Sigma 1.4 - 50mm or 30mm? quality dif?

3Ddeath · Nov 14, 2012

Hey, been in the market for a fast prime to replace the good old 50mm 1.8 on my T2i

The 30mm is a great focal length but seems to have some focus issues reported, the amount of them on sale on craigslist, ect has me worried!

The 30mm came out in 2005, the 50mm came out 3 years later, do you guys know if any improvements or fixes went into the the 50mm considering they had 3 years to work it out?

I also heard really good things about the newer 85mm, which is why i'm assuming they are getting a lot better with their fast glass lenses.

I know I could wait for the 35mm 1.4, but i'm worried It will be a bit pricy and might want one sooner, IE before Jan vacation.

PlanetStarbucks · Nov 15, 2012

If it were me, I'd go for getting a newer focal length rather then getting the same prime for a marginal increase in quality. Either the Sigma or Canon 50mm 1.4 are definitely better then the 1.8, but will it really be so much better then getting a different lens that opens up a whole new type of photography to you? I tend to doubt it.

3Ddeath · Nov 15, 2012

I'm thinking that too now! thanks for the response!

Maybe I can learn to use the 50mm 1.8 better for now, wait till something I really like comes out.

Currently my problem with the 50mm 1.8 is the autofocus, it will do an approx focus really quickly and take its time to fine tune its accuracy, I haven't figured it out how it works completely but I noticed this after finding out 25% of my photos taken in bright daylight were blury, most of them are ones I rush the shot and don't take my sweet time with its focus.

I used it some more last night and noticed the focus isn't really that accurate on some subjects, and gives blurry results wide open even if I try again and again.

I keep thinking a new lens can solve my problems, but maybe I should just learn the lens and get used to how it works, maybe use manual focus.

PlanetStarbucks · Nov 16, 2012

Hrm...well, actually what you just described might actually be a reason to jump up to the 1.4. If the gear is interfering with your ability to shoot, then it's worth upgrading. You might have a focusing issue with the lens itself, in which case the cost of repair probably wouldn't justify keeping it. I don't know, you just made it more complicated, lol.

AlexanderB · Nov 16, 2012

I've used 30 mm 1.4 on DX Nikon, a bit heavy but anyway great lens. 50 mm is not that universal on cropped sensor.

fjrabon · Nov 16, 2012

Decide what focal length you want before you worry about which particular lens you're going to buy. Comparing a 30mm to a 50mm or an 85mm is beyond silly. They don't serve even remotely similar purposes.

subscuck · Nov 16, 2012

3Ddeath said:
Currently my problem with the 50mm 1.8 is the autofocus, it will do an approx focus really quickly and take its time to fine tune its accuracy

You have to remember the 1.8 is a cheap (in every sense) plastic POS. Quite possibly the #1 complaint users have is the achingly slow and spotty AF performance, especially in low light shooting (which is what you want a fast prime for to begin with).

I used it some more last night and noticed the focus isn't really that accurate on some subjects, and gives blurry results wide open even if I try again and again.

See above comment. It's also possible your shutter speed is too slow.

maybe use manual focus.

Good luck with that. It's got the absolute worst, and worst placed, MF ring I've ever used.

I own both Sigmas you're inquiring about. I love them both. If you're looking for a normal perspective lens for a crop body, you'll want the 30. It's FOV will be = to 48mm. The 50, with it's equivalent FOV of 80mm, is in telephoto territory. Optically the 50 is better, but this has nothing to do with Sigma having "3 years to work it out". It's apples and oranges as they are two different lens designs. Canon has older lens designs that out perform newer lens designs. That being said, the 30 is still an excellent performing lens. In fact, it's on my 50D almost all the time. The only consideration is that the 30 is crop body only, while the 50 is crop or FF. That may be important to you.

Derrel · Nov 17, 2012

The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is a VERY LARGE 50mm f/1.4 lens...VERY big....very,very,very big for a 50/1.4...the largest 50/1.4 I've ever seen from any manufacturer. It's actually aimed at the Canon 50mm f/1.2-L market segment, and from the test reports and photos I have studied, the Sigma 50/1.4 EX is actually a slightly better lens than the Canon 50/1.2-L...the way I see it, the Sigma has better CA control, higher overall resolution, and better edge sharpness wide-open, and even at the wide-ish f/stops like f/1.8 and f/2 and f/2.2...and anecdotally, I hear it focuses a bit faster than the 50/1.2-L.

MY personal feeling is that a 50 is best used as a "stealth" or a "low-profile" lens...something small...discreet...not attention-getting....NOT a MASSIVE "hunk of glass" lens that will alarm every single person in a room, the way the 50/1.2-L and 85mm 1.2-L Canon lenses do...and that desire for a smallish 50mm lens makes the regular, high-quality Canon 50mm f/1.4 EF a fine 50mm lens for shooting candids and street stuff, and for photographing regular people (not model-types and not brides,etc). Buuuuut, if you want a BIG 50mm, the Sigma is large, visible, and seems to have pretty good performance.

Their 30mm is a neat lens. It's somewhat large as well...but there really are VERY FEW equally short and equally wide-aperture lenses in that 28 to 30mm focal length range...so...not many options,really.

The Canon 50/1.8 as subscuck states, is a very cheap, cheezy lens....I used to own one...Canon's 50/1.4 model is streets ahead in most all categories, and has very nice bokeh...I think the Canon 50/1.4 is the best 50 I've ever shot, and I've shot quite a few of them, from 1950's to 2000's era designs, f/1.4,f/1.8,f/1.7, f/2 models, Nikon,Pentax,Yashica,Minolta, Canon...the new 50/1.4 EF is a very well-balanced design.

Sw1tchFX · Nov 17, 2012

The Canon 50L is the only lens that makes me ever consider really buying into Canon...It is really the only reason why I ever use a Canon camera, it's just effin' butter. Amazing. It's the closest thing I can get to the Contax 645 shooting on 135 and I adore it.

Derrel · Nov 17, 2012

Sw1tchFX said:
The Canon 50L is the only lens that makes me ever consider really buying into Canon...It is really the only reason why I ever use a Canon camera, it's just effin' butter. Amazing. It's the closest thing I can get to the Contax 645 shooting on 135 and I adore it.

You like 'em big and buttery, dontcha????

What about the Canon 135 f/2-L...that's a nice piece of Canon glass...so easy to shoot!!!

Sw1tchFX · Nov 20, 2012

Too long dude, I don't want to be 30 ft away just to get full body and barely see the enviroment!

Derrel · Nov 21, 2012

Sw1tchFX said:
Too long dude, I don't want to be 30 ft away just to get full body and barely see the enviroment!

That's the whole IDEA behind the 135...it turns the "environment" into a whole mess of detail isolation shots and dreamy "fragments"...I shot a bunch of shots one night with the 135...loads of "memories", captured as small slices of the world...indoors, it is very angle-restricted at close ranges, but at more distance it is out of focus/in focus/then out, very fast, with a very narrow focus band and a very rapid transition to the OOF background...

You need to think of it as "your 50mm for 20 feet to 40 feet"...it serves a very similar place as your wide-aperture work MF on the 645...in fact it has a sort of similar look...I was looking at your tumblr recently...I think the 135/L would integrate very nicely for you, into that "look" you are so good at.

3Ddeath · Nov 22, 2012

Thanks guys!

Lots of good info here!
The more I use my 50mm 1.8 the more I realize I may need the 30 mm focal length on my crop after all.

Too bad canon doesn't make a good 30mm 1.4 lens that i can afford, I do agree that the sigma ones are a bit large and heavy.

It's also good to hear a lot of people have the 30mm sigma and like it a lot, I keep seeing them on sale on craigslist so i was a bit worried about their quality / performance.

Sw1tchFX · Nov 27, 2012

Derrel said:
Sw1tchFX said:

Too long dude, I don't want to be 30 ft away just to get full body and barely see the enviroment!

Click to expand...

That's the whole IDEA behind the 135...it turns the "environment" into a whole mess of detail isolation shots and dreamy "fragments"...I shot a bunch of shots one night with the 135...loads of "memories", captured as small slices of the world...indoors, it is very angle-restricted at close ranges, but at more distance it is out of focus/in focus/then out, very fast, with a very narrow focus band and a very rapid transition to the OOF background...

You need to think of it as "your 50mm for 20 feet to 40 feet"...it serves a very similar place as your wide-aperture work MF on the 645...in fact it has a sort of similar look...I was looking at your tumblr recently...I think the 135/L would integrate very nicely for you, into that "look" you are so good at.

I totally get where you're going with this, but 80mm on 645 is about equal to 50mm on 135, and if I were to go long, it'd be an 85 1.2 or 1.4.