File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hey /p/. I was the guy who asked about the Sigma 30mm f1.4 the other day. I bought it, and it rocks.

I only got it a few hours ago, so I haven't had a chance to take any decent photos with it, but I got one of it. Sexy lookin' lens, huh?
>> Vincent
ITs actually quite ugly, the lens hood makes it look decent, but its short and fat otherwise.

I have one, but it backfocuses, so I need to send it back, Test yours carefully. at F1.4 even slight autofocus innacuracies can stand out like a sore thumb
>> Anonymous
>>72223

I'll keep an eye out for it. It seems OK now, but I need to take it for a proper spin to see.

I actually quite like the look of it. I love the finish of the Sigma plastic - that matt, sparkly, slightly grey look. It's cool.

It feels like it's really solidly put together.
>> Anonymous
>>72222
Hey what camera do you have again? I forgot. Let us know if it backfocuses or anything... I hear a lot about that with the Sigma 30mm. I wish these things came with calibration knobs or something
>> Anonymous
>>72222

Hurry up and take photos with it!
>> Anonymous
Strangely enough, most of the complaints on backfocusing and/or uneven sharpness on 30mm Sigmas are from Canon users; versions for Nikon and Four Thirds seem to have less problems. Sigma haet Canon?
>> Anonymous
>>72244
Probably. But you can get Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM for only $300. Not an L lens but eh, you're pretty sure not to have focus probs.

Their 35mm f/1.4L is $1200 though. Ripoff, even for L lens.
>> Anonymous
>>72237
Maybe that's a good idea... I think these new servo AF lenses need to include test charts as well as some way for the end user to calibrate. I wonder if it is possible...I don't know much about optics or how AF systems work...
>> Anonymous
photos or it didn't happen
>> Anonymous
>>72246
A 50/1.x is not a good walkaround or normal or only or whatever lens on a crop sensor camera.

It's a great medium telephoto lens, especially with its speed for portraits, but I'm getting really sick of hearing people tell people to get 50mm lens when one would be totally inappropriate because "50/1.x is cruise control for cool!"

It is for people shooting 35mm film or full frame. For everyone else... no.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>72287
We tell everyone to get a 50mm prime because it's fast, cheap, and sharp. The 50mm f/1.8 is the best lens value available in both the Nikon and Canon system (unless you're shooting a D40). I also advise that they get something else for wide and normal focal lengths, but it's just silly to not have a 50mm f/1.8 (or f/1.4) to go along with it.
>> Anonymous
Yeah. Canon has a 35mm f/2 for around $235 and a 28mm f/1.8 for about $400. It seems like the 28mm f/1.8 is a better choice for Canon users than the Sigma in terms of having better quality at around the same price and still being around 30mm focal length.

Nikon users also have the 30mm f/2 at $299, the 50mm f/1.8 for about $99. Nice prices, but neither one works on a D40/D40x body. They will work on D80 and above though. I think OP had a D80.
>> Anonymous
>>72293
>50mm f/1.8 is the best lens value available

Except it's not, because medium telephoto primes don't see a huge amount of use in most people's shooting styles who don't do portraits a lot. Almost no one walks around with just a medium telephoto mounted on their camera.

A good and cheap lens you never use is still a bad value. If someone's work includes a lot of portraiture, or if they otherwise find themself using medium telephoto lengths a lot, by all means, get it. Otherwise, something shorter is needed.

>unless you're shooting a D40
Oh, no, of course not! Then they'd have to actually manually focus! The horror!

>>72294
What does the Canon 28mm look like? Because the shots I've seen from the Sigma 28 are extremely sharp, and if it surpasses that... well, then, wow.
>> Anonymous
>>72460

The Canon 28mm is really nice for the price - Just go look at sample pics from http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_28_18u
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>but neither one works on a D40/D40x body
they *will* work, just MF only, but its not the end of the world.
>> Anonymous
OP here. The fucking Sigma is front-focusing! I did a shoot with it this morning, and if I hadn't closed the lens up a bit they would have been fucking unusable. They've got shit focus, but I can probably get away with them...

Anyway, now I have to send the fucking thing in to get fixed. Fucking fuck.
>> Anonymous
>>72237

I'm using it on a Nikon D80.
>> Anonymous
>>72485

OP here again. Again again. Got it replaced with a new one. The new one is still front-focusing, but only a little tiny bit.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>72460
>Except it's not, because medium telephoto primes don't see a huge amount of use in most people's shooting styles who don't do portraits a lot.
Take two steps back. Voila, same field of view as a normal.

Seriously, my 50mm is probably my second-most-used lens after my stalker telephoto. I'll switch to my 35/2.0 if I'm in a situation where taking two steps back isn't an option (e.g., small rooms), but the 50 is my go-to lens whenever the sun goes down.

>>72496
ITT reasons I'm a bit uncomfortable with the idea of buying third party lenses for my Canon.
>> Anonymous
>>72524

Agreed. 50mm is a good focal length. They're so cheap and and light anyway might as well have one in the camera bag.

The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is notorious for focusing problems. Just about everyone I know who has owned one had to send it back for fix/replacement. Why can't they get this crap right in the first place?
>> Anonymous
>>72524
> Take two steps back. Voila, same field of view as a normal.
That just stupid, of course you can move around, but the reason why anyone would want a normal lens in the first place is because what you see is what you get. You don't have to think about lens, you spend much less time framing and moving around.

And 30mm (75 - 45) is a lot more than just two steps. It's a huge difference.
>> Anonymous
>>72496
I thought that mine does that too, but I understood that my focusing technique was flawed..

How did you test it?
>> Anonymous
>>72524
> ITT reasons I'm a bit uncomfortable with the idea of buying third party lenses for my Canon.
More like reasons why closed hardware is bad.. If I'm not mistaken then Canon has said that they won't license the mount to anyone.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>72533
Meh. Given the quality of it (just about the sharpest lens out there, 'cause 50s are so easy to make), and the speed (mmmm f/1.8) and the price ($75 street price for Canon's, new), the fact that it's a bit on the telephoto side really isn't a big problem.

Do you actually own a 50mm and never use it, or are you just assuming you'd never use it because it's a moderate telephoto?
>> Anonymous
>>72536
50mm F1.8 was the first lens I bought, besides D70 kit lens (18-70mm). And I did put it to good use, but most of the time I kept using the kit lens. Later I sold the 50mm and got this Sigma, almost haven't used 18-70mm since then. Actually recently I listed 18-70mm for sale.. So there.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>72540
Fair enough. Just keep in mind that you are not all photographers. One of the reasons the 50/1.8 gets recommended so frequently is that they are spectacularly useful to a great many photographers. I certainly wouldn't recommend it as someone's only lens (and, in fact, have loudly disagreed in threads where people were all "Don't buy the kit lens. Just get a 50/1.8") or as a normal or a walk-around lens (although it's not bad for street photography if you don't have Garry Winogrand levels of confidence and like to keep a few extra paces back), but it's a damned useful lens, cheap as hell, and just about the lightest lens available for Nikon or Canon, so it's a good lens to have to augment your kit.
>> Anonymous
>>72550

Ze 50 can only do so much.. I got mine to take shots at a couple of weddings. I took the 18-70 along with me and all I did was use the 50. Recently went to a Rally Car race and only used the 50. Was much fun. But you do need to change over to something else every now and then.
>> Anonymous
>>72553
Yeah, I have two lenses - Nikon 18-200mm VR and Nikon 50mm f/1.8. That's really all I ever need, but I use my 18-200mm for the most part, and take out the 50mm f/1.8 only when details and low light performance matter (portraits, receptions, night, etc) It's great in bright light too - stopped down it is sharper than my 18-200mm. But truthfully, the 18-200mm is more versatile and useful in general.

If I could keep only one lens it would be my 18-200mm VR.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>72550
i think on of the main reasons ppl get the lens, is not that because its so essential as you make it sound like, but because its so damn cheap.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>72561
Right. It's not *essential*, it's just that the value-to-cost ratio of the thing is so high that there's no good reason *not* to own one.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>72562
heh, i didn't really need it when i got my first 50mm f/1.8D, but one other point you kinda make, you do fall in love with it very quickly.
>> Anonymous
Lol Anonymous.

I was the original challenger of the 50mm length on crop sensors ITT, but the other guy took it over tolerably.
>> Anonymous
>>72534

I auto-focused on one point of a ruler on my desk. Had a look at the shot in PS and the lens had focused a few centimetres along the ruler in front of where I'd aimed it.
>> Anonymous
>>72531

It's a real shame they didn't get it right first time around. Apart from the focusing issues it's a really nice lens. Good build quality, large aperture, good bokeh, good colours, and wherever it ends up focusing is quite sharp.

None of that matters if your subject is a formless blob, of course.
>> Anonymous
>>72579
And none of it matters if you shoot any brand except Canon.
>> Anonymous
>>72583

Pfft.