I used to own the old version, and my biggest problem was not that it was always soft, but that it slightly missed focus sometimes which made it soft. It was never super sharp at f/1.4, but most lenses are not. AF is so far is not even offered in most DSLRs and thus I would not worry about the softness from missing focus. As far as general softness, video in DSLRs resolves significantly less resolution than photos thus making the sharpness less of an issue.
You may consider the Canon f/2 IS for video (if you shoot Canon) if you are hand holding the lens and need IS and don't need with wider aperture. Otherwise, go with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 if you shoot with crop cameras only or go for the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 if you think you will ever be using a full frame camera. If you shoot Nikon, I would go with the Sigma lens for video and photo.
I wasn't able to do a side by side but I would say it would be worth it to save for the new one. It will hold the value longer, take a beating, and stand a better chance of working with the new camera bodies. It also supports the new Sigma dock which allows firmware upgrades. Plus, it did seem a bit sharper with a faster/quieter focusing motor. As I remember, the old 30mm f/1.4 was fairly loud when focusing.
Well, you probably still want a zoom lens so if you are going to trade it, consider the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 as an upgrade to the kit lens or the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 which I just reviewed. I would definitely add the Sigma 30mm 1.4 to my kit (unless you get the 18-35mm 1.8 in which case you won't need it) to compliment a zoom lens but I always recommend at least 1 decent zoom lens and 1 wide aperture prime lens (the new Sigma 18-35 1.8 does both!) to start your lens kit. All work well with the T2i
I used to own the older 30mm model and thought it was a great lens. However, Sigma has really stepped up their game with the Art series. It has way better built quality, looks amazing, and has top notch fit and finish. On the quality side I felt it was better as well but I didn't have the old version to directly compare. The resale value on the new Art series will most likely be way higher than the old versions too because of the build quality.
I had no problems with the 18-35 right out of the box. On older Sigma lenses, they were hit and miss but all the new ones I have had (the 18-35, 30mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4) performed awesome right out of the box. If you are shooting video hand held, stabilization is probably important. For video, my setup usually involves a Manfrotto fluid monopod with a fluid head and I have no issues with needing stabilization. For photos at wide angles with wide aperture lenses, stabilization is not as important.
Couple things, You can do firmware updates on the lens which is huge. Also, you can fine tune to focusing on the lens if the lens more so than you can on the camera body, and you can limit the focus distances if you wanted which could be great for sports or wildlife photographers who know they will never be focusing on anything closer than 50ft for example. You can also adjust the focus of zoom lenses at multiple points in the zoom range separately for super accurate focus adjustment.
I used to own that lens and sold it when I upgraded to full frame cameras. It was a very good lens. I have not been able to compare it side by side, but to the best of my ability having shot with both, the new one is better, but only slightly. I did hear reports that the quality of the old 30mm was hit and miss and some complained about soft images. But mine was sharp. Sigma seems to have upped their game lately at quality control. If your version is good, I probably would keep it.
Yes, I would either get the 30mm prime or the 18-35 range. I know the 30mm 1.4 is cheaper but the 18-35mm was an awesome lens ( I have a review of it) and probably worth it. The 18-35 was a much longer lens though so make sure you do not mind the extra size/weight.
Yes, both the Sigma 30mm & Sigma 35mm 1.4 work great on the Canon 700D. If you are not planning on getting/renting/borrowing a full frame camera, you might save some money and go with the 30mm 1.4. It's just as good as the 35mm 1.4, it just will not work on full frame cameras like the Canon 6D or 5D Mark III. Or check out my review on the new Sigma 18-35mm 1.8. It's an AMAZING lens and might be a better option for you for about the same price as the Sigma 35mm 1.4
I'm not seeing issues so far with the lens. It has been great. The Sigma 35mm 1.4 has almost no issues with it and I have been using that for several months now.
The lens is not large enough to cover a full frame sensor so you will see black around the outside of the image. Plus, the image will not be sharp as you move away from the sensor. Although, the Nikon D800 & D600 can use this lens because it shifts into a crop mode that only uses the center portion of the frame covered by the lens. Of course the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 will work on both a full frame camera and a cropped sensor camera.
I really like this lens for video. The autofocus works great. However for still photos, the autofocus is seems to be hit or miss at anything wider than 2.8
Probably, I rarely shoot at a wider aperture than f1.8 anyway (even when I have a 1.4 lens) so I would probably prefer the zoom range. The 18-35 is an AMAZING lens. I have a full review on it and it rocks. The only downside is that it is much larger than a 35mm prime. You can check out samples of the 18-35 on my website, LearningCameras
If you want to shoot video in daylight at f1.4, you will need a ND filter. Unfortunately the cheap grad filters suck and the good ones are $200-300 starting. If money is a concern, just by a .6 or even .9 fixed ND filter which are around $30-50 starting for a decent one, and use your ISO to fine tune your exposure.
Good job Dan! I have it since 4-5 years and I think that it's a forgiven lens from sigma to APSc, practically the same quality than most expensive 35mm FF.
For the zoom lens, I would actually consider the Sigma 17-70 f/2.80f/4 OS Macro. It gives you Macro, a great zoom range, wider aperture, sharper images, and great build quality. A great all around lens. Look for a 70-200 f/4 used/refurbished if you need more zoom. For the prime, both are good choices. The Sigma is sharper and newer than the Canon though. The 50 would be better for portraits but the 30mm better for general purpose. Of course the Sigma 17-70 is a good portrait lens as well.
For video, I would stick with the older version most likely since you are not using AF and the sharpness of the old version lens is way sharper than the resolution that DSLR video can resolve. For photographers, I would get the new one. However, I bet the resale value of the new one if you sold it in a 2-5 years would be at least $100 higher than the old one thus making up most of that difference in price.
I think so. I had the old one and although I was very happy with it, the new one has better build, a quieter AF motor, sharper image, and will have better resale. Well worth the $100
It is good but not great. I used to own that lens and it is a decent lens for the price...nothing else comes close for under $800+. However, I might consider the new Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-f4 OS lens just because it is way sharper and you won't take a huge hit on the aperture and pair it with a 30mm or 50mm f1/8 or 1.4 prime lens for a really wide aperture. The Sigma 17-70 also has better stabilization, quieter focusing, longer focal range, and better build quality.
Yep, great combo. I love the 30mm lenses on cropped sensor cameras such as the 70D and the Sigma is just about the best you can get...especially considering the price. For video though, you might also consider the Canon 35mm f/2 IS lens. It was way too expensive ($800 I think) when it first came out to make sense but Canon has dropped the price low enough to make it an interesting consideration at around $550. I have a review on that lens as well.
That is almost always true and the 18-35 by Sigma is one of the few exceptions. I'd say the Sigma 18-35 is about 1/3 a stop worse in sharpness than the Sigma 30mm 1.4 so the Sigma 18-35 at f1.8 looks like the 35mm at f1.6. And really, to see that, you need to be pixel peeping. The Sigma 18-35 was good at 1.8, great by 2.2, and amazing by 2.8
The Sigma. There really is nothing better about the 28mm Canon except that it works on full frame cameras I believe. The Sigma will be sharper, have a wider aperture, and better build.
Nice circles! Some lenses though you can see what is referred to as Onion Bokeh where there are concentric distracting circles inside the Bokeh circles. My Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC does this a bit.
I’ll definitely take a look at your channel. When I do rent, I typically rent from lensrentals though I have also rented from borrowlenses with great results too.
Hi, I also run a photography company and we are always testing out new gear so much of it I own and use for that. These reviews just give me an excuse to purchase the gear when it first comes out. Some of it I also rent though. No sponsors thus far.
Yes, it is worth the upgrade. I did like the my old Sigma 30mm but the new one is sharper, faster to focus, quieter, and built better. Plus it will have way better resale should you chose to sell it if you upgrade to a full frame camera.
Thanks for the review! I ordered it from the importer in my country and was waiting for some reviews before it gets here. I heard exactly what I wanted to hear. Thanks again!
I have a canon t2i with a 18-135mm kit lens - quite nice, versatile lens, but I've been always looking for that shallow depth of field effect and also I think I'm more into filming than actually photographing; Would changing the 18-135 for the sigma 30mm be a good choice?
I have read though that the focusing ring is alot better on the new one, and for that reason alone it is worth spending a little extra for the new one for video.
Good review, you seem to be getting better with each review. Your daughter is also an angel and a lovely child. Keep up the good work and thanks for sharing.
I'm having an issue with the noise the lens make when in autofocus whilst filming a video. It's really loud and when I playback the footage on my laptop it's extremely noticeable. Do you know if there is a way to fix this issue? I read something about setting the lens to HSM? However, I don't see any options on the lens itself and i'm super confused. I'm currently using a wireless mic but it would make life so much easier if I could just mount my rode mic on top of the camera but even then the camera picks up the lens noise!
HSM means high speed motor and Canon uses this term in some of their lenses but it doesn't really take away noise. You would need to you a Canon lens that says STM which is their silent motor lines. Unfortunately most of Canon's STM lenses are not great but the good news is they will be silent in video. One option would be the Canon 50mm F1.8 STM: bhpho.to/2bb2oyc. Again, not nearly as good as the Sigma 30mm but silent. Canon has some general zoom lenses as well that are STM. What you are experiencing is completely normal though and nothing is wrong with the lenses. All lenses make noise, some more than others, and the only lenses that don't are the Canon STM line so unfortunately nothing you can do to make your current lenses less noisy.
There are still noise coming from the 50mm STM. I bought it and returned it. The kit lenses and 10-18mm STM are silent. The 50mm and the pancake lens will have a little noise.
I am having the same issue, i strangely found the 50mm 1.8 to be the one that makes the more noise. I will try to see if a clip mic will make the whole thing better
This is exactly what I have been waiting for! Really wonderful review, as always, and covers what I have been wanting to know! I have a Nikon D7100 with 50mm f/1.8g and a 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5g. Both are OK indoors. I am thinking this 30mm 1.4 would be a great addition and probably stay on my camera as a normal walk around lens. I am hesitant to buy 3rd party lenses but seems like this won't disappoint me. How's your experience with chromatic aberration? That made me return Nikon 35mm 1.8g.
amazing review ! thanks Dan I own 35mm art but now after your review thinking of switching to this 30mm just because of smaller formfactor. Im on full frame btw. will it perform as good as 35? my old nikkor f1.8 35mm dx was giving me annoying vignetting, so im wandering how this 30mm will do. 35mm 1.4 art sharpness is just ridiculous :) never seen anything like it
Thanks Alec! So this lens is specifically for APSC crop sensor cameras so you will not want it if you shoot full frame. It has extremely good quality though for the price but still just below the 35mm. That lens is ridiculously awesome!
URGENT QUESTION: I want to use this lens for my lookbooks, which are shot outside in video in the sun. Would this work for outdoor video filming in the sunlight? Would I need some kind of filter in addition to this lens? I want the camera to focus on me and blur the background entirely. Also, can I use it on autofocus or would I have to switch to manual? THANK YOU SO MUCH! New subbie!
Thanks. Yes, you are definitely going to need an ND filter. You can get a single ND filter to block light and you will have several choices in how much light they block out. I would probably get a 0.9 ND if you are shooting in sunlight to block out much of the light. You can get a variable ND filter (although a decent one can run you $150+) that will allow you to change how much light you will block out. This lens has a 67mm filter diameter so you will want probably a 67mm 0.9 ND filter though you may check out your other lenses because if you have a lens with a larger diameter (72mm and 77mm are popular), I might buy a 77mm ND filter and get a 67mm-77mm step up ring to make it fit on the Sigma lens. You can still use autofocus (if your camera has good AF) and will want to shoot your video in manual mode with your aperture set wide (f1.4-f2.8) and try to get your shutter speed to somewhere between 1/30-1/60. ISO can be anything. Here is a decent ND filter: www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/58714-REG/Tiffen_67ND9_67mm_Neutral_Density_ND.html/BI/19484/KBID/11716/kw/TIND.967/DFF/d10-v2-t1-xTIND.967
TONS better. Hints why the new Art series of lenses are gaining ground. They may have a small premium tag on them but they are well worth the money. I would pair this with the 18-35mm f/1.8 and the 35mm f/1.4 so you have all three of their Art lenses. The 35mm becomes like a 50mm so you can swap between the 18-35mm and the 35mm to have a good focal range :D
Yes and no. Most of the extra cost is to make it full frame comparable which means a ton more glass but also much larger and heavier which is not ideal unless you are shooting full frame or plan to soon. That said the build quality on the 35mm is better and it has slightly better optical performance. But unless you were planning on getting full frame soon, I would get the 30mm. bhpho.to/2q9c8k1
Absolutely. Although you might consider the Canon 35mm f2 IS if you will be using it more for video: amzn.to/1zREOgh The Canon has dropped a ton in price and I value image stabilization more for video but I would go for the Sigma if you do mostly photography as the wider aperture would be better.
Hey! I'm renting it out from borrowlenses and will be recording in low light, and decided to grab myself a glide cam hd2000 so I can get smooth stabilization. Good move?
I just bought this lens used and I'm noticing tons of green longitudinal CA at f/1.4, green circles around anything shiny (sequins, for example), and magenta and purple CA on all the contrasting edges of background objects. How can I tell if this is just something I need to calibrate out or if it's a flaw with the lens?
Thank you, I have another question. I'm considering getting a new camera and I'm thinking about the Canon 60D. Now I'm not sure whether I should get the Sigma 30mm or the Canon EF 50mm for portraits and general purpose. I'm also getting the Canon 18-200mm so I have a zoom lens, too. Which one of the two (30 or 50mm) would you recommend?
Any difference optically then the refresh that Sigma did about 3 years ago with the subdued black Sigma 30 1.4? I have the previous version of that lens and i find it extremely good too.
LearningCameras.com can u please do a comparison betweem the Sigma 30m f/1.4 vs the Cannon 50mm f/1.4? I would love to know which one is a better sharper lens? Thanks
I own the Canon 50mm 1.4 as well and the Sigma is definitely sharper. The 50mm while a great lens for the price is a bit old and the newer lenses (like this Sigma 30mm) certainly are better looking, better built, and sharper. However, the Canon will work with full frame cameras as well which the Sigma will not. Performance wise though, the Sigma does win.
You said that it has a very smooth Bokeh, so does that mean you will be able to nice circles in the background or will it be all blurry? because I usually really enjoy circle bokehs when I shoot portraits.
The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM Art Lens suffers from serious chromatic aberation. Even stopping down does not help much. Also, corner sharp wide open shows low sharpness. I find the need to close down the iris to F4.0 to finally sharpen the edges. In due respect, your review is way too optimistic. Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM Art Lens
This lens has too much C.A. (Color Fringe) as I saw on your video. I doesn't seem controlled as in others Art lenses. Can you tell more about It, please? Thanks!
Daniel, I received my lens recently and it's a bit soft at 1.4. I'm also experiencing some back focusing issues pretty often. I looked at your full res samples, were they shot in JPG or RAW? Thanks :)
If you plan on shooting wide aperture, it sure is. The Sigma is super sharp at f1.6-1.8 while the Nikon has a sweet spot closer to 2.8. That extra stop of light could make a difference for you. It is also built a little bit better. It isn't going to be a night and day difference, but you will notice improvements.
Important to note: On a canon APS-C body, an f1.4 lens gives results that are equivalent of f2.2 on a full frame body. You have to multiply the crop factor with the aperture.
***** When it comes to DOF, yes you do need to multiply by the crop factor (but that's not what we are talking about)...when it comes to light, not really. I get that technically the light received by a smaller sensor is less than the light from a full frame sensor, but the fact remains that manufactures ALREADY account for this. Thus, take a light meter to your APS-C and a 35mm f1.4 set to the same settings as your full frame camera with a 35mm f1.4...you will get the EXACT same exposure. This is because manufactures already boost light levels in camera to match. You can argue that they shouldn't do it this way but the fact is they do so honestly, you really don't have to multiply by the crop factor with the aperture since the result is already compensated for. The fact is your 30mm f1.4 will act as a 30mm f1.4. Throw the same lens on a full frame camera and the light level will be the exact same. I know someone made this idea popular with a youtube video and technically it is true but since it's already accounted for, it really doesn't matter and is probably not important to note.
LearningCameras.com You agree that the DOF is different. It is different in magnitude to the crop factor. So, that's fine. You also agree less light hits the sensor (since the sensor is smaller). So, I'm not sure where the disagreement is. They boost the exposure, but that means more noise. Everything you described is what happens when you stop down the lens in aperture priority mode: The exposure gets boosted by ISO (or shutter speed). The ISO is boosted by the square of the crop factor, in fact. I can agree that the difference isn't necessarily huge, but it is real, and it is worth mentioning. Especially since everyone talks about the effective focal length. There's no reason to talk about one but not the other, except to let camera producers get away with selling slower glass. If you want the same pictures as a Sigma 35mm, f1.4 on FF, you need an APS-C lens that is 22mm f0.9. That's calculated for a Canon crop body, which is x1.6. I liked the video, though. Sorry if this is a bit off topic for the specific review this was. :-)
Thanks a lot Dan Watson. I was looking for a great review like the yours. I was totally wondering and very concerned about how lens to buy to boost my photography options. I have a 50 1.8, nice lent but the focal length is not nice for portrait. I had the Nikkor 35mm and was very useful. I really appreciate your review and recommend for all of my friends.
Planning to get this lens because of the great quality. I have the 50mm 1.8g already but I do not like it as much because my camera is a crop sensor cam which makes the lens look like 80mm on my camera. This lens will be great but it is about $100 more than the older version. Can you compare the older and the newer version for me? I like the pros and cons. Thank you so much for a great video!
Basically, the new version is sharper, has nice bokeh, faster and more accurate AF and better optical performance. Also the older Sigma lenses were noted to have some quality issues with AF, and back or forefocusing issues were kind of common, which the new lens lines such as the 30mm f/1.4 Art don't have. For $100 more, I'd say the Art is worthwhile.
The Baking Bomb Yep, will work perfectly for video though you might also consider the Canon 35mm f2 IS for video because it has stabilization: goo.gl/ZP0vky
+The Baking Bomb Both are great lenses. The Sigma used to be my favorite but now that Canon has dropped their price from around $800 to $600, the Canon ranks a bit higher for me. If you already have f2.8 zoom lenses, I would go for the Sigma but if you are mostly just using kit lenses right now, the Canon 35mm f2 IS might be a better choice. What lenses are you using now?
+The Baking Bomb Ok, I might lean towards the Canon then. Having a max aperture of f2 would still be a drastic improvement over what you have, I prefer 35mm to 30mm anyway, and the stabilization never hurts. Plus the Canon will offer you better resale and works for full frame cameras if you ever upgrade/rent/borrow one. It's on a pretty good sale as well: www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898726-USA/Canon_5178b002_EF_35mm_f_2_0_IS.html/BI/19484/KBID/11716/kw/CA352ISEF/DFF/d10-v2-t1-xCA352ISEF
CAN YOU MAKE A VIDEO USING THE LENSES?! :DDD thats why i want to purchase it, to make videos and get that nice blurry background. i didnt know it took great photo which is a plus but i really want to see it video wise. thank you!
I'd like to know if this lens is worth double the price of the Nikon DX 35MM if you don't need the 1.4. You won't be shooting portraits with a 30 Thoughts?
Scott Morey If you don't mind the cheaper build quality, the Nikon 35mm is a fine lens for the cost. It's very plastic feeling by comparison and not super sharp at f1.8 but by f2-f2.8 things look very nice so if you don't need the super wide apertures, it should work well for you.
