I'm considering getting the Sigma 30mm f/2.8 DN. Is it worth paying $200 more for this lens instead, for lower f-stop and OSS?
865042
Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes. The lens is fantastic and has relegated all my others to a dusty shelf. The pictures are crisp and the bokeh is amazing. Seriously, don't hesitate. You won't be sorry.
865043
Definitely worth it to me. This lens is faster and the stabilization is superb.
865044
I came so close to getting the Sigma, and so grateful I didn't. I've been using this lens for a year, and have never regretted it for a second. The kit lens has been gathering dust (or its storage bag has been, anyway) and it hadn't occurred to me to look for any other lens until now - I'd like a nice zoom eventually for outdoors.
920085
Hi John, I love this lens, FOR WHAT I DO. As Nikon Brad says, it ain't subtle on the street and it's narrow for landscape. Your reply to him, though, kind of changes the emphasis of what you are looking for because you say your aim is to go for the D810 in time. Would you not be better at this stage to go for lenses compatible with that full frame body when you can afford it???????? If you use this Sigma lens on a D810 you will force the body to downgrade, effectively, to a smaller format the same as you are using now, thereby defeating the purpose of your upgraded body. Sorry to raise more questions than answers but you could spend a fortune on glass that then will not work to best advantage with your dream body so you will have to change your lenses as well (and the crop sensor lenses don't hold their second hand value like the full frame ones do, generally). Coming back to what you like to photograph, on the street big is not necessarily beautiful where kit is concerned. A D810 body with almost any of the quality shorter zooms on it, like the Nikon f2.8, is a pretty big piece of kit when you compare it to your 7100 plus a suitable DX format lens. This is one of the very reasons the 7100 body sells so well! Great quality and not too big/heavy, At the opposite end of the focal length range the crop sensor works well for you too as it effectively increases the zoom effect of any lens you marry it with, turning a 70-200 into a 110-300 approximately. Approximately! You can do the math more precisely if you like!And your F2.8 is still an f2.8. And your body is using the centre of the lens which is likely the best part. Win, win. Best of all - - - - no loan for a new body!!! Good luck, JohnEddy. I wish you well with your picture making. Will
241544
I have the 85 f1.8D and 35 f2D and they are fantastic. The two lenses you mention should be even better. The 35 is such a versatile focal length, I have been using as my all purpose lens.
827136
Both lenses share the same drawback: There's no constant aperture throughout the zoom range. This is a bummer if you want to zoom in during lowlight situations, because the aperture gets smaller the more you zoom. That said, the Sigma lens is certainly a step up. It's aperture is wider than the kit lens, so it performs better in dim light. And I'm surprised by how much I've enjoyed the macro feature. When I shoot videos of my kids, they run right up to the camera and I can keep them in focus no matter how close they get. I've had the Sigma for about a year and it's on my camera all the time. If you can get one for a good price, I'd say go for it.
316099
Sharp lens, at 120mm its longer than the 1.8 45mm, which works out to 90mm. It is a bit slower, but just as sharp. Yes and no, it gets you close from the edges of a room, head shots are fine, its a cheaper alternative to the oly 75mm.The 25mm 1.8 might be more useful, I have the sigma 60. Do it all would be the pro zoom, but its pricy. The sigma would be great on the omd, at the price it'd hard to beat. If you do not have many primes, its a good start.
839198
You would get a lot more bang for fewer bucks by replacing the D-90 body (12.4 mpix DX format) with a new D-610 (24.3 mpix FX format) if your 200 mm lens is in that format also, i.e., if it is the 70-200 FX zoom. Plus, HD video and faster internal processing.
1966950
I haven't tried the 28mm, but I can see it costs about $100 more than the Sigma. I just bought the Siggy and I love it. I have not had any focus issues and it is quite sharp wide open for my purposes (low-light indoor shots of food and people).
561735
Theoretically, yes. It's a true 1.8 aperture lens. However, of the 3 macro primes in the wide range that Sigma makes (this, the 20mm and the 28mm,) this one is the least sharp wide open in the center and essentially unusable in the corners. By f4, the center gets better, but still not great. If you're looking for a 24mm lens in this range, go for the Canon 24mm 2.8 IS. Not only is it very sharp in the center and very good across the frame wide open, but the IS never hurts. I like the Sigma 20mm 1.8 and the 28 is OK, but still, if there's one to avoid, it's the 24mm.
433202
I got the 40mm Micro lens over the 35mm and I am really happy with the purchase. It cost about $80 more but it does more. That being said, I have the 35mm on the wish list even though it will be horribly redundant. The 40mm Micro has so drawbacks but it does get you in close. I don't know how the 35mm could be sharper but lots of reviews comparing the two indicate it can be depending on subject matter. This is probably a topic people make themselves crazy with so I will probably buy some peace for $200 by getting the 35mm lens sooner than later.
990745
Congrats on the D5000 (and both great lenses you have). Be sure and get that 35mm down the road, believe me it will probably be the best 200$ you'll ever spend if you do any shooting indoors. I have tons of other lenses (including a 50mm f/1.4) so I held off for a while on getting the 35mm f/1.8, once I did finally get it I was kicking myself for not getting it sooner, it's that good. Happy shooting.
2163869
It has been a year since I had this lens and do not remember if it changes f-stops and the Sigma site does not offer any assistance to your question. I would email Sigma and pose your question directly to them. They are very good at answering questions in one to two business days.
725616
The Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS is rather a good lens, even though focusing is not as fast as I would like. I also have the Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS II and is a wonderful lens. But regarding your question about the comparison versus the non stabilized Canon for Wedding photography I'd rather use the Sigma because the EV stops that you gain with the image stabilization may be the difference between a sharp image and a shaky image, or acquiring some noise due using high ISO settings.I hope this information may help you.
1818662
Or the 35mm F1.8 AF-S which is closer in price to this lens. (I have the 35mm and its fantastic for what that is worth).
501122
Thanks for the feedback. I ended up getting the Canon 17-55/2.8IS. It was more expensive, but I had come across some extra money. I've had that lens for several month now and it's awesome. The zoom range is excellent, it's great having f2.8 through the whole range, and the IS adds probably at least 3 stops. It's very sharp when I do my part, especially when it's stopped down a couple clicks. I would still love to get a lens like I described in my OP, but I'm looking at a wide angle zoom and a better telephoto lens before that one.
1543697
Yes. I struggled with the decision to buy the 2.0 TC or the sigma 50 -500 lens to get more zoom as 200 didn't reach far enough for my needs. In the end I got the teleconverter as it was less money and mainly a way to avoid another heavy lens. It works out very well. loss of sharpness and some f/stops as others have described but you will hardly notice. faster glass and more sharpness costs thousands of dollars which i'm unwilling to spend. i'm pleased going this way.
1183540
I've never used the canon 85mm but the there is almost no difference in sharpness with th Sigma lens. The price difference is only justified by the lower F stop.
1183536
I have not had a chance to compare both but this sigma is the first non canon lens I have put in my bag. Have 6 different ones and the sigma is a great value. I have not regretted it.