sigma 30mm f/1.4. good, bad, or meh?

[punch]

is that what he meant? i see. i thought he was suggesting i get a 50mm lens, but he was talking about that equivalent focal length.

the 30mm would be 48mm so i thought it'd be fine for portraits, right?

As long as you aren't too close to them.


Untitled Document

excellent, thank you.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Anything less than 50mm is not optimal for portraiture. And sensor doesn't change focal lens length.

 

[lonewolfsx]

I think everyone is missing a critical detail... that Sigma 30mm is for APS-C sized sensors only. So if you use it on your Full Frame 5D it's gonna have humongous vignetting.

However sigma does make full frame primes, the 20, 24, and 28mm f/1.8s are apparently awesome lenses.
Otherwise I've heard good things about the 28mm f/1.8.

Careful though, those shorter focal lengths will make your faces appear a little more distorted in unpredictable ways.

 

[TheBiles]

I think everyone is missing a critical detail... that Sigma 30mm is for APS-C sized sensors only. So if you use it on your Full Frame 5D it's gonna have humongous vignetting.

However sigma does make full frame primes, the 20, 24, and 28mm f/1.8s are apparently awesome lenses.
Otherwise I've heard good things about the 28mm f/1.8.

Careful though, those shorter focal lengths will make your faces appear a little more distorted in unpredictable ways.

She's got a 50D.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

 

[punch]

I think everyone is missing a critical detail... that Sigma 30mm is for APS-C sized sensors only. So if you use it on your Full Frame 5D it's gonna have humongous vignetting.

However sigma does make full frame primes, the 20, 24, and 28mm f/1.8s are apparently awesome lenses.
Otherwise I've heard good things about the 28mm f/1.8.

Careful though, those shorter focal lengths will make your faces appear a little more distorted in unpredictable ways.

He's got a 50D.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

she

thanks for the help... i'll give a couple of these a whirl and see which works best for me. i had a nikon d90 with a 35mm lens for a few days and i really enjoyed using that in the house, so i'm hoping i'll enjoy the canon version (or sigma) as well.

 

[lonewolfsx]

She's got a 50D.

Oops! Thanks for the empathetic correction, and in that case I've heard wonderful things about the sigma 30mm and the HSM is pretty awesome for fast autofocus, I like sigma's 28 1.8 but it's a little slow AF-wise and expensive. Sorry for the mistake Punch!




Goodness I want to go full frame so bad I'm hallucinating that everyone else has FF cameras! ....:blushing:
Edit: Always a good sign when I join a new forum and people don't attack me for an error. Cool points awarded!

 

[DScience]

is that what he meant? i see. i thought he was suggesting i get a 50mm lens, but he was talking about that equivalent focal length.

the 30mm would be 48mm so i thought it'd be fine for portraits, right?

As long as you aren't too close to them.


Untitled Document

WOW!

That website is WILD! I guess I never realized justhow much faces were distorted based on focal length.

 

[Derrel]

Notice too that the "angle of acceptance", or the angle of view shown behind the model's head, decreases substantially as the lens length is increased. Take careful note of the way the background paper is lighted in the wide-angle shots, and then look at the shots made with the longer and longer lenses; the angle of view BEHIND the subject is MUCH narrower in the telephoto shots. Much LESS background shows up as the lens gets longer and longer.

 

[lonewolfsx]

is that what he meant? i see. i thought he was suggesting i get a 50mm lens, but he was talking about that equivalent focal length.
the 30mm would be 48mm so i thought it'd be fine for portraits, right?

Untitled Document

WOW!
That website is WILD! I guess I never realized justhow much faces were distorted based on focal length.

Super interesting. I like the 100mm one the most in that comparison, obviously the wide ones are distorted (and thin), but the 200-300mm shots flatten and widen her face a little too much. Maybe for a few rare subjects you may want that effect. Actually there may be a few subjects (people with wider bodies and faces) where shorter lengths like 50 and 35mm may be advantageous.

As long as you aren't too close to them.

 

[hukim0531]

I purchased Sigma 30mm just for the purpose you described and loving it dearly. Some wide open shots of my kids.

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/dJyIjX6Cbmim9lHdiWiWQ0kvD-b7IsD-6M5mgGZMJO4?feat=directlink
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/MJBi87bfoIOakrEb-qH0gkkvD-b7IsD-6M5mgGZMJO4?feat=directlink
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/swl1vg26-WKWqbyO68E96kkvD-b7IsD-6M5mgGZMJO4?feat=directlink
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/8QXp94zpRscs2fRmUoSM3EkvD-b7IsD-6M5mgGZMJO4?feat=directlink



https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/8QXp94zpRscs2fRmUoSM3EkvD-b7IsD-6M5mgGZMJO4?feat=directlink
https://picasaweb.google.com/115519...key=Gv1sRgCPHB-4-utLT56QE#5734672247938192146

 

[RyanLilly]

I very much like the sigma 30mm 1.4, It is every bit as good as the Canon 50mm 1.4 optically, but built better than the canon. Great walk around lens. Fast and Sharp. I wouldn't do head shots with it, but its a really good lens all around, better than any of Canons cheaper 28, or 35mm lenses.