Replaced Canon 24-105L with Sigma 30mm f/1.4

I found the 24-105L's range pretty good for walk around on my crop, but the f/4 was killing me. By combining a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 with my 100L, I cover the 2 focal lengths that I used the lens at anyway, but with much more flexibility due to larger aperture. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is fantastic for indoor, outdoor, PERFECT for hiking due to it's compact size and weight, landscapes, portraits, etc. I found the 24-105L limiting and have absolutely NO regrets on the replacement. The 24-105L is overrated IMO, although the build quality is fantastic.

Anyone have similar experiences to share?

To call a lens overrated, because it doesn't suit your needs is rather narrowminded don't you think?

30mm on crop for landscapes?

You really can't compare a zoom and a prime - different animals. The prime suits your needs, a zoom might suit someone else's.

agree. sigma 30mm on crop is like 50mm.

Frugal wrote in post #12453227
You really can't compare a zoom and a prime - different animals. The prime suits your needs, a zoom might suit someone else's.

I love my Sigma 30mm. Probably my most used lens.

I have the 24-105, Sigma 30, and Canon 85 1.8 (plus my two longer lenses). Couldn't be happier right now. The 24-105 is on my camera much more than either of the primes (for me, the zooms are my general WA). Can't imagine ditching the 24-105. For two decades (mid-70s to mid-90s) I shot film with only a 50mm on an F-1, so I do get how you could use a prime or two as you only lenses. Everyone has different styles, needs, and opinions

The 24-105 is a better lens than the sig 30 by quite a margin. My 2 sig 30's sucked on my 7d. The 24-105 was sharp and a better walk-around. And it also focses on target, which the 30 won't. Having said that, you buy the lens you need for what you will be doing with it, not the better lens per se.

My 24-105 is the walk-around lens on my 50D when the 100-400 is not in use. I love the lens, it is perfectly capable of turning out nice butterfly photos, and for landscape photography it is nothing to sneeze at. If your 30 Sigma can do all that as well, good for you!

Julius

jantzer wrote in post #12453567
The 24-105 is a better lens than the sig 30 by quite a margin. My 2 sig 30's sucked on my 7d. The 24-105 was sharp and a better walk-around. And it also focses on target, which the 30 won't. Having said that, you buy the lens you need for what you will be doing with it, not the better lens per se.

Sounds like you got a bad batch. Mine focuses instantly, and always exactly on what I want it to. It's extremely sharp and renders everything beautifully. Honestly, it's one of the best lenses I've used.

my 30 is fine, my 100/F2 is fine, my 24-105 is fine.
Use them on different occasions, but will keep both.