Canon 28f1.8 v Sigma 30f1.4 Test

AeroSmith wrote in post #2434989
Right, but a lens better than the 35L on a FF is appealing.

i also meant that if it were for full frame it would probably have the same flwas that the 35L has. CA and size of the lens and whatever else you can think of. so it would be right back to square one.

kahren wrote in post #2434914
it is what it is because its crop only
if you want a normal focal length on a FF get a canon 50 1.4

on a 1DMKII(1.3 crop) it would give about the FOV of a 50 1.4.

And that would be fine if it shows flaws that exist just like on the 35L on FF. The flaws aren't that big. It's a great lens. The Sigma is a great deal for the money. That's why I want it. It just wouldn't work right on my 1D

I just don't have the money to buy a lens that will only mount one camera. That would be highly inefficient for me.

kahren wrote in post #2434779
nice test, you should have had a test at 2.0 and 2.2 as for primes i would assume most people buy them to use under 2.8 since thats where a fast zoom stops. and it would be interetign how much better the canon gets stopped down to 2.0

He's got shots wide open and at 2.8 though. Both showing the Siggie a bit better. Maybe I'm missing something, but what would shots at f2 or 2.2 show?

Another great test jojo! Thanks!

Mr. Clean wrote in post #2435172
He's got shots wide open and at 2.8 though. Both showing the Siggie a bit better. Maybe I'm missing something, but what would shots at f2 or 2.2 show? Another great test jojo! Thanks!

Thanks for the comments folks. I've received a few requests for this actually (f1.8/f2/f2.2/f2.5/f2.​8 ), and I'll be posting the results within 2 hours.

Mike, the reason for this is that some who have the Canon 28mm have said their copy tends improve quite a bit after f1.8 (i.e., f2.2 or so), so I'll post what I find. I would tend to believe them, so I'm putting it together now.

Mr. Clean wrote in post #2435172
He's got shots wide open and at 2.8 though. Both showing the Siggie a bit better. Maybe I'm missing something, but what would shots at f2 or 2.2 show?

Another great test jojo! Thanks!

generally if i am using a prime lens it is because i want to use it under 2.8 since thats as fast as a zoom gets. so any diffrence in diffrent apertures under that would be interstign to see. the canon 28 1.8 seems to get a good amount better from f/1.8 to f/2.0 that is why i asked for it. so i think anything between f/1.8 and f/2.8 is important to see on that canon 28 1.8 lens

kahren wrote in post #2435021
previous gear : 300D, 20D | canon 15 fish, 28 f/2.8, (2)35 f/2, 50 f/1.8, 135 f/2L, 200 f/2.8L, 24-70 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/4L, 18-55 f/3.5-5.6, 24-85 f/3.5-4.5, 80-200 f/4.5-5.6 | sigma: 14 f3.5, 20 f/1.8, 28 f/1.8, (2)30 f/1.4, 10-20 f/4-5.6, 24-60 f/2.8 | tamron 17-50 2.8

Kahren, did you start over?

It's up. Testing from f1.8 - f2 - f2.2 - f2.5 - f2.8, with a bonus crop of the EX at f1.4. Results show sharpness, contrast, and chromatic aberration: http://www.pbase.com …s/image/7200740​2/original

runninmann wrote in post #2435291
Kahren, did you start over?

haha, no i just went though what seems like every lens and there is always something i dont like, too much of it. its hard to pick a compromise lens.
i really wanted to like the sigma 30 1.4 but the focusing acuracy was annoying, i heard there is a new version of this lens, maybe this will fix it and maybe i can get it again. this is another reason i am interested in the canon 28 1.8 since i didnt like the sigma one.

kahren wrote in post #2435372
i really wanted to like the sigma 30 1.4 but the focusing acuracy was annoying

While there are copies that tend to mis-focus with the Sigma 30, I also don't think the problem is as "widespread" as the internet perception makes it out to be. But I do know one thing: if a copy is misfocusing, Sigma (NY) knows how to make it right.

I get the impression looking at his sig, kahren is rarely satisfied with anything

As usual A plus effort Jojo !

LightRules wrote in post #2437894
While there are copies that tend to mis-focus with the Sigma 30, I also don't think the problem is as "widespread" as the internet perception makes it out to be. But I do know one thing: if a copy is misfocusing, Sigma (NY) knows how to make it right.

i had 2 of them, what are you telling me? get another and send it in instead of getting canon 28 1.8? can u give a little more detail about how you liked each, ive read the your review thoroughly but want to hear if you have to say anything else about both of them comparing agains each other. thanx for the great review and the addition of the bigger f stops.

EOSAddict wrote in post #2437902
I get the impression looking at his sig, kahren is rarely satisfied with anything

yea unfortunately, you could say that

I always advise sending it for service instead of returning/exchanging (assuming something is really wrong).

I've pretty much summed up my thoughts at the test site. Handling and ergonomics, they are very similar. Build-feel is almost identical. I like the closer MFD of the Canon much more, and its diminutive size is very nice (not that the EX is that much bigger). It's nice that both offer ring USM and FTM. For all things optically, you can view the results at the site.

kahren wrote in post #2438067
i had 2 of them, what are you telling me? get another and send it in instead of getting canon 28 1.8? can u give a little more detail about how you liked each, ive read the your review thoroughly but want to hear if you have to say anything else about both of them comparing agains each other. thanx for the great review and the addition of the bigger f stops.

the problem with the 30 1.4 whether "real" or perceived exists and is well documented.

you don't hear much complaining about the AF of the canon 28 1.8. in fact i can't recall anyone ever saying anything about this lens front or back focussing.

after all it has ring USM (the best bar none) and was made by canon for all canon EF cameras .

insanity = repeating the same action expecting different results .

ed rader