Sigma 30mm f.4 vs. canon 28mm f1.8?

[Bruce S. Yarock]

Anyone compared both of these? i'mn looking for a fast wide lens, and was wondering if anyone has tried both.
Bruce Yarock

[Ty Haegele]

I am assuming your meant "Sigma 30 1.4"? If so... I just received my copy from B&H and I love it. To answer your question fully, No I have not compared them.

[Bruce S. Yarock]

Yeah...1.4. (It's 4am here-yawn).
Have you tried the Canon 28 1.8?
I picked up a Canon 50 1.4 at a good price, and wanted something wider.
Bruce Yarock

[Jean-Philippe Archibald]

I am looking for exactly the same lenses myself.

Ty, How is the focus ring on the Sigma? Is it well damped and precise? Are you able to do smooth rack focus with it? A lot of AF lens tend to have a crappy focus ring (no resistance at all on certain lenses). How many degrees does the ring travels when you focus from close focusing to infinity?

Thank you very much,

[Liam Hall]

Neither of those lenses will give you a "wide" FOV on the 7D - you need at least 18mm for that - but they will both give you a good "normal" FOV.

[Brian Drysdale]

Given that this sensor is pretty close to a 35mm motion picture image, lenses with these focal lengths are pretty useful. They'd count in the film industry as being in the wide angle spectrum, the normal being in say the 40mm to 60mm range, although usually it's the 50mm in practise.

Although the wide "effect" tend to kick in around 25mm.

[Liam Hall]

Brian, technically a normal lens is one where focal length equals the diagonal of the film plane. In S35mm that would make it 28.48mm. But, if you define a normal lens as a lens that provides a perspective that approximates human vision, then in S35 format that is generally considered to be a 32mm, which I guess is why Cooke make one:)

Also, to match the angle of view of a 50mm on a full frame 135 format to S35mm 1.85 you'd need a 37mm lens. 50mm in full frame photography is actually a touch telephoto, 43mm is nearer to human vision.

[Jean-Philippe Archibald]

Interesting guys, but you are way off topic. Bruce is asking about opinion on lenses that are wider than his 50mm. He is not asking what is a normal lens...

Personally, I'm interested in the same lenses Bruce is looking for. I think that for video, the most interesting factor for a lens is the usability of its manual focus ring. In second perhaps how much the lens does breath. in third, the image quality.

[Liam Hall]

How is it off topic??

You need to know what a normal lens is before you can determine what a wide one will be!

[Jon Fairhurst]

I own the 28mm/1.8 and really like it. Photographers aren't as thrilled with the lens, because it's soft compared to the wide L lenses.

If you shoot panoramas for magazines, you can do better than the 28/1.8. If you shoot video, you don't necessarily need the best resolution. The bigger needs are for a flat field (minimum falloff and vignetting), a good focusing mechanism, and color that is consistent with your other lenses.

Personally, my main video lenses are the 85/1.8, 28/1.8, 50/1.4, and 200/2.8L - in that order. (The 200L is fantastic for photos, but I don't typically use a lens that long for narrative films.)

What I really like about the 28/1.8 is that its a perfect match for the 85/1.8 in color and feel. With such a wide lens, the focus mechanism isn't all that critical.

Falloff is smooth, losing about one stop in the extreme corners (on a 5d) at f/2.8 and above. On the 7D, falloff in the corners at f/2.8 and above is 0.4 stops. Wide open, it will lose less than one stop on a 7D. (It's closer to 2.2 stops on a 5D.)

For reference, falloff on the 24/1.4L II is surprisingly similar. Sharpness is superior, but how much lens do you really need for 2MP video?

Falloff on the Sigma is fairly similar as well. The lens is said to be poor when wide open. (I haven't used it.)

Personally, I'd go for the Canon. It matches seamlessly with other EF lenses, and is totally solid for video.

[Nate Haustein]

Originally Posted by Jean-Philippe Archibald

I am looking for exactly the same lenses myself.

Ty, How is the focus ring on the Sigma? Is it well damped and precise? Are you able to do smooth rack focus with it? A lot of AF lens tend to have a crappy focus ring (no resistance at all on certain lenses). How many degrees does the ring travels when you focus from close focusing to infinity?

Thank you very much,

The ring spins about 120˚ from close to infinity. The ring isn't as smooth as my canon L zoom lens, but it definitely feels solid, and has enough resistance not to move when you don't want it to.

Really like the FOV and DOF. It's just about perfect for shooting in close quarters - then again, I tend to favor slightly tighter shots. I'll attach some shots from yesterday using the Sigma. Short film, really run and gun and just for fun, for forgive me for the nasty-looking shadows on the face and such! (30mm, F1.4, ISO 400, natural light, no grading)

For how cheap it is, it's nice to have that open aperture when you need it, and I haven't really found any real problems with soft edges yet, though that focal plane is razor thin. As for the weight, it's a larger prime, but I almost prefer it for video work. I'm enjoying it, and overall I would recommend the lens for a 7D.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Liam Hall

Brian, technically a normal lens is one where focal length equals the diagonal of the film plane. In S35mm that would make it 28.48mm. But, if you define a normal lens as a lens that provides a perspective that approximates human vision, then in S35 format that is generally considered to be a 32mm, which I guess is why Cooke make one:)

It could very be the the technical reason, but traditionally in practise on 16mm film the 25mm is considered your "normal" lens, on standard 35mm motion picture the 50mm, although the 42mm does get talked about. Coming from a film background, I'd tend to regard a 35mm lens as a slight wide angle, and 25mm as a lens to go hand held walkabout. S35 does change things a bit, just as Super 16.

The 32mm is liked I suspect because it hits a sweet spot (which Zeiss didn't supply with their Super Speeds) , the 35 being just tad narrow at times. Cooke would've developed this mostly for use with non Super 35mm motion picture cameras (but with Super 35mm coverage). With super 16 with the 16mm is liked. The human vision could be the reason for the aesthetic appeal of the 28mm to 32mm range, although people have also shot feature films just using the 50mm.

I suspect stills photographers like a wider angle look, whereas a narrower angle look has become part of film. Perhaps it's because the human face is important in film story telling and you can see distortion effects even on a 35mm (or 16mm on Super 16) lenses.

[Brian Drysdale]

I believe it came from the sharp cone of vision that humans use in their eyes' angle of view. Film cameras can move (pan & tilt) to see a scene just as the human brain scans a scene.

[Liam Hall]

Brian, I'm from a film background too. Laugh at us discussing the 7D!!

FWIW I would consider the above posted images by Nate to be slightly wider than 'normal' but not 'wide'. "Wide' on the 7D would be more like 18mm or 20mm. What do you think?

I like the 30mm Sigma on the 7D and would recommend it, but I think the OP should also look at both the Tokina 11-16 and 16-50mm (obviously 11-16 is super-wide, but cool nonetheless). Also, don't rule out the Canon 17-55.

[Bruce S. Yarock]

After playing with the 7D for a couple of weeks, I decided to sell all of my Nikon gear and switch completely to Canon . Since I also shoot photography, I wanted to replace the Nikon lenses. The real benefit is that I'll now be able to use the new Canon lenses for photo or video.
After selling the Nikon stuff ( only 2 days on CL and dvinfo) I ordered the following:
Tokina 11-16 f2.8
Canon 17-55 F2.8
Canon 70-200 F2.8
Canon 50mm F1.4 (picked this uo used locally at a good price).
I also decided to order the Sigma 30mm F1.4 for its' width and speed. Since I bought the lenses at BH, I have 10 days to see if I like and want to keep the Sigma.
Tokina arrived yesterday (found it at buydig.com), and the other lenses will be here today.
I'll report back.
Bruce Yarock