Sigma 30/1.4 in action

i have that lens too and i love it for night shots and candids at house parties

good pics there.. they let you take pictures of the paintings and other art? when i was in london they didn't let us take pics in those kind of museums

 

I get a relatively low keeper rate with this lens, but that's because I usually pull it out under the harshest conditions I shoot under, (low, mixed lighting, often with a raised iso, with moving subjects).











(All but the third were shot wide open)

 

I really like to have a AL lens wider than my 50/1.4 but everytime I thought about the Sigma 30/1.4 I get doubts about ending with a Sigma typical bad sample :frown:
Not to flame Sigma but I have heard so much about bad samples, I wish Nikon would come out with new AL lenses...

 

Hmmm... I don't find these images compelling at all... I think I'm going to pass on the 30... though I was giving it some thought for awhile. What's the point of getting a 1.4 lens if it doesn't give good results wide-open?

Brian

 

Theses photos aren't really showing off the performance on the Sigma 30mm, it's an incredibly hard lens to use wide open because of the tiny depth of field, which is why I usually stop down to at least f/2.8 when photographing moving targets when possible. Out of all of Brent's wide open pictures, only number 2 seems to be in correct focus, and if he would provide a 100% of the kid's face you'll see how much detail is captured.

If you get the focus spot on, it's great wide open in the center, although a bit soft in the corners (still better than the Nikon 35mm f/2 is though when that's wide open, and clobbers it at f/2), stopped down to f/2.8 it's an incredibly sharp lens at a great focal length.

Regarding sample issues, I've only seen sharp samples of this lens around, and if yours is soft Sigma will recalibrate it for free.

 

Like I said, I get a rather low keeper rate with this lens. The softness in these examples isn't just from missed focus (although that is certainly an issue with this lens wide open) but also subject motion. For instance, the last shot was made using AutoISO at 1/30s. I wish I would have picked a faster minimum shutter speed, but I didn't.

The fourth one is a favorite of mine, which is why I posted it despite the lack of sharpness. I very much like the DOF available at 30mm with this lens.

Perhaps my shortcomings as a photographer aren't giving this lens a fair shake. If anyone is still interested in this lens here is a link to a 100% view of an image taken wide open.

I didn't post this one before, because I'm not happy with its colors. Incandescents with a fair amount of natural light from a window made it a tough one to get the right white balance. But looking at his eye, I do think it shows the amount of detail that my copy of this lens has wide open. For better or for worse.

 

I had the same experiences (very low keeper rate) with the one I had and tried. I wasn't even trying it in harsh conditions as Brent mentioned. Handheld shooting portraits above f/2 in a well lit room isn't what I would consider harsh.

 

The problem with making sweeping comments like that is someone may ask you to back it up with photographic evidence :wink: . I don't know of any lens that does its best wide open, but the 35/2 does pretty well af f/2. Here's some samples.



View attachment 93098

And here's one taken at f/2.2... nearly wide open.

View attachment 93099

OK, clobber away.

 

HA! Frank, I can't count the pictures I have of my Rocket blower, all taken at various lenses maximum aperture. Perhaps someday we should have a contest that consists of nothing but Giotto bulbs.

 

Let's do it! Giotto bulbs beat test charts, brick walls, or newspapers.

 

I suppose I should have used the 35 2 or the 30 1.4, but...

 

I'm not really trying to make a case for one lens over the other, I've never used the 35 f/2, so it wouldn't make much sense for me to try.
I don't have too many shots online using the Sigma at 2 or 2.2, but here's one at f/2:



Link to 100%, 3000x2000 image.*


*I've been having problem with my webhost lately. Hopefully this looks okay.

 

Nice job of putting the focus right on the kid's eyes, Brent. He like food! If he keeps it up, he's gonna be a first round pick offensive lineman ;-).

The Sigma 30/1.4 is an interesting lens. I wasn't trying to put it down... just being defensive about Weiran's comment about it clobbering the 35/2.

 

Thanks for the complement. And I can only dream about the first round pick bit. Because I have a feeling that we're going to be making a very large investment in his caloric intake over the next couple of decades.:wink:

No problem and I understand. I just wanted to give an example that was a little more apples-to-apples to the 35/2 examples that you provided and that I see in the other thread.

I have no particular emotional attachment to the 30/1.4. I really haven't shot with it all that much, as I'll use a zoom if I can get away with it. I do appreciate it's capabilities. I'm not sure if I would or wouldn't get a 35/2 if I had it to do over or not. I certainly can't justify the 28/1.4 for chasing my kid around the house.:wink:

I do think that in the right hands the 30/1.4 is a pretty capable piece of glass. I would love to have some other 30/1.4 owners post some examples in this thread for me to aspire to.

 

Frank: from what I've seen it does beat the Nikkor 35mm f/2 at similar apertures, but considering the size and cost it should do. The difference isn't huge though and I wish the Sigma focused as close as it did!

I'm not saying the Nikkor isn't a good lens - it is, but Sigma have managed to make a better one! Which is a rare occurrence.

 

That looks darn good to me Paulo.