sigma 24 vs. Canon 24

[jkderby]

Any one have experience with the Sigma 24mm f1.8 lens? Looking at the Canon 24mm f1.4 L also. A big price difference but is it worth it? The MTF charts has the Sigma as a better lens. I will be doing almost all landsacpe with the 24. If anyone has photos with the Sigma could you please post. Also, will be using on a 5D and a 20D.

[Andy_T]

I haven't used any of the lenses you are asking about, but if you want to do mainly landscape photography, might a less radical (=slower) lens not be better suited? Maybe cheaper, too (unless you want a 21 mm Distagon or similar)

Like something with an f/2.8 max aperture? Although I do love my f/1.4 lenses, I accept that the design has some trade-offs, especially if you want to get distance shots on a full frame sensor...

Just curious...

Best regards,
Andy

[jkderby]

Andy, a slower lens like a 2.8 or 3.5 might give me a little better quality. But, some times I like the 1.4 for very early morning or late evening for some photo ops. I figure I can always stop down the 1.4 down to 3.5 or 4 and get the use of the better part of the lens.

[Streetshooter]

Listen...I have the Canon 24...it's not just in the sharpness that you see a difference...it's the contrast....that's everything...the Canon is a great lens...even tho I'm selling it cause I don't use it.....don

[Andy_T]

But, some times I like the 1.4 for very early morning or late evening for some photo ops.

I understand that, but I think the tight DOF will make an f/1.4 landscape shot quite challenging. It could look very artistic and impressive if DOF is managed right, but it could also just look pretty blurry. I don't know your photography.

Take a look at the lens tests at http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html.

While I certainly agree with the idea that sharpness is only one part of the equation, it is interesting to note that the 24/2.8 has higher corner sharpness (but lower center sharpness) at all apertures than the 24/1.4 (that means, of course, all the apertures that they have in common ... not much to do with that lens @ f/1.4 and f/2.0 :wink: ) ... but the 24/1.4 is nearly 4 times as expensive as the 24/2.8.

Plus, the tests were done on a 350D, and you want to use it at a full frame camera.
Vignetting, however, is far superior @ f/2.8 at the L, but identical by f/4.0

Best regards,
Andy

[Tom W]

I used to have the Canon 24/1.4. Sharpness was very good in the center. Corners were a bit soft at wide apertures, but got much better as you stopped down. Between f/2.8 & f/4 or so, it was very good, and from f/5.6 on, excellent.

It did have some significant CA at wide apertures, unfortunately.

My 24/1.4 had excellent distortion characteristics, with very straight lines.

I can't speak for the Sigma 24/1.8, though I did have a Sigma 20/1.8 for several months. It was nice stopped down, but it wasn't up to the level of my wide-angle zoom, unfortunately. Word on the net is that there is a fair amount of variability with the Sigma lenses.