Which sigma to pick at DVinfo.net

Rafael Lopes · November 29th, 2007, 05:54 AM

I 'm thinking about buying one of the following to use with a nikon 35mm adapter:

sigma 20mm f1.8 (about 300€)
sigma 24mm f1.8 (about 280€)
sigma 28mm f1.8 (about 200€)
sigma 30mm f1.4 (about 300€)

Has anyone used these? I really like the fact that the 30mm is f1.4...but it's no longer a wide angle. I have used the 28mm on the past and I really like it. The 20mm is also very appealing for some "epic framing". The 24mm is basically out of the game since I already have a 24-70mm f2.8.

I would love to see some footage if possible.

Rafael Lopes · November 29th, 2007, 07:25 AM

Just found out the 30mm doesn't have an aperture ring...so out of the game with it. I'm very inclined to go with the 20mm.

John Papadopoulos · November 29th, 2007, 08:11 AM

You will find some scientific tests on the following link, the mount if not important so check all mounts. Many Sigma lenses were tested:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

Rafael Lopes · November 29th, 2007, 08:40 AM

Thanks, John. Very usefull. I'm probably go with the 20mm.

Bob Hart · November 29th, 2007, 08:52 PM

The Sigma f1.8 20mm is good. You may find it a bit soft at f1.8 when you are forced to wide-open in low light but sharper at higher aperture numbers.

Don't let the sliding focus ring confuse you.

Outdoors at f4, I think you will like it very much, especially with sun behind cameraman during magic hour.

Absolutely important. To get the best out of this lens, or any wide-ultrawide lens on a 35mm, the backfocus ( or collimation?? ) to the groundglass must be spot on.

( Now the debate about why use ultrawides on 35mm adaptors and not use full open apertures is about to begin again. )

Andy Gordon · November 29th, 2007, 09:59 PM

Personally I think ultrawides are a waste of time on an adapter. I tried several including tamron 14mm and sigma 20mm and I had probelms with vignetting, soft image, focus is difficult to get right, the lenses are massive. If you stop down the depth of field is large which rather defeats the purpose.

At the end of the day I just wanted a useable super wide image and couldn't get one from ultra wide/adapter combo. Now I've got a Bolex Aspheron wide angle for my XH-A1 (about 16mm equivalent I think) which gives me a sharp super wide image with minimal distortion without any of the hassles associated with the adapter.

Bob Hart · November 30th, 2007, 12:41 AM

I forgot to mention, shooting direct-to-camera is a better option for the wide shots as you want absolutely the best resolution for those which you really should have.

But if you want a consistent look out of the box, then the wide lens through the adaptor gives you this. On the wide view adaptors like the Brevis, SGPro, you also get a bonus of a wider available view than offered by the wide-end of the direct-to-camera lens.

There is of course, the add-on wide-angle lenses for direct-to-camera imaging. These however may introduce barrel distortion or chroma issues unless you buy a good one.

You have to be the judge on whether expense of the ultra-wide is worthwhile and the final arbitor of the look you want.

Ted Ramasola · December 3rd, 2007, 10:30 AM

Bob

I agree with you that wide lenses should be closed down when possible. Heres a sample shot i took with a sigma 20mm f2.8 closed down to f5.6 cuz the sun was so bright. The wide fov presented by cheap wide 35mm lenses simply cant be achieved with WA adapters available for me. i go this route to achieve consistent look all throughout.
Ted

Bob Hart · December 3rd, 2007, 04:23 PM

Let me guess now.

A Morotai May-June sky, which-way featherlight breezes, cloud base not yet formed, probably about 9-30am. So at Bohol, might be your November-December, about the same time, facing west?

Even if I am wrong, it is a good reminder.

By your use of the 20mm f1.8, I am furthur guessing you have another adaptor besides your own medium format version.

Andy Gordon · December 3rd, 2007, 05:31 PM

Ted, the thumbnail looks nice but as I found you have vignetting and the image is very soft :P

Anyways each to his own :-)

Ted Ramasola · December 3rd, 2007, 10:54 PM

Bob

You are right! Hahaha! well, close around 10 am yesterday. Facing West!
And yeah your right again, i was testing yesterday a new adapter i made on my diy support rods.
So i wont hijack this thread i'll post a new one comparing it with my mid format adapter for your comments. You were so influential in the making of my adapters i want you to see the results of the new gg i used.

Andy,

your right on the softness and slight vignette, heres some of the causes.
1, I cheated on the zoom to get more area, i compromised on the TV safe areas.
2, I didnt bring with me my NDs so i had to step down to 5.6. the lens is a constant f2.8.
3, I was rushing to the seaside promenade get those clouds i didnt get the adapter propery aligned on my rods. these things have very small tolerances.
4, had no external monitor with me that time to get dead on focus which is so hard to get with a wide lens.

Ted

Phil Bloom · December 20th, 2007, 09:16 PM

I use my Sigma 20mm f1.8 all the time. look at my Kew Gardens short on my website to see how nice it can look. This was actually wide open most of the time. I should have stopped down a little to get it even sharper. Next time...

http://web.mac.com/philip.bloom/Bloo...14_Blog_5.html

November 29th, 2007, 05:54 AM	#1
Rafael Lopes Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Rio de Janeiro Posts: 1,240	Which sigma to pick I 'm thinking about buying one of the following to use with a nikon 35mm adapter: sigma 20mm f1.8 (about 300€) sigma 24mm f1.8 (about 280€) sigma 28mm f1.8 (about 200€) sigma 30mm f1.4 (about 300€) Has anyone used these? I really like the fact that the 30mm is f1.4...but it's no longer a wide angle. I have used the 28mm on the past and I really like it. The 20mm is also very appealing for some "epic framing". The 24mm is basically out of the game since I already have a 24-70mm f2.8. I would love to see some footage if possible.

November 29th, 2007, 08:52 PM	#5
Bob Hart Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PERTH. W.A. AUSTRALIA. Posts: 4,477	The Sigma f1.8 20mm is good. You may find it a bit soft at f1.8 when you are forced to wide-open in low light but sharper at higher aperture numbers. Don't let the sliding focus ring confuse you. Outdoors at f4, I think you will like it very much, especially with sun behind cameraman during magic hour. Absolutely important. To get the best out of this lens, or any wide-ultrawide lens on a 35mm, the backfocus ( or collimation?? ) to the groundglass must be spot on. ( Now the debate about why use ultrawides on 35mm adaptors and not use full open apertures is about to begin again. ) Last edited by Bob Hart; November 29th, 2007 at 08:57 PM. Reason: added text

November 30th, 2007, 12:41 AM	#7
Bob Hart Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PERTH. W.A. AUSTRALIA. Posts: 4,477	I forgot to mention, shooting direct-to-camera is a better option for the wide shots as you want absolutely the best resolution for those which you really should have. But if you want a consistent look out of the box, then the wide lens through the adaptor gives you this. On the wide view adaptors like the Brevis, SGPro, you also get a bonus of a wider available view than offered by the wide-end of the direct-to-camera lens. There is of course, the add-on wide-angle lenses for direct-to-camera imaging. These however may introduce barrel distortion or chroma issues unless you buy a good one. You have to be the judge on whether expense of the ultra-wide is worthwhile and the final arbitor of the look you want. Last edited by Bob Hart; November 30th, 2007 at 12:42 AM. Reason: error

December 3rd, 2007, 10:30 AM	#8
Ted Ramasola Trustee Join Date: May 2005 Location: Allen, Texas U.S.A Posts: 1,117	Bob I agree with you that wide lenses should be closed down when possible. Heres a sample shot i took with a sigma 20mm f2.8 closed down to f5.6 cuz the sun was so bright. The wide fov presented by cheap wide 35mm lenses simply cant be achieved with WA adapters available for me. i go this route to achieve consistent look all throughout. Ted Attached Thumbnails

December 3rd, 2007, 04:23 PM	#9
Bob Hart Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PERTH. W.A. AUSTRALIA. Posts: 4,477	Let me guess now. A Morotai May-June sky, which-way featherlight breezes, cloud base not yet formed, probably about 9-30am. So at Bohol, might be your November-December, about the same time, facing west? Even if I am wrong, it is a good reminder. By your use of the 20mm f1.8, I am furthur guessing you have another adaptor besides your own medium format version. Last edited by Bob Hart; December 3rd, 2007 at 04:24 PM. Reason: added text

November 29th, 2007, 07:25 AM	#2
Rafael Lopes Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Rio de Janeiro Posts: 1,240	Just found out the 30mm doesn't have an aperture ring...so out of the game with it. I'm very inclined to go with the 20mm.

November 29th, 2007, 08:11 AM	#3
John Papadopoulos Major Player Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Athens Greece Posts: 336	You will find some scientific tests on the following link, the mount if not important so check all mounts. Many Sigma lenses were tested: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

November 29th, 2007, 08:40 AM	#4
Rafael Lopes Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Rio de Janeiro Posts: 1,240	Thanks, John. Very usefull. I'm probably go with the 20mm.

November 29th, 2007, 09:59 PM	#6
Andy Gordon Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Perth WA Posts: 103	Personally I think ultrawides are a waste of time on an adapter. I tried several including tamron 14mm and sigma 20mm and I had probelms with vignetting, soft image, focus is difficult to get right, the lenses are massive. If you stop down the depth of field is large which rather defeats the purpose. At the end of the day I just wanted a useable super wide image and couldn't get one from ultra wide/adapter combo. Now I've got a Bolex Aspheron wide angle for my XH-A1 (about 16mm equivalent I think) which gives me a sharp super wide image with minimal distortion without any of the hassles associated with the adapter.

December 3rd, 2007, 05:31 PM	#10
Andy Gordon Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Perth WA Posts: 103	Ted, the thumbnail looks nice but as I found you have vignetting and the image is very soft :P Anyways each to his own :-)

December 3rd, 2007, 10:54 PM	#11
Ted Ramasola Trustee Join Date: May 2005 Location: Allen, Texas U.S.A Posts: 1,117	Bob You are right! Hahaha! well, close around 10 am yesterday. Facing West! And yeah your right again, i was testing yesterday a new adapter i made on my diy support rods. So i wont hijack this thread i'll post a new one comparing it with my mid format adapter for your comments. You were so influential in the making of my adapters i want you to see the results of the new gg i used. Andy, your right on the softness and slight vignette, heres some of the causes. 1, I cheated on the zoom to get more area, i compromised on the TV safe areas. 2, I didnt bring with me my NDs so i had to step down to 5.6. the lens is a constant f2.8. 3, I was rushing to the seaside promenade get those clouds i didnt get the adapter propery aligned on my rods. these things have very small tolerances. 4, had no external monitor with me that time to get dead on focus which is so hard to get with a wide lens. Ted

December 20th, 2007, 09:16 PM	#12
Phil Bloom Trustee Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: London UK Posts: 1,939	I use my Sigma 20mm f1.8 all the time. look at my Kew Gardens short on my website to see how nice it can look. This was actually wide open most of the time. I should have stopped down a little to get it even sharper. Next time... http://web.mac.com/philip.bloom/Bloo...14_Blog_5.html __________________ Philip Bloom Cinematographer, Director, Filmmaker www.philipbloom.net