just echo some of the stuff the folks here have said already...
You need to, first of all, determine what you find limiting with the kit lens? It is a great focal range on a crop body. If you find the sharpness/color/contrast lacking, you can look at a different tamron/sigma/canon zoom in the same range. If you need more range, you obviously need to look at longer lenses.
If you are new to this stuff, zooms are better to stick with. Once you have figured out the limitations, you can upgrade to better quality lenses.
If you find yourself needing lenses that perform better in lower light, you need zooms/primes that are faster.
Once you've figured out your preferred focal lengths, you can try primes of those lengths for optimal optical quality.
I do not, at all, mean to sound patronizing! Just trying to help you filter through all the info that's out there... I know it can be confusing!!
I have both and am completely happy with the performance of both of them. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend either based on my experiences.
The one I use ends up coming down to what focal length is more suitable. Generally my 30 gets more use at home because my place is not that large. On location, I generally opt for the 50 out of the two.
My experience is similar to Jman's, my Sigma 30/1.4 had much better wide open sharpness and more accurate AF than the Canon 50/1.4. The Sigma was reasonably sharp wide open and was razor sharp by f1.8 (at least my copy was), so perhaps the crops you've been looking at are from a dud lens.
LotsToLearn wrote:
I have both and am completely happy with the performance of both of them. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend either based on my experiences.
The one I use ends up coming down to what focal length is more suitable. Generally my 30 gets more use at home because my place is not that large. On location, I generally opt for the 50 out of the two.
+ 1, I have both and won't hesitate in using them wide open, I own two sharp copies, phew. If you use either wide open at 1.4, you won't need to smoothen any facial skin in PP :-).
I use the 50 for close distance shoulder or head shots. The sigma is for group, full body and other indoor/low light purposes.The Sigma had to be sent for calibration, came back samurai sharp (a common issue with this lens).
I also owned the Tamron 17-50 for a few months. It was really sharp wide open. But, the AF motor is really noisy...and I didn't end up using the lens as much as I thought I would.
PS: You don't really need IS for these lenses, get over it :-)
I had the Sigma 30mm for quite a while and really liked it, but it doesn't do so well when you drop it into the ocean.
When I first got the lens, I also had an opportunity to test a 35L for several days.
Afterwards, I decided that on my meager budget, selling the Sigma to buy the 35L (even at a crazy good price) was not worthwhile for me.
With that said, once I dropped my Sigma into the bay, I replaced it with a 35L and do enjoy better AF performance and better bokeh.
I do prefer the 30/35mm focal length to 50mm on a crop camera for what that's worth.
The Sigma 30mm is not sharper than the Canon 50mm at any comparable apertures... I've had several copies of both, and tried the Sig 50mm 1.4 against the 50mm 1.4 from C. The Sig 30 is a nice lens but it's soft wide open. Some people say the Canon 50mm 1.4 is soft as well. I thinks that is copy dependent...mine is sharp enough and is even better from 1.6 onwards. IQ is also better than the Sig 30.
These photos are far from perfect but the Canon 50 1.4 is so sharp from f2 that sometimes I need to tone it down to be kind to the subjects in post.
The Canon 50mm is sharp across the entire frame by 2.8...the Sig needs another two stops for it's corners to catch up. Not so handy for group shots where your wanting everyone crisply in focus.
Sharpness aside, the 50mm frames like 80mm on a crop body, so the 30mm would be closer to a "normal" focal length on the crop. That's pretty much as close as you can get to a normal length with a crop. Also the Sig 30mm is crop body only...so no migrating it to a FF if you have two bodies or will upgrade.
AF is similar between the two but the Sig has better build quality than the Canon. Mine is now manual focus only after a short drop out of my hand at the beach but everything else works great. AF accuracy is where your gonna get smacked. the Sigs are notorious for requiring calibration. very spotty past 10ft in my experience. If you have a newer body with micro adjust your at least halfway to sorting that out.
The Canon 35 f2 is better than the Sig 30mm...may be older design and buzzier AF, but if IQ is what counts forget the Sig on a variety of fronts.
