Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 11 Jul 2010 (Sunday) 15:54
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Switching from sigma 30 to 35L?

 
joosay
Goldmember
Avatar
1,325 posts
Joined Jul 2009
Location: City so nice they named it twice
     
Jul 14, 2010 07:46 |  #16

If I could use the Sigma 30 on my crop, I'd probably take the Sigma over the L, any day. I have a zoom for the short range right now (Sigma 24-70HSM) but have a Sigmalux, as well. I don't see a sub-$1000 prime lens solution for me with an FF and I don't want the Canon 28 1.8. :(


Flickr (external link) - Angelito Jusay Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Mundty
Goldmember
Avatar
1,125 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Bucks County, PA
     
Jul 14, 2010 07:51 |  #17

nonick wrote in post #10516998 (external link)
I am currently using sigma 30mm on my 7D and it works great. It is my main lowlight lens. The lens has no focus issue after MA and it takes sharp pictures. But I am debating whether or not to upgrade to 35L as this is the lens I always wanted to buy.

Anyone did it and think you have made the right move? What made you switch? Do you think 35L focus faster and more accurate than the sigma counterpart? How about the color? Do you think the 35L pictures are more punchy vs. the sigma's?

I am not going to upgrade to full frame in any time soon as I like my 7D and still learning it's full capability. So, the switch has nothing to do with FF upgrade.

Thanks for your input.

I agree with other people, if you're happy with the 30mm I'd stick with it. The 35L's are nice, but as to how much nicer is in the eye of the beholder. For the price, it's a considerable investment. You should go try one and see for yourself. To someone who does photography for a living... I could see why the 35 L would be a good investment. But to a hobbyist... primes are very specialized lenses. You have to consider that when you look at the cost of a lens.

Myself, I'm a hobbyist... would like to make a living out of photography at some point in the future, but I'm not there yet. Because of this, I cannot justify $1,300 for a one trick pony lens. Now if it was an standard zoom, wide angle zoom, or telephoto zoom. That's a much more versatile lens... where I could justify that kind of money.

The 30mm f/1.4 is a $400 lens. The 35mm L is a $1,400 lens. That's 3.5x times the price. When you test it out, ask yourself:
"does this lens seem 3.5x better than your current sigma?"

Given your own opinion of the 30mm sigma... I doubt you'll be able to justify the price.


www.mikemundt.com (external link)
EOS 5D Mark II | Canon 24-70 f/2.8L | Speedlite 430EX II | Manfrotto MT293A4 & 494 Tripod
Interests: Environmental Portraits | Urban/Travel | Wildlife | Landscape | Celestial | Experimental

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mr. ­ Unknown
Member
93 posts
Joined May 2010
     
Jul 14, 2010 08:09 |  #18

picturecrazy wrote in post #10533540 (external link)
There's nothing romantic with my lens choices, they are in my bag based purely on need. I need a 50 as that was my primary lens for 15 years before I switched to digital. I don't LOVE any of the 4 50mm choices, I just hated the 50L the least. The 50CM is too slow as a gen purpose 50, the 1.8 has terrible focus and nasty bokeh, the 1.4 isn't crisp and clear until you stop down to f/2 or so, and the L is heavy and has focus shift issues. Considering I use primes wide open EXCLUSIVELY (if I need to stop down, that's what zooms are for) I figured the focus shift wouldn't be a concern to me. And it is has fantastic image quality wide open.

The 200 2.8L is one heck of a beautiful lens with amazing image quality. But I got it purely for it's reach and weight. After years of holding up a 70-200 2.8 every weekend I developed back and shoulder problems that I now need treatment for every two weeks. The 70-200 isn't that big a deal to hold up for a few hours, but repeated over and over year after year, it takes it's toll and broke me down. For wedding reception shooting, I like to stay far away so the 135 didn't cut it. Since I use flash, IS was of no benefit to me. My back is much happier with the 200L.

The 85L is too goofy of a lens in my opinion. It's too big for it's own good. 85mm at 1.2 has so little DOF that it almost looks silly to me. It seems to have a counter-intuitive design where the DOF is so darn small yet the focusing is so darn slow that my keeper rate for candid shooting was horrible. It was fine for still people but as soon as they are moving it was blah. Considering the 1.8 is excellent wide open, has excellent focusing ability and speed, is small and very light, and costs like five times less for all this added performance, it was a no brainer which one to keep. The idea of having the 85L *sounds* romantic, but from a purely practical standpoint, it was a waste of my money. Yes it can get that odd shot that makes you go WOW, but I need thousands of consistent great shots, not one or two wow shots.

As for the 135L, I don't need one as using the 85 1.8 on my 40D is much like having a 135. One of the advantages of multi format shooting, and why I'd never move to a FF only setup. (again, something that sounds romantic but in practicality, having a crop gives you a heck of a lot more options)


thank god for objectiveness. i hate it when people droll over the L lenses as if they plan on marrying them




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
joosay
Goldmember
Avatar
1,325 posts
Joined Jul 2009
Location: City so nice they named it twice
     
Jul 14, 2010 08:20 |  #19

I wouldn't call the 35L as a one trick pony of a lens. I've seen it used for street photography, portraits, and other random still-life/candid shots. I don't believe that all primes are specialized. Maybe if you were talking about a longer lens like a 300mm or a 400mm prime where it's hard to shoot it indoors and/or need a tripod, etc. However, I do agree with the performance-cost difference between the Sig30 and the 35L. Also there are hobbyists who focus on just portraits or landscapes or birds or macros. I think specialized lenses aren't just for people who are making a living out of photography.

Just playing devil's advocate :)


Flickr (external link) - Angelito Jusay Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
artyH
Goldmember
2,089 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Aug 2009
     
Jul 14, 2010 09:02 |  #20

I have a 35f2 and like it. You can tell my perspective here.
Is your Sigma 30 sharp in the corners? Does that matter for your photography? That is an important part of what you will be buying for the cost of the 35f1.4.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mundty
Goldmember
Avatar
1,125 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Bucks County, PA
     
Jul 14, 2010 09:17 |  #21

joosay wrote in post #10533768 (external link)
I wouldn't call the 35L as a one trick pony of a lens. I've seen it used for street photography, portraits, and other random still-life/candid shots. I don't believe that all primes are specialized. Maybe if you were talking about a longer lens like a 300mm or a 400mm prime where it's hard to shoot it indoors and/or need a tripod, etc. However, I do agree with the performance-cost difference between the Sig30 and the 35L. Also there are hobbyists who focus on just portraits or landscapes or birds or macros. I think specialized lenses aren't just for people who are making a living out of photography.

Just playing devil's advocate :)

This is very much my own opinion, but let me explain why I consider primes to be one trick ponies. ;)

When you're using a prime... it's either because you need something *extremely* sharp, a very shallow depth of field, or are shooting in extremely low light. But most of these obstacles can be over come using a zoom....

1. Need to shoot in low light with a zoom? Bump the ISO up really high and reduce noise later in PP. Yes you'll lose a little PQ... but PP Noise Reduction is damn good in LR3.

2. Need an extremely shallow depth of field with a zoom? Zoom as far in as you can and open the aperture up as wide as it goes. You can get very close to primes shallow DOF simply by zooming in. (300+mm Primes excluded)

3. Need a sharp picture like the one your 85mm f/1.2 gives you? The 70-200mm IS Telephoto Zooms are quite sharp, just about as sharp as the best primes.

On the other hand, let's say your out taking pictures. And you're trying to compose your shot... but you can't get any closer and/or further away. Sure you might have quite a few primes, but you're still limited to those focal lengths. 14mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm, 200mm. There's a lot of missing focal lengths in between those very specific numbers.

Composition in my opinion, is probably one of the most important factors to great photographs. Sure you can always go wider and crop... but that's only after you've left your shoot. I'd rather know immediately if I'm happy with the shot. Not to mention carrying around enough primes to cover every situation requires a large bag and ALOT of lens swapping for each picture. And the price tag for each of these lenses... the good ones are just as expensive as the zooms.

I'll sacrifice a little sharpness, low light performance, and DOF... in order to get my composition right, and not have to swap lenses every 30 seconds. Again this is just my opinion. I used to be a prime lover, and thought they were the most important lens in a collection. Since then, I've come to the conclusion that Zooms do a lot more for me than Primes do. YMMV :cool:


www.mikemundt.com (external link)
EOS 5D Mark II | Canon 24-70 f/2.8L | Speedlite 430EX II | Manfrotto MT293A4 & 494 Tripod
Interests: Environmental Portraits | Urban/Travel | Wildlife | Landscape | Celestial | Experimental

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick_b
Senior Member
Avatar
968 posts
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Ottawa
     
Jul 14, 2010 09:18 |  #22

I went from a 35mm L to a sig 30mm and I'm 100% happy with my choice. I'd try renting the 35mm first if I were you. It's a lot a dough to lay down and you may not even notice a difference in your photos. I didn't.


50D, 2 x 20D, Elan 7E, 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 IS, 30mm 1.4 , 85mm 1.8, 200mm 2.8 II, flash 430EX, 580 EX
Canon G10
Pentax P30, 50mm 2.0

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mundty
Goldmember
Avatar
1,125 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Bucks County, PA
     
Jul 14, 2010 09:18 |  #23

artyH wrote in post #10533964 (external link)
I have a 35f2 and like it. You can tell my perspective here.
Is your Sigma 30 sharp in the corners? Does that matter for your photography? That is an important part of what you will be buying for the cost of the 35f1.4.

That's a very good point. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is not sharp in the corners. I know this because I own it, and use it frequently :D


www.mikemundt.com (external link)
EOS 5D Mark II | Canon 24-70 f/2.8L | Speedlite 430EX II | Manfrotto MT293A4 & 494 Tripod
Interests: Environmental Portraits | Urban/Travel | Wildlife | Landscape | Celestial | Experimental

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SMP_Homer
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,418 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Mar 2008
Location: London, Ontario
     
Jul 14, 2010 10:04 |  #24

I've played with both extensively
the only real difference I found as far as performance goes is AI Servo performance
the Sigma 30 couldn't keep up with my very young daughter crawling/walking towards me, even in the most of amazing lights
she could start from 10 feet away, and slowly stumble her way towards me, the Sig30 just would hesitate or be too slow to maintain focus to get the next shot - and often the next shot would be slightly out of focus
with the 35L, I'd get many more shots from that trek, and most of them would be in very good focus

as far as image quality goes, whatever differences that are visible are not worth mentioning... Sigma has done a great job with the Sig30 - just too bad it doesn't do FF well


5D4 / Want a 1D X
Sig85 /35L/100L/135L/16-35L II/70-200L II/100-400L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
picturecrazy
soft-hearted weenie-boy
Avatar
8,561 posts
Likes: 431
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Alberta, CANADA
     
Jul 14, 2010 16:37 |  #25

I'm not so sure why people think corner sharpness is so important. If using a prime lens, chances are you are using it to shoot at a very wide aperture. With such a small DOF, there is little chance that the corners would be sharp because they'll be out of focus anyhow. And if you are stopping the lens down, corner sharpness of just about all lenses increases DRAMATICALLY if they are soft, and if they are already sharp, they remain nicely sharp. But the difference between them becomes much smaller and much less of an issue.

Why do we analyze corner sharpness when the goal of small DOF is to blur the living snot out of everything but the subject?


-Lloyd
The BOUDOIR - Edmonton Intimate Boudoir Photography (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Studio Family Baby Child Maternity Wedding Photographers (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Headshot Photographers (external link)
Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link) |Instagram (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
banpreso
Goldmember
2,176 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Socal
     
Jul 14, 2010 16:40 |  #26

i wouldn't do it if i were you... for the extra money maybe you can get another lens of a different focal length. you can grab a sigma 50mm f1.4 or 135L

but if you REALLY want a 35L, you gotta have it then...


Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
javanutsy
Senior Member
Avatar
751 posts
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Jul 14, 2010 18:05 |  #27

I had the Sigma 30 on the 30D and thought it was a great combo. Replaced it with the 35L as a first step in moving to FF. Did not like the 35L on the 30D that much. Lens is heavier, bigger, and focal length tighter than I was accustomed to. If you're staying on a crop body, I'd stay with the Sigma 30.


galleryexternal link | gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LightRules
"flat out embarrassing"
Avatar
9,909 posts
Joined Jun 2005
     
Jul 14, 2010 18:10 |  #28

javanutsy wrote in post #10537295 (external link)
I had the Sigma 30 on the 30D and thought it was a great combo. Replaced it with the 35L as a first step in moving to FF. Did not like the 35L on the 30D that much. Lens is heavier, bigger, and focal length tighter than I was accustomed to. If you're staying on a crop body, I'd stay with the Sigma 30.

+1.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jdang307
Senior Member
780 posts
Joined Aug 2009
     
Jul 14, 2010 18:23 |  #29

picturecrazy wrote in post #10536821 (external link)
I'm not so sure why people think corner sharpness is so important. If using a prime lens, chances are you are using it to shoot at a very wide aperture. With such a small DOF, there is little chance that the corners would be sharp because they'll be out of focus anyhow. And if you are stopping the lens down, corner sharpness of just about all lenses increases DRAMATICALLY if they are soft, and if they are already sharp, they remain nicely sharp. But the difference between them becomes much smaller and much less of an issue.

Why do we analyze corner sharpness when the goal of small DOF is to blur the living snot out of everything but the subject?

I thought the same. And was about to buy a Siggy 50mm. But corner sharpness is important for landscapes sometimes. And the siggy according to photozone had some pretty bad corners (on FF). The center sharpness is outstanding, which makes it probably look even worse. Even stopped down they go to "good" only. The 30mm looks to be better on Crop stopped down to F8 which is good. Did I mention the 35/2 had pretty darn good results on crop? :D

To the OP, have you tried the 135mm yet? Since you were set on buying a 35L, I'd keep the siggy and allot the extra cash for another L prime. Hey, be like the govt. If it's already budgeted for something you don't need anymore. Spend it somewhere else, don't give it back!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
crcal
Senior Member
808 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Honolulu, HI
     
Jul 14, 2010 18:59 as a reply to  @ jdang307's post |  #30

I owned the 35L and Sigma 30 at the same time and tested them on my 50D. I was planning on going full frame but decided to wait. I chose to keep the Sigma 30 for the following reasons:

1. I don't have a full frame camera.
2. They were both sharp wide open.
3. My (second copy) Sigma 30 has no focus issues.
4. The 35L is humongous in size and weight compared to the Sigma 30.

The 35L renders colors differently and focusing is slightly better but that didn't justify the cost difference for me.


Calvin
Converted to Sony A7 and love it | Gear & Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,903 views & 0 likes for this thread
Switching from sigma 30 to 35L?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is RoydonsPhotography
444 guests, 355 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.