Sigma 30mm f1.4 EX DC HSM

[oreca]

I don't have this lens yet... but really want it. I also just got my first set of Extension tubes for Christmas. I had asked this question some time ago with the thinking of wow... such a sharp lens, but was told that at 30mm, the working distance isn't much... and the 30mm lens has a not so good minimum focusing distance already.

That's what I was thinking... From what I gather it would be possible for the maximum focus point to be behind the glass!

[olz]

From what I gather it would be possible for the maximum focus point to be behind the glass!

That's right. The 50mm f/1.4 works much better with extension tubes.

[Rhinotherunt]

Since the rear element doesn't extend beyond the contacts, you have nothing to worry about except the disgusting black edges and corners.
You have a point...

[ag93]

this is my first non canon lens and i am in love. I took these today with natural light and wide open.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2197/2188581150_a0979506dd_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2326/2188581926_7e12dc393a_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2332/2191369268_3e971667bd_o.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2136/2187798147_7d0ffa579f_b.jpg

[S.Horton]

I hate this thread.

;}

[condyk]

this is my first non canon lens and i am in love ...

What!! And you are still alive :lol::lol: Pitch 30mm 1.4 image threads against 30mm 1.4 threads and i doubt anyone could hand on heart say which is all round better in IQ terms.

[ag93]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2403/2190577697_dd1b638752_b.jpg

[ag93]

What!! And you are still alive :lol::lol: Pitch 30mm 1.4 image threads against 30mm 1.4 threads and i doubt anyone could hand on heart say which is all round better in IQ terms.

my canon 50mm f/1.4 is still my favorite! i was just very surrpised at the quality of the sigma since i have only tried canon. This was actually a purchase after I returned the canon 28 1.8.

[Fyerfytr]

I am leary of trying a non-Canon lens but from the looks of the 30 1.4 it would be good for portraits. This might be the next lens.,, any thoughts for portrait work or should I get the 50 1.4? I have 40d and 20d bodies.
thanks!

[jbkalla]

this is my first non canon lens and i am in love. I took these today with natural light and wide open.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2332/2191369268_3e971667bd_o.jpg





LOVE this photo! SO cute!

[ag93]

I am leary of trying a non-Canon lens but from the looks of the 30 1.4 it would be good for portraits. This might be the next lens.,, any thoughts for portrait work or should I get the 50 1.4? I have 40d and 20d bodies.
thanks!

i think it depends what kind of portraits you do. If you do in home of clients, this is a great lens. If you are in a controlled setting or outdoors, def go with the 50 1.4

here is one of my daughter taken with the 50 and bounced flash

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2149/2179544560_1229095476_o.jpg

[Fyerfytr]

Ok thanks, yes mostly in home studio stuff. I thinkI could use my 70-200 for stuff outdoors, I'm a little restricted for space indoors.

[Canonised]

I was sitting beside my son with my cam with the 30mm. Took his pens and hit the shutter button. :)


http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y57/cyberlawprof/PensWEB.jpg

Here is the second shot in BW
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y57/cyberlawprof/CordlessPhone2.jpg

[kekoa]

Hey guys, what real benefit would this lens have over my 50MM1.4 on my xti??

thanks!

[LightRules]

Hey guys, what real benefit would this lens have over my 50MM1.4 on my xti??

thanks!

Wider and sharper and better build.

[kekoa]

Wider and sharper and better build.

really? comparing the 50MM thread I'd say the canon 50mm 1.4 produces sharper shots than the 30mm. Not sure if this is a result of PP??

also, how is the 30MM better built?

[jbkalla]

I'm thinking that the 50mm lens with the plastic mount would probably feel much lighter and cheaper than the 30mm, though I haven't held the 50mm before. Just a guess! Or is the 1.4 the medium-expensive lens? I get them mixed up...

I'm probably going to get one of the 50mm lenses eventually (after the 70-200 and 16-35).

[ag93]

I'm thinking that the 50mm lens with the plastic mount would probably feel much lighter and cheaper than the 30mm, though I haven't held the 50mm before. Just a guess! Or is the 1.4 the medium-expensive lens? I get them mixed up...

I'm probably going to get one of the 50mm lenses eventually (after the 70-200 and 16-35).

I think you're confusing this lens with the nifty fifty. The 50mm 1.4 is sharper than the sigma and is well built. It's the middle 50 between the 1.8 and L

[condyk]

Had two 50mm 1.4 and two 50mm 1.8's and one 85mm 1.8 and one 30mm 1.4. I would rate them in order 85mm, 30mm, 50mm 1.4, 50mm 1.8. Sigma is well build, as is the 85mm. The two 50mm's are varying degree's of so-so IMO. Sharpness really is just one aspect of lens performance. Do a blink, forget sharpness and let first impression impress. The 30mm has a magical quality to it.

[Tony-S]

I think you're confusing this lens with the nifty fifty. The 50mm 1.4 is sharper than the sigma and is well built. It's the middle 50 between the 1.8 and L

Not in my experience. My 30mm Sigma is substantially sharper than my 50mm f/1.4 wide-open (although that might change once I get it back from Canon). Also, the Sigma feels more solidly built the the 50mm f/1.4, and its focusing is undoubtably better and faster than the Canon (ring HSM vs. micro USM). JoJo and Condyk are right - the 30mm is the superior lens.

[goatee]

I've also had all four lenses (the 30mm, both 50mms, and the 85mm f/1.8) - check my signature to see which one I've kept. . .

[Alejandro Sandoval]

I own all of them the 50 f/1.4f, 35 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8 and the 35mm f/1.4 has produces far better bokeh, better color and better contrast plus the AF it's way faster.

[Rudy M.]

But I don't think it is $900.00 better!

[djeuch]

That's all a matter of perspective - tell that to the guy who buys the 85L ($1600) over the 85/1.8 ($300)!

[cdifoto]

the 35mm f/1.4 has produces far better bokeh, better color and better contrast plus the AF it's way faster.

For the price difference, I would accept nothing less.

[pixel_junkie]

http://www.emilkara.com/Images/flower_2.jpg

http://www.emilkara.com/Images/flower3.jpg

[pixel_junkie]

One more of Sir Spencer ...

http://www.emilkara.com/Images/Sir_Spencer_1.jpg

[S.O.P]

^

Oh wow, look how alike they look --> Click (http://www.users.on.net/~evangw/pics/POTN/_MG_6032.jpg)

Nice sharp shot btw.

[Mediation]

Hey guys. Are there tack sharp and bad copies of this lens? Woud you say that the majority of them are tack sharp and trusted?

[goatee]

There have been some instances of this lens being dodgy, but if it's new, either send it in for calibration, or take it back to the store. If it's second-hand, then it should be fine, as it will have been tested on the previous owner's camera.

Some people, when unused to the tiny depth of field at f/1.4 think it's not focussing correctly, but when the depth of field is only a cm or 2, then focus/recompose can be enough to put the subject out of focus.

[philthejuggler]

Hey guys. Are there tack sharp and bad copies of this lens? Woud you say that the majority of them are tack sharp and trusted?

I tried 4 before giving up - all sharp, all front focussed by about 2-3 feet on mid-distant objects (eg 6-feet). Crystal clear even at f1.4 when in focus though.

[LightRules]

I tried 4 before giving up - all sharp, all front focussed by about 2-3 feet on mid-distant objects (eg 6-feet). Crystal clear even at f1.4 when in focus though.

As you can see from this thread, this lens is capable of top-drawer quality. So instead of "trying" 4 copies, next time try sending it in for a quick service tune up and you're set.

[slug]

this lens is next on my list. looks amazingly sharp.

[iplayazi]

Love the shutter speed I can get and I dont even have to use my flash!

Gone through my usual processing with lightroom. Not wide open but taken at 1.6 :)

F1.6
http://www.pbase.com/iplayazi/image/92551375/original.jpg

[sadatk]

http://www.emilkara.com/Images/flower_2.jpg

http://www.emilkara.com/Images/flower3.jpg
WOW! Great shots man. I think I might sell my 17-40L and and 50 1.8 and get a Tamron 17-50 and this lens. :oops:

I'm a sucker for such lovely bokeh.

[pixel_junkie]

WOW! Great shots man. I think I might sell my 17-40L and and 50 1.8 and get a Tamron 17-50 and this lens. :oops:

I'm a sucker for such lovely bokeh.

Thanks man! It's a killer lens. If you get it, I doubt the 50 1.8 will see much use. I'd get the SIGMA and a 85 1.8 if I were you.

[sadatk]

Thanks man! It's a killer lens. If you get it, I doubt the 50 1.8 will see much use. I'd get the SIGMA and a 85 1.8 if I were you.
Ah if only I could add in the extra 85 1.8--first priority is always a decent walkaround zoom lens. (to replace the 17-40 ;)). And the 30 1.4 to replace the nifty.

[Tony-S]

Wow, I didn't know the Sigma's were water-proof, too. That really leaves Canon's weather sealing to shame :)

Gone through my usual processing with lightroom. Not wide open but taken at 1.6 :)http://www.pbase.com/iplayazi/image/92551375/original.jpg

[philthejuggler]

As you can see from this thread, this lens is capable of top-drawer quality. So instead of "trying" 4 copies, next time try sending it in for a quick service tune up and you're set.


Probably sensible advice, but decided to buy the 35L so irrelevant now anyway. I know it was loads more cash, but does allow me to use on 5D as well. I'm still shocked that 4 were out - if Sigma can easily fix this, why don't they send them out correctly calibrated? Ok, I can forgive one or two, but 4!! Makes me want (possibly unfairly) to avoid Sigmas.

[Mark-B]

All shots on a Canon 20D.

f/1.4, 1/100, ISO 400

http://bienvenu.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p51932630-4.jpg

f/1.4, 1/40, ISO 100, 580EX on 1/128 power

http://bienvenu.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p824770892-4.jpg

f/1.4, 1/50, ISO 3200

http://bienvenu.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p1000149059-4.jpg

f/8, 1/400, ISO 100

http://bienvenu.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p150345804-4.jpg

f/14, 1/125, ISO 200

http://bienvenu.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p983320126-4.jpg

[sparksdjs]

Does the 350D have focus troubles with this below f/2.8?

Dave

[ag93]

another one of my daughter

f/3.5
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2203/2247940794_e528c92f03.jpg

[mdwsta4]

f9 with off camera flash
http://images32.fotki.com/v1107/photos/5/51621/396461/IMG_6561v2-vi.jpg

handheld at f1.8
http://images34.fotki.com/v1121/photos/5/51621/4247407/IMG_6455-vi.jpg

[Canonised]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y57/cyberlawprof/Mike2web.jpg

This lens needs to be used constantly to find out its performance parameters. The images on the 40D needs a fair amount of tweaking in Photoshop to achieve the preferred colour balance and sharpness but the good news is that the captures in RAW can be manipulated well. Sharpness starts at f1.8 and at f.2 it gets this good. For its price, I highly recommend it to streetshooters who work with primes. This image was captured indoors with no flash. Any outdoor work will see other lenses performing well but the Sigma excels in relatively low light.

I was tempted to sell this lens when I got my 35L but I am glad I kept it. It works much better with the 40D than the 35L.

Cheers
Harry

[ag93]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2127/2251866982_2a7156a3f9_b.jpg

[mdwsta4]

no offense, but is there a single part of that photo that's actually in focus?

snip]

[the_incubus]

no offense, but is there a single part of that photo that's actually in focus?

its difficult to tell but i believe the eyes are. I think its just some thin DoF with slightly off focus. Its a beautiful shot nevertheless.

[slug]

just got my 30mm f1.4. Not much shooting with it yet.. but loving it so far.

ISO400 f1.4 1/50sec
http://neilvaleriano.com/100mm/30mm/IMG_0110-Edit.jpg

ISO400 f2.0 1/25sec
http://neilvaleriano.com/100mm/30mm/IMG_0125-Edit.jpg


ISO400 f1.4 1/160sec
http://neilvaleriano.com/100mm/30mm/IMG_0111-Edit.jpg

[ag93]

no offense, but is there a single part of that photo that's actually in focus?

its difficult to tell but i believe the eyes are. I think its just some thin DoF with slightly off focus. Its a beautiful shot nevertheless.

bad picture - sorry

hopefully this makes up for it! :cool:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2365/2273976441_e80aaa9104.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2387/2269928755_2d3425f014_o.jpg

[Maxdave]

Two of "Stretch", visiting for the afternoon ...

Both with Sigma 30mm f/1.4 on 40D, on-board flash, #01 at 100 ISO, f/8, 1/125; #02 800 ISO, f/16, 1/250, post-processing with DPP.

Maxdave

[Rudy M.]

Is it all about isolating to the point of disotortion, or separation of subject from noise in the photo? To me, shooting close at f/1.4 seems for the most part, foolish when half a face or scene is in focus, and most times, it is not artisitic to do so. BUT, there are times when it is becoming to have all but a small part in focus--yet it deteriorates from the scene. I for one, like the way this lens turns dark to light and has a lot in focus, rather than distort and obscure good light because it can at an angle and wide f-stop. 30 feet in the dark at f/1.4 looks way cooler than a rose OOF in the sun to me. But then, the rose was really nice to look at too--wish mine grew that nice!

[Canonised]

I shot this image about a week ago. Its not at f1.4 but shows the capability of this lens. Obviously the image has been photoshopped but you know that you need to have a great image to start with.

BTW I made an error on the info below - its not a 5D but 40D. The Sigma does not work on a FF body unfortunately.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y57/cyberlawprof/PorscheCayenne-web-1.jpg

[jjmucker]

Fashion Shoot from a few months ago.

F1.4. Great Little Lens

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n55/jjmucker/IMG_7669.jpg

[Mediation]

Fashion Shoot from a few months ago.

F1.4. Great Little Lens

gosh that is amazing. It is one of those photographs that takes you into some kind of paralyzing zone. Amazing stuff.

[joysmahal]

1/50
f/1.4
ISO: 125
Flash Bounced
http://images32.fotki.com/v1090/fileu7yp/57d57/4/420281/5918176/IMG_0204edit30mm2.jpg

[goatee]

I love this lens.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2189/2265114666_c1668242e3_o.jpg

[iplayazi]

Shot on saturday night or sunday morning :)

Shot processed

Wide open f1.4
http://www.pbase.com/iplayazi/image/93457866/original.jpg

[fz_za]

Very nice shot, iplayazi

[slug]

All wide open @ f1.4

http://neilvaleriano.com/blogphotos/2008_02_23/ES-007.jpg

http://neilvaleriano.com/blogphotos/2008_02_23/ES-018.jpg

http://neilvaleriano.com/blogphotos/2008_02_23/ES-014.jpg

http://neilvaleriano.com/blogphotos/2008_02_23/ES-049.jpg

[X-Warrior]

Ouch, I've seen this topic before, yet forgot to bookmark it apparently. Have had the 30mm for a while now, so here's my share of pictures:

http://www.dvdpimages.com/images/animal/IMG_4347.jpg

http://www.dvdpimages.com/images/animal/IMG_4397.jpg

Seen before in the HDR thread (somewhere):
http://www.dvdpimages.com/images/landscapes/IMG_4816-8.jpg
I've already had people say the normal exposure non-HDR shot was better, but meh :P

Perhaps some of my best are family portraits though, but I have a policy not to put those online.

Now, ever since I bought this lens, and even before, this forum has made me paranoid about these 'back focus issues'. Many tests I did, and many weren't really satisfactory. Until only a few minutes ago I decided to print out that focus chart after all and do some real testing.

The results... what shall I say ?
At start: back focus. Could say that the focus area starts roughly at the focus point, and backwards from there on. So not really horrible, but some slight backfocus.
An interesting result appeared when I turned the focus ring a bit, before allowing it to autofocus again (thus forcing it to really do some work on it). The first shots after this turned out almost perfect. Done this twice. When I made another shot, not changing anything, I could hear it 'correct' it's focus, and back to backfocus it went. Very interesting...
However, another thing, the testing conditions... a TL lamp lighting the room, and dark outside. Not quite ideal. So I got my night lamp and put it right over the sheet of paper to light it proper. A number of shots taken. All in focus right where it should be.

Conclusion so far: some backfocus in poor light conditions, unless it needs to work. Give it good light, and it'll be perfect.

Also noticed in earlier tests a while ago now, that it only seems to happen when using the center focus point. Any other of the points on my 400D would turn out perfect. So perhaps it's not so much the lens that's making all the mistakes...

Finally, there's something else I've noticed, not just on the chart, but I've seen it in actual pictures as well.
To elaborate, I have uploaded a full size image. The last one I took in my series of testing shots today, so you'll find a focus chart. It's unedited, only compressed to jpg:
http://www.dvdpimages.com/web/IMG_4897.jpg (411kB)
First thing you'll notice no doubt that it's nicely in focus. But now check the corners of the sheet. Interestingly, the focus area doesn't seem to go straight from left to right. Instead, the lower-left and upper-right corners are more OOF than the upper-left and lower-right corners. A slightly diagonal focus area ? Now it's nothing very serious, but I just thought I'd mention it, since I noticed.


I'll be subscribed to this thread from now on :D

[fz_za]

Finally, there's something else I've noticed, not just on the chart, but I've seen it in actual pictures as well.
To elaborate, I have uploaded a full size image. The last one I took in my series of testing shots today, so you'll find a focus chart. It's unedited, only compressed to jpg:
http://www.dvdpimages.com/web/IMG_4897.jpg (411kB)
First thing you'll notice no doubt that it's nicely in focus. But now check the corners of the sheet. Interestingly, the focus area doesn't seem to go straight from left to right. Instead, the lower-left and upper-right corners are more OOF than the upper-left and lower-right corners. A slightly diagonal focus area ? Now it's nothing very serious, but I just thought I'd mention it, since I noticed.


I'll be subscribed to this thread from now on :D

Hmm, don't you need to fill the frame with the focus chart? Or at least use the minimum focusing distance on the lens...?

[X-Warrior]

Hmm, don't you need to fill the frame with the focus chart? Or at least use the minimum focusing distance on the lens...?

I used the minimum distance allowed by my tripod with the camera at 45º...

I'll be looking for a better tripod soon :roll:

[gardengirl13]

Ok I got this lens for my husband's gigs and low light indoor stuff. I wasn't happy with Amazon (they packed it in a large box and used one air pillow. The sigma box rattled around like mad when I got it. But I tried it out and it's fine. It's very slightly front focusing (when I focus on my husbands eyes it focuses on his lips. Not a big deal, he may have moved slightly or it's user error.

Man this thing is ten times the lens the canon 50 1.4 is! (personal opinion) It's tack sharp wide open. It's bokeh is so so creamy! It focuses quicker and more accuratly then the 50.

Here are some photos. I've only had the lens a few days and it's nasty out so excuse how they look. All are with available light, no flashes. The bedroom shot was late afternoon with the sun on the other side of the house. It was quite dark in there.

The weakness I see so far is landscape type shots. If you're shooting up close it's ok, but shooting wide it's not real sharp even at f/9. But again, that's not why I bought it.

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w287/gardengirl13/yarn30.jpg

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w287/gardengirl13/xmascactus30.jpg

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w287/gardengirl13/jeremyplaying30.jpg

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w287/gardengirl13/road30.jpg

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w287/gardengirl13/bedroom30.jpg

[gardengirl13]

A couple more at 1.4

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w287/gardengirl13/strat.jpg

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w287/gardengirl13/lespaul.jpg

[Tony-S]

This lens sucks. After shooting it at f/1.4 it makes it plain and clear that I wasted $300 on the EF 50mm f/1.4. Canon could learn a thing or two from Sigma...

[oreca]

Off topic... Nice Les Paul!

[agent.media]

This lens sucks. After shooting it at f/1.4 it makes it plain and clear that I wasted $300 on the EF 50mm f/1.4. Canon could learn a thing or two from Sigma...

Really? I havn't used this lens, I have the 50mm 1.4, but have been afraid to get it in case it is a waste of my mula. Is it really that good?

[Tony-S]

I have no hesitation to use my Sigma at f/1.4; I avoid doing so with my Canon at f/1.4. It has a lot of CA, even in the center. There seems to be a substantial amount of copy variation with the 50mm - some people get good copies while many others do not.

[gardengirl13]

Off topic... Nice Les Paul!

I got it for him for graduation (when he got his masters) Gotta love that flame!

I have no hesitation to use my Sigma at f/1.4; I avoid doing so with my Canon at f/1.4. It has a lot of CA, even in the center. There seems to be a substantial amount of copy variation with the 50mm - some people get good copies while many others do not.

I have to agree with Tony, the CA on the 50 is noticable without cropping, where the 30 you have to really crop it to see it. I had one 50 that I sold that was good, I just wasn't using it enough to keep it. Then I figured with more gigs I need another one, well I tried two and both had horrible focus problems (one rattled and clunked when it focused, the other would hunt and hunt and when I tried to MF it wouldn't work right.) I just about gave up on finding a good one and someone pointed to the sigma and the rest, is as they say, history!

[X-Warrior]

Nostalgia :)

http://www.dvdpimages.com/images/misc/IMG_4944.jpg

That thing actually used to be mine when I was little, hehe. Durable stuff.

400D, ISO 200, F/1.8.

[fz_za]

BrewsterPilot - very sharp! At what aperture was that shot taken?

[Winck]

Nostalgia :)That thing actually used to be mine when I was little, hehe. Durable stuff.


Nostalgia indeed... I've got one of those, now it's suffering abuse from my niece, who'd probably recognize the 30mm 1.4 before she'd recognize me...

I need to find some pics for this thread.

Knud

[BobbyT]

mmmmm cake

http://images34.fotki.com/v1150/photos/9/949682/6042669/Zanes1stBday31-vi.jpg

[Mark-B]

I've got these and other Sigma 30mm samples at http://bienvenu.zenfolio.com/p793818105/


30mm, f/1.4, ISO 400
http://bienvenu.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p493839783-4.jpg

30mm, f/1.4, ISO 400
http://bienvenu.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p283087156-4.jpg

[BobbyT]

http://images35.fotki.com/v1153/photos/9/949682/6071404/330089-vi.jpg

[Rudy M.]

Great shot of child in drier! Did you get one after you put in the money? I do have to comment on many of the shots posted--why do people post such OOF shots--that is--taking shots with this lens really close at f/1.4 which causes half the subject to be OOF because of shallow DOF, as in the old white toy above, the dog, the child with food, etc. I know I am guilty of this too with a Nike shoe shot I have posted--but the point of mine was the "swoosh" and not much else. Don't get me wrong, they are good shots, but I think that if the whole dog or child was in focus, they'd be better. I am finding that DOF at f/1.4 is in most cases too shallow unless I am at a good distance from my subject, and then I use the lens wide open if I need the light. A dark street scene shot at f/1.4 almost looks like it was taken in the 50's with a range finder. For people shots, it seems to me that backing off a bit tends to leave the whole face or head in focus, yet the background is pleasantly blurred.

[javanutsy]

I love this lens... My 25 day old son:
http://weylunlee.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p733096081-4.jpg

[pixel_junkie]

http://www.emilkara.com/Images/SF2008/images/IMG_2596.jpg

http://www.emilkara.com/Images/SF2008/images/IMG_2599.jpg

[nostalg1a]

Very nice! I can't wait to get mine!

[Mike]

Gonna pull the trigger on this one. Maybe even tomorrow. Will post if/when I do...

[thedjo]

here is some more from Bangkok, Thailand

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2257/2158203465_c8ee7f51d0_o.jpg

and from Japan
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1052/1013680738_f33a1a7018_o.jpg

[Mark-B]

f/1.4, 1/8000, ISO 400

http://bienvenu.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p700237823-4.jpg

[DarthMTS47]

I took this one on a really overcast day while cold and rainy.

I call it "Boy Band Album Cover I."


ISO 200, f/1.8, 1/320s with the Siggy 30mm:

http://cmphoto.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p302136312-4.jpg


I can't wait to see what kind of colors I can get with the lens on a sunny day.

-Mike

[P1X4R]

here's my contribution.

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh285/P1X4R_2008/TMP/IMG_3656.jpg

[Mike]

^^wow that's some collection.

Got this lens on Saturday and it's back-focusing :( I'm gonna take it back later for a swap. Hope the next one will be a good one...

[Damitri]

My Sigma 30mm is driving me crazy. Sometimes it gives very crips images, like the one below, but most of the time everything I shoot below f2.8 just comes out soft with no real focus. Whenever I do a "scientifc" test like shooting a ruler or similar it seems ok, even at f1.4. But when I use it for real again about 80% of the images goes straight to the trashcan. It is totally inconsistent and seems to be related to how far away the subject is from the lens. Close-up and infinity is OK but more normal distances are not. How do I know what is user error and what is a problem with the lens? I mean what is the point with a 1.4 lens that is only sharp after f8? I tried my new SIgma 70mm macro this weekend and >90% of images come out super sharp so I am not completely useless!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3045/2322679591_5cec33e73b_b.jpg

[syntrix]

Based on what I can guess on the pic above, you are shooting too close, you need to be more than the min focus distance away from the subject. From Sigma's website:

Minimum Focusing Distance 40cm / 15.7 inches

But that really doesn't answer the longer range shooting problem.

[fz_za]

P1X4R, awesome shot and incredible collection!

[fz_za]

Damitri, not that this will help, but I have the same problem at large apertures with my copy. I think in my case, it is mostly user error (still pretty much a newbie ;)) and/or just expectations that are too high. Whenever I shoot with my Sigma 30mm, I end up using live view on my 40D and focusing manually so that I nail the focus... Unless there is LOTS of available light, which seems to increase my keeper rate (but I guess that could also be due to smaller apertures being selected by the camera.)

[TeeTee]

Oh the irony, I post up a thread regarding this lens and then this thread pops up on the top.

Has anyone used this lens on a 1D? How does it do with regards to corner sharpness and vignetting? Any info would be much appreciated, as for the cost of the 35L I could buy this lens AND a 40D.

[Chris L]

Take a look at the earlier posts in this very thread, start at #425 iirc.

Here's a link (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=271809) to another thread about the 1D with 30 f/1.4

[klaster]

Hi all,

That's my first post here although I'm a long-time-lurker.

Damitri, I was reading your post as if it was mine. My impressions are exactly the same. I own the Sigma since Sunday and have some mixed feelings. I realize 2 days is nothing but first pics from this lens really got me worried. Like yours my pics sometimes are crisp, sometimes oof (no ff, no bf, just soft). When the pic comes out right it's just great, but it's not easy to have a good keeper rate for me as of now. Moreover, I get mostly good results when shooting distance is small (max. 2m). Beyond that mark it's hard to get anything that is decent. I cannot explain it but as the distance grows my pictures are softer.
I also realize this lens has a steep learning curve and am ready to take some effort to master it. It's just probably that my expectations towards this lens were too high.

Greg
__________________________
Canon EOS 40D, Canon 17-55 f2.8 EF-S, Sigma 70-20 f2.8 EX, Sigma 30 f1.4 EX

[Canonised]

Greg

Most 30mm f1.4 owners started like you did. You have to understand the issues of large aperture lens to appreciate that they have idiosyncracies that needed to be understood. E.g. the EF50 f1.4 have softness issues as well wide open. Even the legendary 85L f1.2 is quite soft at times and had backfocussing issues.

You are correct that the siggy has a higher keeper rate if the subject is not further than 10 feet away. ALSO try shooting at f.8 to f2 to practice composing and getting used to how the lens perform.

Like the 50mm and 85mm, once you get the hang of the lens and you are able to work within its limitations, its an excellent lens for the money. Remember that its a fast lens for low light. It does well with portraits but not so much for landscape.

This is an example of how I use this lens - http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=4876974&postcount=500

Portraits indoors - and only a small handful of EF lenses can do this. Its EASY for a long lens to get OOF but most of the time indoors, you do not have the luxury of standing so far away nor having the right amount of light. :-)

Hope this helps.


Hi all,

That's my first post here although I'm a long-time-lurker.

Damitri, I was reading your post as if it was mine. My impressions are exactly the same. I own the Sigma since Sunday and have some mixed feelings. I realize 2 days is nothing but first pics from this lens really got me worried. Like yours my pics sometimes are crisp, sometimes oof (no ff, no bf, just soft). When the pic comes out right it's just great, but it's not easy to have a good keeper rate for me as of now. Moreover, I get mostly good results when shooting distance is small (max. 2m). Beyond that mark it's hard to get anything that is decent. I cannot explain it but as the distance grows my pictures are softer.
I also realize this lens has a steep learning curve and am ready to take some effort to master it. It's just probably that my expectations towards this lens were too high.

Greg
__________________________
Canon EOS 40D, Canon 17-55 f2.8 EF-S, Sigma 70-20 f2.8 EX, Sigma 30 f1.4 EX

[Damitri]

Syntrix, That was actually one of my best shots - ment as an example of when the lens performs really well... :oops:

fz_za, Yes outdoor images are always much better since I then use a higher f-stop (higher than 8.0). But even then if I try to play around with short DOFs (low f-stops) I get very few keepers. My Rebel Xt does not have the live view feature and using manual focus with the Xt viewfinder and the 30mm is impossible.

Canonised, I have seen your awsome shots and that is exactly what I hope to be able to accomplish some day. But unless you have some secret military grade sharpening software there is no way you could have produced those shots with my lens and autofocus. And that is with the camera on a tripod and a non-moving subject. I did some more tests yesterday - see below... By the way what does OOF mean? I thought that was "out of focus", no? Are you saying it is easier or more difficult to get the right focus with a long lens as opposed to the short Siggy?

Greg, My sympathies! If your images are "just soft" I think you may have the same front-focusing problem I have. With back-focus often some other part of the picture is in focus (like the ears instead of the eyes of a person) but front-focus often leaves everything just soft. If you have a tripod you can try what I did yesterday:

Using a tripod I took a bunch of pictures of a focus test chart, http://focustestchart.com/chart.html , under a halogen flood light (IKEA!). These were all close to the near focus limit and came out OK. They were all on the ff side but still just in focus. I then backed off like 5-6 ft and took pictures of a book next to a measuring tape (always tripod). The focus plane varied a lot but was always 1/2-2 ft closer to me than the book. By using autofocus once and then switching to manual and gradually moving focus away in VERY small increments I was able to get correct focus after 2-3 shots. The center focus point on my Rebel Xt was usually more precise than the more peripheral ones (but still off). Sorry I don't have any of these pictures on my laptop but I can post them tonight if you are interested.

I will drive out to Sigma on Long Island and have them calibrate the lens to my camera!

[Canonised]

Thanks very much Dmitri for the very kind words. :-)
Yes, I do a fair bit of photoshop adjustment but not much more than for all my other lenses - L lens included. I do admit that I have practiced it so much that I do it unconciously now and very quickly without thinking focussing on how the image looks rather than a mathematical process (I strongly recommend Scott Kelby's book on Photoshop for Photographers).

I use the lens for two key purposes, indoor low light and portraits and subject never more than 10 feet away if I want it to be sharp. On a 40D which is a 1.6 crop, the images look like a 50mm - which is why I just love this lens on the 40D. The Siggy 30mm has a reputation of being slightly soft on the edges but for me that's fine especially for portraiture.

My apologies for the confusion of the use of OOF, I use that to mean the desired out of focus effect - i.e. bokeh. For the longer lenses esp over 135mm its easy to get a bokeh even with small apertures. On my 100-400L I can get very good bokeh even at f5.6. However the focussing distance needed is usually too long to use indoors unless its a huge hall.

So hence, 30mm or 50mm is the usual indoor lens. AND it is more difficult to get accurate auto focussing on shorter lenses. BTW this is usually the reason why some pros move to manual focussing lenses such as Leica.

Let me assure you - I have very similar issues with the 35L as I have with the 30mm - albeit in less regularity. Sometimes the 35L is way too soft to use and it was frustrating. Then I realise that the fundamental rule of not shooting at its widest. Once both of these lens are stopped down to about f1.8 or 2. They become really outstanding instruments. The subject is sharp and the background soft and smooth.

The 35L excels on the 5D and has great colour and depth. The 30mm on the 40D is a killer combination. With a simple set up like that, I never fail to WOW potential clients of how their images turn out. :-)

This is why I kept both lenses. :-)

BTW - I just read your earlier post - yes it is odd that your lens gets sharp only at f8. That is not right. Most Siggy owners attest sharpness at f1.8/2. Looks like the reputation of inconsistent quality hold true. But having the lens calibrated could be all that is needed.

The other way to determine whether its your lens is having problems is to borrow someone else's camera body - preferably identical model to see if you have the same problem.

Cheers
Harry



Canonised, I have seen your awsome shots and that is exactly what I hope to be able to accomplish some day. But unless you have some secret military grade sharpening software there is no way you could have produced those shots with my lens and autofocus. And that is with the camera on a tripod and a non-moving subject. I did some more tests yesterday - see below... By the way what does OOF mean? I thought that was "out of focus", no? Are you saying it is easier or more difficult to get the right focus with a long lens as opposed to the short Siggy?

[shannyD]

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c239/daisydeadpeddles/2391773162_93d036b1fc_b.jpg

[Canonised]

Shanny,
On the scale of 1-10 that capture is a 9.5 in my book. Its memorable, wonderfully natural expression and he "pops". Also, I like the way you managed the colours to bring out the face and mood so well.

The only disturbing thing was that his eyeballs are perfectly white. A bit scary. But its still a wonderful keeper.

Cheers!
Harry

[TeeTee]

Those eyes are pretty damn sharp and deep! Excellent shot shanny.

[shannyD]

Shanny,
On the scale of 1-10 that capture is a 9.5 in my book. Its memorable, wonderfully natural expression and he "pops". Also, I like the way you managed the colours to bring out the face and mood so well.

The only disturbing thing was that his eyeballs are perfectly white. A bit scary. But its still a wonderful keeper.

Cheers!
Harry

Those eyes are pretty damn sharp and deep!

Excellent shot shanny.
thank you!!! when i adjusted the colors in LR. the only other thing i did was take it back through cs3 and ran USM on it. i didnt do anything to his eyes at all.

his eyes are naturally rather peircing. i have even dulled it down sometimes because even SOOC his eyes just pop.

thank you for the compliments.

shannon

[oreca]

Really good! Love that expression on his face.

[nostalg1a]

wow that's awesome!

[nostalg1a]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3277/2399617585_521074eda4.jpg

[BrewsterPilot]

http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/8427/img3157na5ec8.jpg

[airbutchie]

^ Wow... A bit overblown, brewster... No?!

- airbutchie

[TeeTee]

^ Wow... A bit overblown, brewster... No?!

- airbutchie

Gives it a high-key feel, given the circumstances (backlit to hell) I imagine the shot is quite good.

At least that's my excuse for always blowing everything up!

[BrewsterPilot]

Cheers for the comments! :)
A bit overexposed I agree, but I couldn't find any other way to PP the shot to my liking. Feel free to try your hand at it if you like!

[Mike]

Well, I managed to return the copy I had that was backfocusing and picked up a new copy. Initial shots look ok, proper testing to come this evening when I get home. The real big plus with this copy is that it came with a centre-pinch lens cap, which the last one didn't have :)

[Mike]

Well, I have tested and all is well http://www.forumeye.it/invision/html//emoticons/woohoo.gif. Here's a couple of test fires for starters...

[condyk]

Yeah, looks really nice. I really should get another one :-(

[ugly_a]

Here are couple very uninteresting pictures... courtesy of Crate & Barrel and Dean & Deluca.



http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2255/2409042360_a199e16d6c_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/25608854@N06/2409042360/)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2156/2408210483_0200edcb55_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/25608854@N06/2408210483/)

[TeeTee]

My first day with the Sig 30mm, love at first shoot.

http://eljackimages.com/temp/Sigma30/378I7455-1-2.jpg

http://eljackimages.com/temp/Sigma30/378I7465-1-3.jpg

[egordon99]

Love this lens! :D

262252

[shannyD]

this is from a punk show on tuesday night. such a HIGH energy band.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c239/daisydeadpeddles/wholewheatbreadAZ262-.jpg

[ugly_a]

My first day with the Sig 30mm, love at first shoot.


Sigma 30mm on a full-frame camera... You can really see that vignetting, can't you? :)

[05Xrunner]

Sigma 30mm on a full-frame camera... You can really see that vignetting, can't you? :)
not full frame and that very small vignetting is easily fixed in PP

[Howking_cn]

ns~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Canonised]

I spring cleaning and rearranging my dry box and realised I wanted to shoot all my Canon lenses to capture the light reflections. I used the 30mm siggy on my 40D.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y57/cyberlawprof/LENS2.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y57/cyberlawprof/LENS1.jpg

[Mike]

Mmm, nice collection!

Here's 1 from the weekend:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=263027&stc=1&d=1208285704

[saab]

I spring cleaning and rearranging my dry box and realised I wanted to shoot all my Canon lenses to capture the light reflections. I used the 30mm siggy on my 40D.


Thumbs up on the CFLs!

[runninmann]

From another thread: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=5351679&postcount=7

[Canonised]

Sorry Saab,
What is a "CFLs"?

Thanks.

Thumbs up on the CFLs!

[4rgentum]

Sigma 30mm on a full-frame camera... You can really see that vignetting, can't you? :)

I'm pretty sure the sigma 30mm doesnt work on FF

[runninmann]

I'm pretty sure the sigma 30mm doesnt work on FFIt will "work" as in fit, but with vignetting.

[TeeTee]

Love this lens, 1.4 is dangerously addictive. I've only had it about a week or so now and it's proven itself in all respects.


http://eljackimages.com/temp/Sigma30/IMG_4743-8.jpg

http://eljackimages.com/temp/Sigma30/IMG_4740-6.jpg

http://eljackimages.com/temp/Sigma30/IMG_4721-3.jpg

http://eljackimages.com/temp/Sigma30/IMG_4713-2.jpg

[dgoakill]

Just picked up this lens last week. Got it from Sigma4less.com. Great service fast shipping no problems. It was about $65 cheaper through them then B+H, so if you're worried about them, I had no problems and would buy through them again.

I was nervous as my first few shots, focus was a bit off. I downloaded a focus chart and ran some tests. Thank fully it was operator error and not the bad glass that I've been reading so much about. I think coming off the kit lens takes some getting used to as the DOF is vastly different @ 1.4 then the 3.5 I was used to with the kit. also minimum distance is about 1.5 ft. I didn't realize this at first and was getting too close to my subjects.

I took the lens to a wedding over the weekend to really play with it. I wasn't too interested in the wedding just playing with this lens and getting hammered. you can see the lens at work in outdoor sunlight, indoor of a church with average light, and then at the reception in low light. I only used the flash (pop-up / built in flash on the xti) for a hand full of shots. So most of the low light shots are at full f1.4, 1600 iso. while there is noise, it's not that bad for $600 camera and $300 lens.

*note the longer the wedding went on, the drunker I got. Relied only on auto focus for all the shots. aside from trouble focusing do to lack of contrast most of the shots came out decent. most soft focus I'm chalking up to the 1.4 aperature which has been mentioned previsouly as being soft.

all the shots can be found here:
http://dgoakill.zenfolio.com/p420831328

here's two from the day.
http://dgoakill.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p194060476-5.jpg

http://dgoakill.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p48376387-4.jpg

[condyk]

Man ... all my plans for stayin' EF only have gone to pot. The 30mm 1.4 is once again on my list of must have lenses :confused: :rolleyes: :D

Love this lens, 1.4 is dangerously addictive. I've only had it about a week or so now and it's proven itself in all respects.

[BrewsterPilot]

Man ... all my plans for stayin' EF only have gone to pot. The 30mm 1.4 is once again on my list of must have lenses :confused: :rolleyes: :D

Mwa-hah-haa, Sigma got you, eh?:lol:
Feeling the urge for another 100-300mm f/4? Soon that will be on 'the list' too...:)

[condyk]

Mwa-hah-haa, Sigma got you, eh?:lol:
Feeling the urge for another 100-300mm f/4? Soon that will be on 'the list' too...:)

Yeah, that was a sweet lens. That and the 30mm have been two of my best. But I need longer which is the only reason I sold it.

[saab]

Sorry Saab,
What is a "CFLs"?

Thanks.

CFL = Compact fluorescent lamp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp

They save so much money over their life span. Just be careful when replacing them. :)

[TeeTee]

Man ... all my plans for stayin' EF only have gone to pot. The 30mm 1.4 is once again on my list of must have lenses :confused: :rolleyes: :D

It's a really FUN lens, I really don't care about sharpness contrast bokeh and all that when it comes to this lens.

Oh and I use it on the 1D and it's a great wide-medium with a 39mm FL. Don't expect much corner sharpness, however the whole focus issue is nonexistent with the 1D's AF.

[condyk]

Yeah I had one before ;-)

[Mike]

One more from a wedding a couple of weeks ago:

[circles_of_confusion]

although i don't use this lens that often, my favorite photos are almost always with this lens

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e326/wwwboards/italy/venice_giorgio_30mm.jpg

[tenoverthenose]

I used this lens for a baby shoot last week and am very pleased with the results. Nice and sharp.

[Mullins]

Im Falling in love with 1.4, but not with the squeaky and slow AF.


http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n35/SixPlyDream/APRIL%202008/IMG_6251_ms.jpg

[Tony-S]

Im Falling in love with 1.4, but not with the squeaky and slow AF.

If it's slow, then there's something wrong with it. Mine is faster to focus than any of my Canon lenses.

[Mullins]

If it's slow, then there's something wrong with it. Mine is faster to focus than any of my Canon lenses.

It was fairly quick when I got it, but it was squeaky. I was in New York, actaully about a town over from their service center in Ronkonkoma, so I went in and dropped it off before I left for home. It caught up with me back in Florida about 4 days later with an even sqeakier HSM and slower AF time. I dont understand it. Its fine for now, but I am considering sending it back, or to a different service center since Sigma couldnt even get it right...

[Andy_Cam]

I really love this lens. It took a good few shots before I got used to it and the narrow DOF but being able to take shots in low light situations with no flash is great fun.

http://home.planet.nl/~andjen/Photos/IMG_2417.jpg

http://home.planet.nl/~andjen/Photos/IMG_2470.jpg

[TeeTee]

More available @ my Flickr.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2372/2450532542_3d5d6b46bc_o.jpg

[Big Ant]

Sorry I've come into this thread a bit late:oops:

Can someone tell me what the issue is, using this lens on a 1D mk11n

I've read the first 20 pages and my eyes have given up on me:lol:

[ALT1MATE]

This lens is my absolute favorite. Its my main lens at the moment until I get a 24-105. Stopped down to f/1.8 or f/2.0 its just fantastic.

[runninmann]

Sorry I've come into this thread a bit late:oops:

Can someone tell me what the issue is, using this lens on a 1D mk11n

I've read the first 20 pages and my eyes have given up on me:lol:Some degree of vignetting.

[10-Dee-Q]

hi, i'm intersted in buying this lens, however i have few question to ask.
i;m newbie so please bear with me here :P
i want to know wheter this lens suitable for indoor group photos low light with no flash and handheld ?
will it distort the faces on the corner and will it be sharp on the corner , cause from what i read , this lens has soft corner.
another thing is i know this les has big apertures, that produced bokeh nicely and easily but if let says i want to shoot potrait or indoor sports where i need to step up the aperture cause the lighting is not so good, will i get the whole object in focus ?

thank you .

[Herbo]

I just got my copy of this lens which I bought second hand from a local camera store. On the 30D lcd it looked like I was getting some really great shots but when I got home to check them they were all out of focus, even when stopped down. I busted out the focus test chart and unfortunately I have a bad front focusing issue.

At 50cm it front focuses by about 15mm and at about 1.5 metres its about 25mm - 30mm which is obviously completely unusable. Im really disapointed, I guess Ill go back and exchange it for another copy tomorrow. Unfortunately the only other one they had was missing the hood so Ill have to do with out if I still want this lens. I really wanted to love this lens too, ive been wanting a good normal lens for so long.

[Mike]

Im really disapointed, I guess Ill go back and exchange it for another copy tomorrow. Unfortunately the only other one they had was missing the hood so Ill have to do with out if I still want this lens.

That's too bad. I had to exchange the first one I had. If you take it back, cant you just keep the hood from the one you haved got - I'm sure the sales clerk would let you if you asked?

[Herbo]

Thats not a bad idea, I might try and return it without the hood...

[X-Warrior]

Instead of switching, couldn't you have it calibrated instead ?
You'll have to live without it for a while, but I wouldn't call that disastrous, considering you've been living without it all the time before.


@10-Dee-Q:
Not sure about group pictures, I haven't done those. I do know however that indoor lighting is sufficient for this piece of glass wide open, at least when there's decent light from a window on a sunny day. Whether everything will be in focus I cannot guarantee, though a group of people at a proper distance I estimate will be fine.
From what I've noticed about this focusing thing is that it seems to perform rather poorly in low light. Had a go on a test chart once, and proper lighting suddenly made it spot on, where in lower light it would often backfocus (more details earlier in this thread). In actual use indoors however, my experiences are rather good.

[runninmann]

Will they let you keep the hood from the one you have now?

[shimmishim]

i am expecting this lens anytime today... where is the UPS truck!? :)

i hope mine doesn't have the front focusing issue...

[pixelharmony]

This lens seems so money, especially on a crop body.