canon 28 1.8 or sigma 30 1.4 ?

I'm wanting it for mostly low light conditions - and to give me a little "more" than my current 50 1.4 -

there are people who rave about both these lenses, so I doubt if there's a huge gap in the IQ. What it comes down to is which one you feel has better handling. Also, it seems that Canon is more consistent than Sigma for quality control, so you may have to try a couple of Sigmas to make sure you've got a good one.

From the handling point of view, I have to say I much prefer the Canon USM lenses, but as always, YMMV. I did have the Sigma 20/1.8 and didn't like it at all, while I really like the Sigma 50/2.8 macro. You really have to pick them up and try them.

The Sigma 30/1.4 has HSM, not the silly design of the Sigma 20/1.8
From what I've seen, the 30/1.4 is way better then the 28/1.8 (at least as sharp as the 35/1.4L). Furthermore it's 2/3 stops faster, but won't fit my 1DMk2
My 28/1.8 might be a bit softer then my 50/1.4 (never bothered to test it, and kinda hard to compare real life samples 1:1)

I'll put in a vote for the 28 f/1.8, it's my most used lens. Together with my 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8, it's a great setup, IMO. Color, contrast, focusing, and construction are excellent. Check out the Queen Mary, Mojave Desert, and Test Images galleries on my Flickr, if you're interested. Hope this helps!

I have a Siggy 30mm 1.4. I like it, but my version does have CA.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

As does the 28/1.8 and 50/1.4 and a lot of other fast lenses...

I have the 28/1.8 and it has CA also, but CA is easily correctable if you have CS2/ACR.

The 30/1.4 seems to be one of these lenses that can be very sharp for some but other have problems - I think these are centred around focus accuracy - other can probably comment with more authority on that.

I would say that the 28/1.8 is more of a pure low light lens, it is very sharp in the centre but does have poor corner performance even on APC-S although this is improved by CA correction, this is not an issue for low light work. It does have the advantage of being a full frame lens.

Contrast this with the 50/1.4 which is very sharp all over once stopped down a bit. So I would use my 17-40 for stopped down landscape work rather than the 28/1.8.

Just to pickup on the comment of René's re the 50/1.4, my experience of this is some softness and mild CA wide open, this disapears very fast with sharp performance and low CA, as good or lower than the 17-40/4. The corner CA from the 28/1.8 increases as the lens is stopped down; the same thing seems to happen to a lesser extent with the 30/1.4.

I got the 28/1.8 as a compromise, the 35/1.4 is very sharp but not as wide as I would like and is builkier and heavier making it less easy to fit with my system (also fairly expensive). Same is true of the 24/1.4 although I don't think the performance of this is in the same legue as the 35/1.4. The 35/1.4 fairs well stopped down and would double as a landscape prime if it was wide enough.

However, if I wanted to do a lot of serious low light work then the 35/1.4 would be a better choice.

Another vote for the 28mm f1.8. Perfect for 1.6 crops. As a matter of fact I own one but selling ONLY because I find it redundant to own the 28mm f1.8 and the 16-35mm f2.8 together.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=198361

Cheers

The Sigma 30f1.4 is an optical wonder but can also play lots of hocus focus depending on copy AF calibration. The key is to have it adjusted at Sigma if you do get a problem unit. Center resolution is better than the 35L; border performance (less important on a lens like this) is slightly inferior to the L. Given that the EX costs $375 with EX build, gives you almost the "50mm" FOV, ring HSM/FTM, and significantly smaller size than the L, it's an excellent piece of glass. [I had to send mine in for adjustment but it's superb now.]

Want codefied info and not testimonials?

See:

http://www.photozone.d​e …ses/canon_28_18​/index.htm

and

http://www.photozone.d​e …ses/sigma_30_14​/index.htm

Enjoy! Lon

londuck wrote:
Want codefied info and not testimonials?

See:

http://www.photozone.d​e …ses/canon_28_18​/index.htm

and

http://www.photozone.d​e …ses/sigma_30_14​/index.htm

Enjoy! Lon

I know the following opinion may upset some, but a photozone review and 50 cents can get one a cup of coffee on a cold day.

Test charts, graphs, and rating numbers are one thing, but actually using a lens to shoot the subjects one shoots in the style that one shoots them is the truest measure of a lens. Reading a 'testimonial' and seeing real world images will always mean a lot more than a photozone rating.

I've had both and prefer the Sigma

The Sigma is notably sharper when full open. The Canon didn't get sharp until it was stopped down a couple stops. Made me wonder, what's the point of an ultra fast lens if you have to stop it down to use it.

Better soft than blurry because shutter was too slow.

i'm at a tossup. i want to purchase one of these soon...can anyone else add more advice, knowledge?

Sometime this lens really performs though....
The 30 that is...

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.