Sigma 30 1.4 - what's the fascination?

Limbwalker wrote in post #16499957
So, buying a crop body and then putting what I consider a VERY expensive 30 1.4 on it, just doesn't add up to me.

The funny part of this thread is this^^^. I wish all 1.4 lenses could be this cheap. I personally like the 50 1.4 for crop cameras but different strokes for different folks.

david, the 30 1.4 is going for $500 at B&H, unless I'm mistaken.

I had a 50 1.4 Canon that was absolutely RAZOR sharp that I got for $250 used. To me, that's $250 that can go toward a FF body, which seems more well suited for wide to normal perspective lenses anyway.

So no, I don't feel that $500 for a 30 1.4 off-brand lens that one can only use on a crop body is that great of a deal. But to each their own I guess.

You know you can buy sigma 30mm f1.4 used for $300-$350. Heck early this yr brand new were going for that price. If you don't like crop bodies buy sigma 35mmf 1.4 Art or 35L. So many options.

Canon 50mm f1.4 has crappy AF prone to dying anytime.

Limbwalker wrote in post #16501450
Kipliq, thanks for the contribution. What's the difference between the 35 "art" lens and the 30? (and please don't say "5mm" LOL!)

If you go to Sigma's website you find out out the specs for all the lenses in their current line up. But to summarize, the 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM Art is intended for crop sensors only. It has very good optics and build at its price point. It lists for $499 USD. The 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art is a premium lens intended for FF use but can be used on a crop frame body as well. It has better optics and a tank like build, and is much larger and heavier than the crop 30mm f/1.4. It sells for $899 USD. Both can take advantage of Sigma's new and inexpensive USB dock which can download adjustments and firmware to the lenses to take care of such things like back and front focusing. The third Sigma prime lens mentioned in this thread is the older Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM (non Art) which was I bought new when it was discontinued for $289. The build is very good and although it and the optics, AF and IQ are not nearly as good as the newer version, it was still a very popular and good lens, and an absolute bargain at the price I paid. For several years it was the go to prime for those on a budget looking for a fast 30mm lens since there was no real competition for it at that focal range.

Limbwalker wrote in post #16499957
I always buy used gear, and from all I've seen a 5D is no more expensive on the used market than a 7D, and perhaps even less.

So why are you quoting new prices on the sigma then comparing it to a used lens if all you buy is used lenses?

It's too bad that Canon doesn't make a cheap normal prime for APSC cameras like Nikon does. A 30mm f/1.8 from Canon for $200 would sell like hotcakes.

Really it is a good lens that is way cheaper than the sigma art or the 35L many are very happy with them.

Limbwalker wrote in post #16501520
david, the 30 1.4 is going for $500 at B&H, unless I'm mistaken.

I had a 50 1.4 Canon that was absolutely RAZOR sharp that I got for $250 used. To me, that's $250 that can go toward a FF body, which seems more well suited for wide to normal perspective lenses anyway.

So no, I don't feel that $500 for a 30 1.4 off-brand lens that one can only use on a crop body is that great of a deal. But to each their own I guess.

I think your use of terms like VERY expensive and RAZOR sharp are part of the issue here.

No, the Sigma 30 is not VERY expensive by fast prime lens standards, or for lenses in general.
No, the 50 is not RAZOR sharp, esp wide open...but it is certainly sharp at narrower apertures, which isn't particularly surprising or unique.

Tone down the rhetoric a bit, and what you're actually trying to communicate might come through a bit more clearly.

bacchanal wrote in post #16501559
I think your use of terms like VERY expensive and RAZOR sharp are part of the issue here.

No, the Sigma 30 is not VERY expensive by fast prime lens standards, or for lenses in general.
No, the 50 is not RAZOR sharp, esp wide open...but it is certainly sharp at narrower apertures, which isn't particularly surprising or unique.

Tone down the rhetoric a bit, and what you're actually trying to communicate might come through a bit more clearly.

this guy is an obvious troll. look at his original post. it's not a question, it's an inflammatory statement.

he just waits for people to explain why it's a good lens and responds that his 50 1.4 is better while simultaneously insulting everyone in the process.

Limbwalker wrote in post #16501520
So no, I don't feel that $500 for a 30 1.4 off-brand lens that one can only use on a crop body is that great of a deal. But to each their own I guess.

First, Sigma is not an "off brand" which implies a cheap alternative equipment source for those buyers who are not serious or who can't afford the "real thing". It is a well respected 3rd party manufacturer and it's current offerings have been receiving literally rave reviews from well respected testing groups as well as consumers. Their news lens offerings are changing the whole landscape and Canon will have to respond. Most of us do not prefer acquiring used gear over new. Many of have also chosen to stay with crop sensor cameras over FF for a variety of reasons, so a Canon 50mm f/1.4 (which has it own share of issues anyway) would not be a good choice for many of us, used or new. Frankly what I currently want is the new Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, intended for crop, which has garnered extraordinary reviews from virtually everyone but is so popular that its constantly being backordered since it came out a few months ago.

Just to clarify, the reason why people have autofocus problems with sigma lenses, is because sigma doesn't license canon's autofocus system. They reverse engineer it to lessen the cost, but in turn, the autofocus is just not great... or not up to par with canons.. however you want to say it, it's not good.

That being said, the sigma 30 has awesome iq for $300.00.. When it focused correctly, I had really sharp shots. Damn good iq and an excellent walk around lens.
I think the new sigma 24-105 is pointless, with just about the same iq as the canons, but with worse autofocus, no weathersealing, and a larger filter size.. not to mention it's in the same price range as the canons.
makes very little sense actually... I was hoping it would be superior, but it's not.

If I knew the sigma 35 was a perfect copy, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.. the iq is unreal.. I would absolutely love to see an art 50mm 1.4 or 1.2... even if the autofocus wasn't great... well I'm using a manual lens, so anything is a step up.

eddie3dfx wrote in post #16501742
Just to clarify, the reason why people have autofocus problems with sigma lenses, is because sigma doesn't license canon's autofocus system. They reverse engineer it to lessen the cost, but in turn, the autofocus is just not great... or not up to par with canons.. however you want to say it, it's not good.

Very valid points. However, the AF on my older Sigma 30 (non Art) is still more consistent than on my, albeit cheap, Canon 50mm f/1.8. I've found the AF limitations and inconsistencies are mostly a result of a combination of poor (not necessarily low) lighting, low subject contrast, and small subject target size. Although it's much less frequent, these same parameters can also be a struggle for my Canon 15-85. However, in normal real world usage outside or in the museum settings for which I use it extensively, the Sigma's AF results are much better. Keep in mind that the new 30mm Art's AF is much more accurate in that regard besides be sharper across the image than my older lens.

Heh, heh. Good one. The 50 1.4 Canon I owned put every other lens I've ever shot with to shame. If I didn't need the $ to buy another lens, I never would have sold it as it was the gold standard for IQ of all the lenses I've ever tested.

Touchy, touchy aren't we? Relax. We all know why folks buy Sigma and Tamron and Tokina lenses. Let's not kid ourselves here.

Where are you finding it for $300? I assume that's used? B&H lists them new for $500. To me, that's a pretty expensive normal perspective 1.4 lens.

frugivore wrote in post #16501555
It's too bad that Canon doesn't make a cheap normal prime for APSC cameras like Nikon does. A 30mm f/1.8 from Canon for $200 would sell like hotcakes.

Agreed.

Limbwalker wrote in post #16501842
Touchy, touchy aren't we? Relax. We all know why folks buy Sigma and Tamron and Tokina lenses. Let's not kid ourselves here.

Like I said, thread is a thinly veiled jab at Sigma