20mm f1.8 for my 7D...

J

Jean Dantes

Well-known member
Hey guys, I currently own a Sigma 30mm f1.4 (48mm after crop) and use it with my 7D. I wanna go wider and have set my sights on the Sigma 20mm f1.8 (32mm after crop).

I was just wondering, is the 20mm gonna give me a much wider field of view then the 30mm??
 
Thanks for the reply :)

Well, I guess what I'm really trying to ask is - is it worth buying the 20mm if I already own the 30mm?

The 20mm also has macro...which is an added bonus...
 
Jean, I have that lens on my t2i and it is a good deal wider than my 28mm Zeiss. It's a pretty good lens but a bit soft wide open. I figure inside if it is dark, I'll still take a semi-soft image over an under exposed image. Once you get to the mid f stops, it's pretty darn sharp.

I picked it up used at KEH.

I figure in order to cover the primes we need a 20mm on crop camera which is close to 35mm "normal" wide, a 28 or 35mm gets us a "normal" 50mm and a 50mm gets us close to an 85mm portrait lens.

I should have some footage cut this week using the Sigma 20 on a recent shoot. I'll keep you posted.
 
Jean Dantes said:
The 20mm also has macro...which is an added bonus...
Click to expand...

Keep in mind, though, that because of the short focal length, you'll literally have to get up close and personal with your subject. For macro shots, this is not always the best thing because your own shadow will get in the way, or your subject may object to it's personal space being invaded (i.e. insects might fly away).
 
Thanks for the insight Jeff! If it's a good deal wider than your 28mm, it should be even more obvious when compared to my 30mm Sigma.

I know for stills it is reportedly soft at f1.8, but considering that HD video is around 2MP, I think it will be plenty sharp for video. And like you, I'd take a softer image over an under exposed image any day.

I think I should just pull the trigger on this lens. There is nothing else in the market that is this fast, this wide, and has macro - and at this price range too.

I'll definitely keep in mind what you said Dingo - good advice! ;)
 
You should consider the 11-16, a wide like that is so versatile. Obviously, for trying to get more in, but as an art lens too. Moving in close to objects with a lens that wide is awesome.
 
MAcro is not a bonus, you can have macro wth any lens,just turn it upside down and hold it in front of the camera.
 
Well it comes in handy to have "Macro" of some sort simply because you can do a pan/tilt shot and pull focus.

Maybe you start on someones handys or a piece of jewelery and then want to pan up to their eyes. Do so with the lens upside would be pretty much impossible. I think stick to the 30mm 1.4 and get the 11-16 2.8, but he said that's too slow for him, so then the next option is the 20mm 1.8 if he wants wide and fast.

Just finally got my hands on the 11-16 and it's worth it just from my experiments so far and even doing some location scouting for my work. 11mm 2.8 is nothing to sniff at.
 
If you're in close enough to a piece of jewellery to require a macro lens, you won't hold focus on a pan/tilt. It WILL go out of focus. Which can be nice, but not if you don't want it.
 
For those wondering, I need f1.8 because I shoot promo-videos for nightclubs and dance parties - so I am constantly shooting in very, very low light conditions...most of my videos are shot between f1.4 -f1.8 @ ISO800 - ISO1000 (I never go over ISO1000)
 
The point is with the Sigmas you can pan from said piece of jewelery to someones eyes and be able to pull focus. They aren't true 1:1 macro lenses. something like 1:3 or something like that, so there's wiggle room to pull focus when moving the camera, I've done it with my 28mm multiple times.
 
Jean I think that if you feel the lens will suit your needs then it should do the trick. The lens resolves plenty for HD footage and when shooting in a nightclub it should look pretty good.

The other option is to invest in something wider and slower, but then add some sort of diffused camera light to your rig, depending on how compact you wanna stay. Can always add like an L bracket to have the light off on an angle to create a sense of directional light rather than head on.
 
Jean Dantes said:
Thanks for the reply :)

Well, I guess what I'm really trying to ask is - is it worth buying the 20mm if I already own the 30mm?
Click to expand...
My point was that for one person, "a good deal wider" might mean "still not wide enough" for another person. It's subjective, and you can't really take anyone's word for it. The only way that you'll know is by looking at the results for yourself. Only you can decide what you need.
 
Rory_B said:
The point is with the Sigmas you can pan from said piece of jewelery to someones eyes and be able to pull focus. They aren't true 1:1 macro lenses. something like 1:3 or something like that, so there's wiggle room to pull focus when moving the camera, I've done it with my 28mm multiple times.
Click to expand...

If you are doing promo videos for nightclubs get a zoom. Can't imagine a faster way to get lenses scratched then changing primes in a busy nightclub.

edit : and run some tests at up to 1600 iso as you might be surprised. Nothing wrong with 1600. Extra 2/3 stop of light over iso 1000
 
Well I would agree a zoom would be a good choice, but Jean already said he doesn't want to go that slow. Unless you spend a lot of money on a fast cinema lens or can find an f2 still zoom, then 2.8 is as fast as you can get and He doesn't wanna do that.

Otherwise going with a 17-55 2.8 with some sort of on-board light would be my suggestion.

I regularly go to ISO 1600 and am quite happy with the results. I'll go higher if I need to and then bring the blacks down in post to hide some of the noise
 
Not a crappy onboard light mind you, I mean something that will make people look cool like in a beer commercial hahah.

Provided you have the budget for a mini ringlite. Or just make your own DIY version.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top