Re: Sigma F/1.4 lens?
- From: Robert Coe <bob@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:09:05 -0400
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:32:38 GMT, "Robert Brace" <rlbrace@xxxxxxx> wrote:
:
: "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
: news:f65uob$bt5$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: > Robert Coe wrote:
: >> Has anyone here used the Sigma 30mm F/1.4 lens? B&H lists it for an
: >> arguably
: >> affordable price, accompanied by a few fawning reviews. Is it really that
: >> good? I find myself using my 400D a lot in low light, and I miss the 50mm
: >> F/1.4 on my old Nikon F2.
: >
: > If the fawning reviews come from buyers of the lens then you can instantly
: > derate the reviews by 25 - 50% in most cases.
: >
: > Having said that, even Sigma should get a FFL lens at least correct. The
: > one Sigma FFL that a friend of mine owns, the 180 macro, produces
: > outstandingly sharp/contrasty images. Well, he's also quite the
: > photographer, so that helps.
: >
: > Remaining issues would be build quality and long term compatibilty with
: > Canon bodies. ... Canon reputedly have a habit of making future bodies
: > incompatible with Sigma lenses. Sigma (reputedly) will reprogram your
: > lens once for free ... after that I suppose they will charge for the
: > service.
: >
: > f/1.4 does sound very tempting.
: >
: > Cheers,
: > Alan
: >
: > --
: > -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
: > -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
: > -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
: > -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch
:
: Interesting!
: I wonder how much one should instantly derate the reviews of those who have
: never owned nor used the lens, but still feel duty bound to "report" their
: "findings"?
: I own the lens and can report it solves the problem it was purchased for
: (low light, hand held) in an admirable fashion. It is sharp and, in my
: usage, free from other abnormalities save some minimal expected distortions
: appropriate to its focal length and subject choice.
: I shoot Nikon and its focus speed (with HSM on the D2 series bodies) is not
: bad although not up to the Pro AF-S Nikkors I also use.
: Build quality I would rate on a par with the recent Nikkor consumer lenses.
: Compatibility with future Nikon bodies, who knows, similarly the long term
: trouble free usage.
Thanks, I particularly appreciate the feedback from someone who actually owns
one. I read another 20+ reviews after I started the thread, and about half of
the reviewers griped bitterly about autofocus problems. Whether I buy the lens
may come down to whether I believe those problems are real or mostly
exaggerated. What makes me suspect that they may be exaggerated is that a lens
intended for use in poor light is bound to face a greater autofocus challenge
than, say, my 18-50mm F/2.8 zoom does. Has your lens been free of serious
autofocus issues? Do you find that you have to use manual focus a significant
percentage of the time? If so, is it more than a minor nuisance to focus
manually? An F/1.4 ought to at least provide a fairly bright image in the
viewfinder.
Bob
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Sigma F/1.4 lens?
- From: Floyd L. Davidson
- Re: Sigma F/1.4 lens?
- References:
- Sigma F/1.4 lens?
- From: Robert Coe
- Re: Sigma F/1.4 lens?
- From: Alan Browne
- Re: Sigma F/1.4 lens?
- From: Robert Brace
- Sigma F/1.4 lens?
- Prev by Date: Re: Did Canon buy the pro market?
- Next by Date: Re: Lens and kit suggestions, please...
- Previous by thread: Re: Sigma F/1.4 lens?
- Next by thread: Re: Sigma F/1.4 lens?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
