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

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

i've probably been through as many lenses on my journey. no shame in that unless the bill gets sent to you .

ed rader

Yawn

ed rader wrote in post #2438170
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 .
i think i am done with 3rd party lenses there is almost alwyas focus issues, its either front or back focusing, or not fast enouf or whatever else. if i cant focus on what i am trying to shoot it doesnt matter how sharp the lens is especially at lage apertures.

insanity = repeating the same action expecting different results .
this is exactly what i am afraid of, i would get another 30 1.4 but i think another flaw is it not being able to focus close to teh subject, i found myself trying to focus at a distance where it couldn't, too many times. i think i just have to go for the canon and if i like it less then the sigma, well then i guess i have no choice but to go for teh sigma. i dont like the sigma 28 1.8
ed rader

...

ed rader wrote in post #2438170
the problem with the 30 1.4 whether "real" or perceived exists and is well documented.

...

Ditto for the Canon 24-70MM EF L, the Canon.

I happen to own both and both were sharp right out of the box. In the production of 1000's of items there are bound to be a few bad apples. But I think this is the exception not the rule.

I think that there are some folks who can't be bothered to learn how to use a particular lens. I was disapointed with my 24-70MM at first and was going to blame my poor shots on a bad copy of the lens...after all I had read that this was a common problem with the 24-70MM. But after a while I learned to use this lens properly and started getting good shots.

There was also a learning curve with the Sigma 30MM f/1.4 but having been down that road with the 24-70MM EF L, I got the hang of the Sigma much quicker.

Just want to say, as someone who briefly owned a 30 f/1.4 (front-focus issue, by nearly 2 feet) and now owns a 28 f/1.8, that both are great, but I have to say, my 28 rocks. It stayed on my camera for 98% of my shots at Christmas, and nearly every single shot was spot on focused and tack sharp, even at the wider apertures. Made a believer out of me. The lens was nailing focus in very, very dark conditions. I wish my 30 had not had a calibration issue (that's not why I switched though...wanted double rebates on the 30D), but the 28 is certainly a capable lens.

I agree with Jordan. The superior AF of the 28/1.8 (on my 30D) was the reason I kept it and returned the Sigma. Given that Jojo finds that his copy of the Sigma focuses as well as the Canon, I purchased another copy of the Sigma today. The copy I bought used was already calibrated by Sigma - sent in by the original owner who says it is perfect (selling because it work work on his 1DsMkII). I'm gonna test the heck out of this copy and send it to Sigma again if need be; but it's gonna have to focus pretty darn well to replace my 28/1.8, which has an uncanny ability to nail focus on my young sons indoors in low light. BTW - the samples in Lightrules' comparison show a relatively modest difference in center image quality between the two lenses at f-stops of 2 and above (especially f2.2 and above), essentially no difference in border image quality, and less distortion for the 28/1.8, so I don't think this is quite the massacre some of you are finding it to be. Also, despite the better overall bokeh of the Sigma, one has to take into account the lens coma on the Sigma, which is not seen in Lightrules' bokeh comparison.

nice

makes me wanna get a Sigma even mroe so now

Thanks for the tests, I spent some time reading them even though the decision was already made for me - it will take more than a bit of 'creative reengineering' to make the Sigma fit my full frame and 1.3X platforms. I do not feel like messing with the angle grinder today.

The 30/1.4 is impressively good.. I liked the images better than the 28/1.8's, but for me the 28 is pretty much where it is going to be till Sigma comes out with a 17 or 18mm f/1.8.. (I wanted a TRUE 28mm prime hence its use on FF)

I have been investigating the Three EF Primes (28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 ) and I find that they only really start to come into their own from f/2.0 and 2.2 onwards too.

Anecdote: It took me 4 copies of the 28mm f/1.8 before I found one that focused well and consistently on my 10D. The first one, I had for a week, wondering where everything I had learned about focusing and photography went before I got out the measuring tape and found out how bad it was.

QC and camera compatibility. That's all. Normal stuff these days.

I've learned to send 'em in for service. That's what warranties are for.

jdos2 wrote in post #2451281
I've learned to send 'em in for service. That's what warranties are for.

Completely agree. This is the right way to go about it. Enjoy your lens.

Maybe the 30mm 1.4 is what I need to replace the nifty !

LightRules wrote in post #2452034
Completely agree. This is the right way to go about it. Enjoy your lens.

i second that.

Just saw this thread on DPR that shows similar lens coma on the 50/1.2L to what we are seeing with the Sigma. According to the comments in the aforelinked thread, the 35Lalso suffers from this lens coma. I guess I should give Sigma back some of their props as this design flaw must be awfully hard to correct, to be present on such an expensive lens as the 50/1.2L!

You want coma? Look at the Noctilux. $3,000 lens.

Coma, vignetting, and focus shift (enough to reduce resolution to silly-low values with flat targets at f/1.4-f/2!).

Still a wonderful lens. I wish there was a FF camera that could mount it.

There's more to recommend a lens than numbers. If it looks good, it IS good. (Sorry, Duke!) Seriously, drawing is where it's at.

LightRules wrote in post #2452034
Completely agree. This is the right way to go about it. Enjoy your lens.

I do think Sigma should re-calibrate their lens, if there's that many issues in the 30mm. I mean if its too the point that its scaring people from attempting to buy the lens, then that's kinda bad.

I do so wish it would fit the 1.3 crop without problems.