I need some dSLR advice

[bousozoku]

Ooooooh. This could be a very nice way to get around a small problem I have: Canon's "best" 28mm lens suffers from a fair bit of CA. I'd like something around that focal length range to give me a nice, fast standard lens for my 20D (remember that "standard" means "focal length approximately equal to the diagonal length of the image area", which for the 20D is very close to 28mm), and that looks like it might be a nice fit.

Anybody know of a good quality review of this lens?

*does some checking* About $620, with shipping (Australian price) ... not bad. Especially since the RRP for Canon's 28mm f/1.8 is a thousand dollars ...

In the old days, I never would have trusted Sigma lenses to mission-critical work but they've apparently come a long way. I'm surprised that you're getting Chromatic Aberration from a "best" Canon lens but it feeds my cynicism about their SLR group.

I haven't seen any reviews on the Sigma 30 mm lens yet. I'm seriously considering it because at 60 mm, it's close to normal on my Olympus. My only other choice is an f2.0, 50 (100) mm macro lens. It's good in a pinch but when light is really low, f1.4 would help a lot.

 

[sjl]

In the old days, I never would have trusted Sigma lenses to mission-critical work but they've apparently come a long way. I'm surprised that you're getting Chromatic Aberration from a "best" Canon lens but it feeds my cynicism about their SLR group.

Well, I don't actually have that particular lens: I've been weighing it up for a little while, and decided to hold off on the basis of reports of this (not to mention a short term lack of money) -- for instance, this review mentions it as pretty significant (although probably not as bad as the 75-300.)

Still, if the Sigma is better quality and cheaper, I see no reason to go the Canon route.

I haven't seen any reviews on the Sigma 30 mm lens yet. I'm seriously considering it because at 60 mm, it's close to normal on my Olympus. My only other choice is an f2.0, 50 (100) mm macro lens. It's good in a pinch but when light is really low, f1.4 would help a lot.

*nods* Yes, indeed. An f/1.4 standard lens would be a nice addition to the lineup; I have the 50mm f/1.8, which is nice, but it's really more of a portrait-type length on the 20D (which is not to say it's a bad lens for the 20D: I've taken a few very nice shots with it ... it's amusing to hand the camera with that lens over to a neophyte, and see them scratching their heads over the lack of zoom. ). I've seen a few reviews, which are a bit lighter on detail than I'd like, through googling; they all seem to think that it whomps all over the Canon 28mm, and there are suggestions (which I'm taking with a grain of salt for now) that it's better than even the 35mm f/1.4L, which surprises me somewhat. Given that the 35mm is near $2,900 Australian (RRP, so about $2500 street I would guess), though, it's nowhere near being in the running for my money in any case.

 

[jared_kipe]

The Sigma 30mm f1.4 is a good lens. Make sure you get a good copy
http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/30v35 He got a good copy
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_30_14/index.htm I don't think he got such a good copy

Buy it from sigma4less.com, and if it isn't aceptable tell them your copy is unaceptably soft. They'll send you a new one. I did so with the Sigma 24-70mm EX DG Macro, and the difference was night and day. The first copy was soft, very soft, wide open and wasn't good till like 5.6. But the second copy is so sharp wide open, better stopped down, that people might think it was a prime lens.

You could probably do this in a store too, go in and test every copy of the lens they have and see which one you want.

 

[ScubaDuc]

I did not read all the posts here so I might say something which has allready been said.
Here though is my advice:

- Get a Nikon. The thing you must look out for when buying a SLR or DSLR is the lens mount on the camera. Nikons have the so called F-Mount which exists since the 1950ies... on a modern camera body like the D200 you can use all the lenses that were made since ca 1977. Of course you will want to start with new lenses but it kinda shows the thought that has gone into the lens mount design (of course the design has been extended to allow for data transfer and such but mechanicaly it's the same as in the old days).

- True that a DSLR will always be better than a compact but that doesn't mean that you should buy the camera with the cheapest lens. Beginner or not but consider getting the 18-70mm f3.5-4.5. It is the best value for performance and still affordable. Don' get a 3.5-5.6 lens as these are really bad no matter what.

- The D50 is nice but consider the D70s. It allows you to grow much further into photography without having to buy a new camera body in 6 months. Furthermore the D50 is the only Nikon DSLR which doesn't use Compact Flash. So if you ever upgrade your camera body you will have to buy new memory cards which really is a drag. All others use CF Cards so there is no problem.

- I really don't want to start the flame wars here but do yourself a favur and don't get a canon. Go to a shop and hold the D50 or D70s and then the EOS 350 or 20D / 30D.
It's like Microsoft and Apple. One company put's love and thought into their product and the other just marketing dollars.

- Besides that: the chip inside the DSLRs is normally smaller than the size of film in an analog camera. that means that (on a Nikon DSLR) your 50mm lens becomes a 75mm one because the crop factor is 1.5. 20mm becomes 30mm and so forth.
Now: In the last 13 cameras that Nikon produced the sensor always has a crop factor of 1.5. Nikon calls this size "DX". go to a site like dpreview.com go get more info on that.
Canon on the other hand produces cameras that have sensors with different crop factors like 1.3, 1.6 and 1:1...
That is going to be a problem if you one day invest in some of the more expensive lenses and develop a strategy and then you buy a new body and all the factors of your lenses have changes. Suddenly all your lenses might slip more towards telephoto range or the other way towards wide angle...

That's all that I can say...
Again: I don't want to start a flame war here but I just feel that you get a better value with Nikon products. Them using a different card format on the D50 is a shame though.

Hope the info helps

Yes, you are right about the F-mount and Nikon is not about to change it, contrary to rumors posted. However, to say that lenses are compatible between bodies because they have an F-mount is a bit reductive. AI lenses don't really work with the D50/70/100, for example, as the exposure meter won't work. I have been using Nikon products for over 20 years and my lenses are still as wonderful today as they were then! However, I would prefer a native 36x24 CCD and I am also not too happy about the performance at high ASA. I spoke with both Nikon and Canon and they both admitted that film is still better in many applications, so I went with a Coolpix V scanner for my F3/F2

 

[kwajo.com]

^that's why I prefer Pentax's model of legacy support over everyone else's. On my dSLR I get full metering options and even focus confirmation with all old K-Mount lenses going back to the 70s, plus old M42 screw-mount lenses are equally supported! I still get to use my lenses from the 50s and 60s as if they were modern manual focus lenses. That to me is truly amazing and makes me glad I stayed with Pentax rather than switch to on of the other systems. Some of that old glass is incredible quality and would cost many times more to get modern equivalents.

 

[jared_kipe]

^that's why I prefer Pentax's model of legacy support over everyone else's. On my dSLR I get full metering options and even focus confirmation with all old K-Mount lenses going back to the 70s, plus old M42 screw-mount lenses are equally supported! I still get to use my lenses from the 50s and 60s as if they were modern manual focus lenses. That to me is truly amazing and makes me glad I stayed with Pentax rather than switch to on of the other systems. Some of that old glass is incredible quality and would cost many times more to get modern equivalents.

I've never understood why Nikon couldn't meter through their older lenses. Just doesn't make any sense, it sounds like they disabled it just to make people have to upgrade lenses.

 

[bousozoku]

Well, I don't actually have that particular lens: I've been weighing it up for a little while, and decided to hold off on the basis of reports of this (not to mention a short term lack of money) -- for instance, this review mentions it as pretty significant (although probably not as bad as the 75-300.)

Still, if the Sigma is better quality and cheaper, I see no reason to go the Canon route.


*nods* Yes, indeed. An f/1.4 standard lens would be a nice addition to the lineup; I have the 50mm f/1.8, which is nice, but it's really more of a portrait-type length on the 20D (which is not to say it's a bad lens for the 20D: I've taken a few very nice shots with it ... it's amusing to hand the camera with that lens over to a neophyte, and see them scratching their heads over the lack of zoom. ). I've seen a few reviews, which are a bit lighter on detail than I'd like, through googling; they all seem to think that it whomps all over the Canon 28mm, and there are suggestions (which I'm taking with a grain of salt for now) that it's better than even the 35mm f/1.4L, which surprises me somewhat. Given that the 35mm is near $2,900 Australian (RRP, so about $2500 street I would guess), though, it's nowhere near being in the running for my money in any case.

That review tells me that the lens was not coated properly. A shame considering the price. What were they thinking?

I remember selling a few 50 mm f1.2 lenses--Fuji and Canon, I believe, and the results were amazing. Hopefully, this Sigma lens will do as well. I can deal with lower light but I swore that I'd never use a flash and it seems that I almost never do without it these days. Thankfully, they've become a lot more useful, this one working up to 1/4000.

Hopefully, Sigma finds better quality overall, considering what jared_kipe is saying about softness. The last time I had one of their lenses, it was what I consider a throwaway lens but still, I expect better from the pinnacle, which is what this 30mm seems to be.

 

[jared_kipe]

Their EX series lenses are quite good, all groups have their quality assurance. If you read the first reviewer's comments about his 24-70 he says he had 3 copies of the Canon 24-70mm L and that the sigma is the sharper lens. That is what it is to achieve a good lens. When the lens you bought for $400 bucks is better than a lens that cost $1200. The Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DG is better than canon's 17-40 f4 L.

Hopefully the NEW Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG HSM Macro will be better than Canon's 70-200mm f2.8 L. That would rock, since the current generation is better at 70 but no at 200.

EDIT: All that said, I'll say it again SIGMA PUT HSM ON ALL EX LENSES. Thankyou.

 

[sjl]

The Sigma 30mm f1.4 is a good lens. Make sure you get a good copy [...]

Buy it from sigma4less.com, and if it isn't aceptable tell them your copy is unaceptably soft. They'll send you a new one.

Nice thought ... but that's a US company. I live in Australia. They don't mention anything about their shipping charges, so I have no choice but to assume that they won't ship internationally.

I'll certainly bear the rest of it in mind for when I do go out and buy, though.

And to NinjaMonkey (he says, belatedly dragging the thread back to the original topic): as a rule of thumb, you'll get a faster lens for your money if you're prepared to sacrifice the ability to zoom. Anything that's f/2.0 or faster will be a prime lens; you simply won't find many (if any) zooms faster than f/2.8, and you'll pay through the nose for those (although if you're serious about your photography, they're well worth the money). In sufficiently low light conditions, you're better off shooting with a fast prime (f/1.8 or faster), and cropping the end result if necessary.

I *heart* my 50mm f/1.8, and I look forward to adding the 30mm f/1.4 to the collection. Mmmm... fast standard lens ... excuse me, I have to go dry off my keyboard; I've been drooling all over it.

 

[jared_kipe]

Nice thought ... but that's a US company. I live in Australia. They don't mention anything about their shipping charges, so I have no choice but to assume that they won't ship internationally.

I'll certainly bear the rest of it in mind for when I do go out and buy, though.

And to NinjaMonkey (he says, belatedly dragging the thread back to the original topic): as a rule of thumb, you'll get a faster lens for your money if you're prepared to sacrifice the ability to zoom. Anything that's f/2.0 or faster will be a prime lens; you simply won't find many (if any) zooms faster than f/2.8, and you'll pay through the nose for those (although if you're serious about your photography, they're well worth the money). In sufficiently low light conditions, you're better off shooting with a fast prime (f/1.8 or faster), and cropping the end result if necessary.

I *heart* my 50mm f/1.8, and I look forward to adding the 30mm f/1.4 to the collection. Mmmm... fast standard lens ... excuse me, I have to go dry off my keyboard; I've been drooling all over it.

Sorry, don't know much about austrailian shops, I recommended sigma4less.com because they're CHEAP and a real store. Sigma makes a really bitchin f1.8 20mm. I wish I could go the prime rout. But once you add like a 85mm f1.8 and a 50mm f1.4 and a 20 something f something you're spending so much more money than my 24-70 f2.8 now granted you've saved 1-2 stops in light. But you have to swap all the time and you've spent like a grand in lenses already. My only prime at the moment is a 150mm macro from Sigma that I'm happy with. But if you look at my site sailbyair.com you'll see I used to have a Canon 28mm f2.8 lens. Though I don't have the review of my new sigma up I'd say from what I've seen its as sharp as that lens. Primes can be just as expensive, and a more complicated, rout to go with lenses.

 

[sjl]

Sorry, don't know much about austrailian shops, I recommended sigma4less.com because they're CHEAP and a real store. Sigma makes a really bitchin f1.8 20mm. I wish I could go the prime rout. But once you add like a 85mm f1.8 and a 50mm f1.4 and a 20 something f something you're spending so much more money than my 24-70 f2.8 now granted you've saved 1-2 stops in light. But you have to swap all the time and you've spent like a grand in lenses already. My only prime at the moment is a 150mm macro from Sigma that I'm happy with. But if you look at my site sailbyair.com you'll see I used to have a Canon 28mm f2.8 lens. Though I don't have the review of my new sigma up I'd say from what I've seen its as sharp as that lens. Primes can be just as expensive, and a more complicated, rout to go with lenses.

Don't sweat it; no doubt it'll be useful information to somebody else ($AU500 for the 30mm f/1.4 is damn cheap, and with shipping it'd still be less than most shops here ... sigh. Although customs might eat up a fair chunk of the savings.)

You're right that primes can be expensive, especially if you get a good range. However, shooting with zooms can make you lazy. What I want to do is get the 30mm and then go out driving to a few national and state parks I know. I intend to shoot lots of nice scenic shots, using nothing but the 30mm. Wide open, stopped down, you name it ... I aim to take a few dozen shots, without having a zoom to rest upon.

That, for a photographer, is a massive challenge. You have to actually think about your shots and their composition, instead of using the zoom to make up for poor positioning. A standard lens in particular (50mm on a 35mm body; 30mm on a 1.6 crop factor body) is a challenge, because the field of view is so close to that of the human eye.

I reckon I'll learn more shooting that way than I ever will using a zoom.

That's not to say that a zoom is a bad way to go. Just that if you want to learn, and learn well, you'll get greater benefit from playing with primes. Each to their own, of course.