Canon 28mm f/1.8 vs. Sigma 30mm f/1.4 ? Hi, I'm thinking of getting either the Canon 28mm/1.8 or the Sigma 30mm/1.4 lens as a nearly normal/standard prime lens for my T1i (APS-C / 1.6 crop factor). I'm looking for a fast prime to use as my default lens -- I have the Canon 50mm/1.8 right now, and like it a lot, but it's a bit too tele sometimes.The focal lengths are close enough that it looks like a wash there -- both are just a bit wider than the 35mm-equivalent 50mm focal length. The Sigma obviously is a half stop faster, and seems to be a bit cheaper. On the other hand I've read about issues with the Sigma quality, and also the Sigma seems to have issues with image quality in the corners even on crop bodies.Any thoughts? Canon 28mm f/1.8 vs. Sigma 30mm f/1.4 ? Hi, I'm thinking of getting either the Canon 28mm/1.8 or the Sigma 30mm/1.4 lens as a nearly normal/standard prime lens for my T1i (APS-C / 1.6 crop... » Read More Canon 28mm f/1.8 vs. Sigma 30mm f/1.4 ? Hi, I'm thinking of getting either the Canon 28mm/1.8 or the Sigma 30mm/1.4 lens as a nearly normal/standard prime lens for my T1i (APS-C / 1.6 crop factor). I'm looking for a fast prime to use as my default lens -- I have the Canon 50mm/1.8 right now, and like it a lot, but it's a bit too tele sometimes.The focal lengths are close enough that it looks like a wash there -- both are just a bit wider than the 35mm-equivalent 50mm focal length. The Sigma obviously is a half stop faster, and seems to be a bit cheaper. On the other hand I've read about issues with the Sigma quality, and also the Sigma seems to have issues with image quality in the corners even on crop bodies.Any thoughts? « Show Less
189243
J. ONeill says: Did you make a decision? I am currently debating the same two lenses. I am leaning towards the Canon since it seems there are quite a few quality/AF issues with the Sigma. Any advice is appreciated. If you own a camera with micro focus adjustment like the 50D or 7D, Sigmas front or back focusing is a non-issue. Also, even if you don't own a camera with micro focus adjustment, if you get a Sigma lens that front or back focuses, you can send it to Sigma for calibration.
1966946
I ended up going for the Sigma. So far I'm pretty happy with it; focus seems OK on my T1i, and the lens seems quite well put together. Not getting dinged extra for a bag and a lens hood is nice too.
1966947
This is no easy call. Both lenses are said to perform similarly in terms of IQ. I've owned the EF 28mm f/1.8 and was never happy with it due to innacuracy of AF and image softness. Some folks like it quite a bit. Not my case. I wouldn't recommend this lens. I've read good reviews about the Sigma 30 mm, but I lack first hand experience. My two cents worth...
1966948
Sigmas are known for focusing issues - play it safe and go Canon for sure. Plus if you graduate to full frame you'll still be able to use it.
1966949
I almost decided in favor of Sigma, but then I realized that Sigma is made for a crop camera only. While I'm not looking to buy an FF one any time soon, when I do, it will be costly, so I wouldn't have the money to follow it up with expensive lenses, not to mention that a good prime is a good prime, which I expect to last me a long while... So that is becoming a big drawback for me...
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).
1966951
I don't think worrying about the fact that the Sigma won't work on a full frame body makes much sense. After all, on a FF body you would want something like the Canon 50/1.4 instead. A 30mm lens on a FF body would be like a 18mm lens on a crop body -- and I don't find myself wishing for an 18mm prime on my T1i.Even if you do upgrade to an FF body someday, you're pretty likely to keep your crop body, and so the Sigma would still be useful there.
1966952
Did you make a decision? I am currently debating the same two lenses. I am leaning towards the Canon since it seems there are quite a few quality/AF issues with the Sigma. Any advice is appreciated.
1922083
The 50 is probably more often referred to as a "standard" lens and works great. The 35 is slightly wider and often used for portraits of more than just one person (when you need to fit more people in the frame). Keep in mind that if you have a camera with an ASP-C sensor (or a "crop sensor"-- this is the Rebel line of Canon canons as well as the 7D, etc), the 50mm is closer to a (1.6 x 50 =) 80mm due to the smaller sensor and a 35 looks closer to a (35 x 1.6=) 56mm lens. What I would suggest before dropping a lot of money on the 35L or 50L is to see what range you use more or what looks better on your camera. Most Canon cameras come with an 18-55 or 24-105 lens. Zoom that lens to the 35mm mark and use that for a day and see how it works. Then do the same thing with the lens at the 50mm mark. If you find that 50 is too narrow or 35 is too wide, there is no sense in dropping $1000+ on a focal length you aren't likely to use.
387099
If you can afford the Canon. Get the Canon. It's a damn good lens. But if you're not trying to put down a lot of money and still want top notch quality, the Sigma is just that good. Sigma's on that level, but the Canon is hard to beat. My option was the Sony Carl Zeiss 85mm. My advice, see if you can test them both out and go from there.
1183538
The canon has 1.2 vice 1.4 and slightly less chromatic aberration (purple color fringing) when wide open. The sigma is much faster to focus and just as sharp. It's not so much a "quality" as paying a premium for the canon L red ring and the extra glass needed to achieve 1.2.
535931
There's also a 35mm f/2 from Canon, which can be had for around $230. But one thing to remember about the Canon non-L primes is that the back lens usually isn't coated for digital. Digital sensors are a lot more reflective than film, so unless your optics are properly coated exposures with bright light sources in the frame can receive nasty green "ghosts." This can really ruin an image. Sigma's DC lenses seem to be coated properly. Furthermore, the 35mm is just a little bit too "long" to be a normal lens. One of the great things about shooting normal is you can open both your eyes and see pretty much the same scene. You can't do that with a 35, your camera eye is too close. Finally, realize that the smaller sensor on a digital means your need a wider aperture to acheive the same depth of field effects as a full frame camera. This is the only lens under $800 that approximates the abilities of a 50mm f/1.8 on a film camera.
2173346
The best review of these two lenses in on Ken Rockwell's website. I currently have the Canon35 1.4 and the 35 2.0 non-is. I also had the 35 2.0 IS but sold it and then got the non-IS on eBay. Why? The IS is great but big and I was looking to put together a lighter combo than the 5DMK3 and 1.4. I have a 6D that fits the bill and thought the new 35 IS would work well as an everyday combo to carry around. The image quality is very good but it is big. So, I sold it, found a good version of the non-IS, and in combination with the 6D it meets all my needs. Good quality images, smaller lens, less weight.
1787338
Any thoughts for general / home photography? I have a Digital Rebel XSI and recently bought the 70-200 mm F2.8 IS version mainly to photograph school events without the annoying flash, and take closeups of my rapidly-growing kids. I have been going back and forth between the two lenses (24-70 F2.8 vs. 24-105 F4.0 IS) but my instinct is that F2.8 is much better than F 4 even with IS. Any guidance appreciated from a professional.
410989
Thanks for the information. I was using a Canon 28-135 IS USM as my walk around travel lens and loved it until it got stolen in an airport! :-( Now I'm in the market for a new lens and I'm leaning towards the Tamron. I've used their lens in my past photography life with my old AE-1 Program and I'd LOVE the 18-270 if I can swing the $$$. I'm hunting eBay as well, as that's where I got my 28-135 and had NO problems with it at all!
305766
The 28 1.8 is sharp starting at f2.2 and better corrected. At 1.8 it is a little soft. Distortion is better than 28-300 and the lens is significantly lighter but just as well made.
812303
Thanks very much for your advice.Any recommendations for a fast 50 or 30 mm prime lens?
175988
you want the 18-270 for a 1.6 crop camera...anyway that's what I'd recommend. I have an old 28-300 for a 1.6 Canon beautiful lens but no VC I don't know if they make this anymore but I took a lot of award winning shots with it email me if your interested :-)
1917125
I absolutely love the 28-135mm IS f/3.5 lens from Canon. For about $400 +/- you get a moderate zoom telephoto with a 1:1.6 mag aspect on your dSLR about 44mm - 206mm in 35mm terms with an added bonus of macro capability. I use it as a 'walk around lens' and while not the BEST in construction - the optics are sharp, color rendition is super and the IS is a lifesaver when shooting scenes in low light without a tripod or monopod.For wide angle work - I've purchased the SIGMA 17-35mm f/2.8 and found the optics and color rendition above my expectations for a $225 lens. The SIGMA comes with a lens hood and pouch - for which Canon sells as accessories and expensive ones at that. I absolutely love the 28-135mm IS f/3.5 lens from Canon. For about $400 +/- you get a moderate zoom telephoto with a 1:1.6 mag aspect on your dSLR about 44mm - 206mm in 35mm terms with an added bonus of macro capability. I use it as a 'walk around lens' and while not the BEST in construction - the optics are sharp, color rendition is super and the IS is a lifesaver when shooting scenes in low light without a tripod or monopod.For wide angle work - I've purchased the SIGMA 17-35mm f/2.8 and found the optics and color rendition above my expectations for a $225 lens. The SIGMA... » Read More I absolutely love the 28-135mm IS f/3.5 lens from Canon. For about $400 +/- you get a moderate zoom telephoto with a 1:1.6 mag aspect on your dSLR about 44mm - 206mm in 35mm terms with an added bonus of macro capability. I use it as a 'walk around lens' and while not the BEST in construction - the optics are sharp, color rendition is super and the IS is a lifesaver when shooting scenes in low light without a tripod or monopod.For wide angle work - I've purchased the SIGMA 17-35mm f/2.8 and found the optics and color rendition above my expectations for a $225 lens. The SIGMA comes with a lens hood and pouch - for which Canon sells as accessories and expensive ones at that. « Show Less
1532033
If you're using on the APC-S type sensor (i.e. like on the Sony a6000) there will be a crop factor of about x1.5 (so this is equivalent to about 45MM --> 30 * 1.5) - oops - looks like this was already answered below. Great lens - not as sharp as I was expecting in low light - for which situation you're better off with Sony's 50mm f/1.8).
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.
75885
I have the 35mm 1.8, and that is my favorite lens of all time. Having had about 12 cameras over the course of my life, digital and film, I have to say, the 35mm 1.8 is the best lens I've had. It's bright and takes amazing photos in low light. Some people complain about the rough bokeh, but I actually like it. Gives me alot of creative latitude and just the right focal length for me. the 18-55 has VR, which helps keep pictures non-blurry despite the higher f-stop. There's really no comparing the two, one is a zoom and the other a fixed focal length with a much wider aperture. For indoor pictures, the 1.8 is much much better, unless you need the zoom. with the 1.8 there's really no need for flash. I have the 35mm 1.8, and that is my favorite lens of all time. Having had about 12 cameras over the course of my life, digital and film, I have to say, the 35mm 1.8 is the best lens I've had. It's bright and takes amazing photos in low light. Some people complain about the rough bokeh, but I actually like it. Gives me alot of creative latitude and just the right focal length for me. the 18-55 has VR, which helps keep pictures non-blurry despite the higher f-stop. There's really no comparing the two, one is a zoom and the other a fixed focal length with a much wider aperture. For indoor... » Read More I have the 35mm 1.8, and that is my favorite lens of all time. Having had about 12 cameras over the course of my life, digital and film, I have to say, the 35mm 1.8 is the best lens I've had. It's bright and takes amazing photos in low light. Some people complain about the rough bokeh, but I actually like it. Gives me alot of creative latitude and just the right focal length for me. the 18-55 has VR, which helps keep pictures non-blurry despite the higher f-stop. There's really no comparing the two, one is a zoom and the other a fixed focal length with a much wider aperture. For indoor pictures, the 1.8 is much much better, unless you need the zoom. with the 1.8 there's really no need for flash. « Show Less
1901981
with the 50 mm 1.4 you're going to get the great shallow dof and lower light capability that comes with it. one thing to keep in mind, however, is that if you're using the 50mm on a aps-c camera, you're effectively buying an 80mm lens. this mean you may find yourself frequently having to back up to get your shot. whether or not this is a problem is something you'll have to decide for yourself. the 28-135 obviously gives you much more flexibility as far as the zoom is concerned, but the trade off is that you lose the dof/speed of f1.4.
39228
It's like apples and oranges. One is a short zoom. The other is prime. So it does depend what you want it to do for you.If you need the faster lens I would go with the 35mm f1.8. If you don't need the faster lens and you like the advantage of not having to move around to compose your shot go with the zoom. I will say I find that Sigma 18-50 a bit bulky and it is basically a kit lens at least and Nikon's newer 18-55 is lighter and better it also does close focus really well. The Nikon f1.8 35 mm is a great lens for general shooting and keeps your camera footprint small and easy to carry. Don't know if this helps or not. Hope you make the best choice for you. It's like apples and oranges. One is a short zoom. The other is prime. So it does depend what you want it to do for you.If you need the faster lens I would go with the 35mm f1.8. If you don't need the faster lens and you like the advantage of not having to move around to compose your shot go with the zoom. I will say I find that Sigma 18-50 a bit bulky and it is basically a kit lens at least and Nikon's newer 18-55 is lighter and better it also does close focus really well. The Nikon f1.8 35 mm is a great lens for general shooting and keeps your camera footprint small and easy to... » Read More It's like apples and oranges. One is a short zoom. The other is prime. So it does depend what you want it to do for you.If you need the faster lens I would go with the 35mm f1.8. If you don't need the faster lens and you like the advantage of not having to move around to compose your shot go with the zoom. I will say I find that Sigma 18-50 a bit bulky and it is basically a kit lens at least and Nikon's newer 18-55 is lighter and better it also does close focus really well. The Nikon f1.8 35 mm is a great lens for general shooting and keeps your camera footprint small and easy to carry. Don't know if this helps or not. Hope you make the best choice for you. « Show Less