Is the sigma 30mm 1.4 too heavy for the XSI

Well the Canon 28mm is noticable lighter than the Sigma 30mm. Based on weight alone I prefer the lighter Canon mainly cause I like this setup for quick snaps inside the house. Also, like how with my grip on my Xti, the Canon 28mm won't fall forward when placing the camera on a flat surface. The Sigma will. All this is rather trivial though! Not really a deal breaker IMO. The poor focusing of the two Sigmas that i tried was a deal breaker.

I wouldnt say it's too heavy.. after comparing with my 17-55mm which is 645g (215g heavier than the 30mm) I'd say that the 30mm doesnt have the best balance with the 450D, though.. cause I feel more comfortable with the weight and balance with the 17-55mm somehow.. but it's not bad with the 30mm either and i've never had issues with this..

tkbslc wrote in post #6900322
For comparison:
Canon 18-55 IS is 200g, 30mm is 430g. canon 28mm f1.8 is 310g. Canon 35mm f2 is 210g

None are prohibitively large, but if weight is a concern, might look at the 35mm f2 (it is a 56mm equivalent vs the 48mm for the 30mm Sigma)

if 430g for a lens is too much for you, you will never be able to handle a 70-200mm f/4L IS which weighs 760g.

Seriously, if the 430g is hurting your hand its time to hit the gym.

-Alan

I find my 85mm f/1.8 balances a little better on my Xsi than the 30mm, so I keep my 30mm on my 40D and the 85 on the Xsi when I do portait shoots.

I think the weight comparisons with the telezooms is a bit silly. You don't carry the camera buy the grip with the telezooms - you cary it by the lens. With these short lens you carry the camera by the grip - so weight balance is important.

f2.8 IS is about 1390g

tbh 50mm f1.8 is a paperweight of a thing - if you're not taking the camera off the lens, you're doing it wrong

The sigma is noticeably heavier than the canon lenses mentioned, but quiet focus, image quality, and overall handling made it a winner for me. There are some other things to think of, it doesn't focus as close as say the 35/2, and you may have to deal with the sigma lens lotto, but most of the people I know who have had properly focusing copies of the sigma have been very happy with it.

I had no problem with the sigma on a 350D before I upgraded to a 30d, but ymmv on that one.

the 30 1.4 is actually pretty small...

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

nadtz wrote in post #6909944
The sigma is noticeably heavier than the canon lenses mentioned, but quiet focus, image quality, and overall handling made it a winner for me.

I don't know if you are refering to the 35/2, but all of these SHINE on my Canon 28/1.8. Never used a Sig 30 though

No one has said this.. how about adding a grip? just my $0.02

Thanks for everybody's help. It is much appreciated. I am going to run to the store and take a look at both lenses.

Cheers!

PhatheadWRX wrote in post #6910068
I don't know if you are refering to the 35/2, but all of these SHINE on my Canon 28/1.8. Never used a Sig 30 though

Yes, Im referring to the 35/2. I'm not saying its not a good lens, I'm just saying for my use the sigma 30mm was the better lens overall. That waspy focus motor whirring away while in a quiet dark room was a deal killer, otherwise I very much liked the lens. IQ was probably overall the smallest difference until you got above F 2.8 (with the samples I had), but the sigma handled much nicer for MF, a much nicer focus ring with less throw and a better feel. If the 35/2 does what you need, its a good little lens, no need to spend more on the sigma if you don't need to!

The sigma isnt HUGE, but it is quite a bit larger and heavier than the canon