Any lens comparable to Sigma 30mm 1.4? ( Old manual lens )

L

life4eva

Carbonite Member
Is there any older Nikon lens or another brand with an aperture of f/2 or less at a focal length of 30mm or less?

I really want the sigma but the $400 price tag i something I cannot afford at the moment :(

If anyone has any suggestions I would greatly appreciate it, Thank You
 
I think you are going to find that the Sigma is a deal at that price. It is pretty rare for the speed and width. For an old ,but great, Contax Zeiss 35mm 1.4 you could spend over a grand.

Sorry.....
 
thekreative said:
I think you are going to find that the Sigma is a deal at that price. It is pretty rare for the speed and width. For an old ,but great, Contax Zeiss 35mm 1.4 you could spend over a grand.

Sorry.....
Click to expand...
yeah..... I got to get some work to buy the Sigma I guess. I recently rented a Canon 24mm 1.4 and I personally think it is one of my favorite lenses I have ever used.... Simply Beautiful but at a price of well over $1K I simply cannot afford it, so I'm looking at the Sigma 30mm 1.4
 
DrDave said:
You can get either the Sony or Nikon 35mm 1.8 and be very happy.
Click to expand...

Nikon 35mm 1.8 does not have a manual aperture ring, therefore there is no way to control the lens with a Canon camera. Now they do sell an adapter that allows you to control the aperture ( now that I remember) but it cost well over $100+...... Bringing the price at over $300+.... I might do some research as the sigma would still cost me more ( close to $400 )

-----------

Also what are the thoughts on using the Sigma 28mm 1.8
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-Aspheri...9?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1293352547&sr=1-9

This is a Macro lens, can it be used as a normal lens?
 
Last edited:
Just did a lot of reading and it seems like most people actually prefer the Sigma 28mm. By it being Macro means you can focus closer which is a plus for me if I want to stick this camera in someones face. Second the 28mm is made for full frame cameras so that means we get the sweet spot on our crop cameras ( Canon 60d ) Finally it is cheaper than the Sigma 30mm. So the only advantage of the 30mm is the faster aperture at 1.4, but I would rather have a wider lens ( 28mm ) with the ability to focus closer ( macro ) be ff and finally be cheaper. It looks like I did my own research and will be purchasing the 28mm very soon
 
life4eva,

Thanks for this thread, I'm in the same boat and came across this thread. Going to research the 28mm a little more as i'm seeing mixed reviews on the web. I think jambreadz has a yashica 28mm if i'm not mistaken that was pretty good. *going to look
 
Kastro said:
life4eva,

Thanks for this thread, I'm in the same boat and came across this thread. Going to research the 28mm a little more as i'm seeing mixed reviews on the web. I think jambreadz has a yashica 28mm if i'm not mistaken that was pretty good. *going to look
Click to expand...

I have read a lot of excellent reviews regarding the Sigma 28mm f1.8, surprised no one ever mentioned it. I just bought it last night from Adorama ( cheapest place online ).
http://www.adorama.com/SG2818DEOSG.html

Even though it's a grey market it has a 1 year warranty, hurry up before they are all gone. I will post impressions as soon as I get it!

----------------------
*
Also I knew your name seemed familiar...... When I made a thread a while back regarding the 16mm f/2.8 fisheye you popped in and it seems like you bought it, judging by your latest vimeo footage. But as you and I found out, that lens is actually soft wide open and doesn't get sharp till like around 3.2-3.5 area defeating one of the purposes I bought it for.

This Sigma lens will be perfect now, even though we wont have such a wide view. Pm me when you get a chance....
 
Last edited:
@16mm, yea it is soft, but was within my budget at the time + needed something 'close' as (as you probably saw) people like to get right up in your face when you have a camera at a club.. lol

I would indeed like to know how the 30 is. I'm a bit torn as I'm looking @ getting glidetrack + h4n, which doesnt leave me alot for another lens. So I may have to sacrifice one of those 2 items OR get a lens next time around...

Not sure yet..
 
dannyg1255 said:
the sigma 30mm 1.4 says its auto focus...does that mean there is no manual focus ring? im looking at this on BH

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/381615-REG/Sigma_300101_30mm_f_1_4_EX_DC.html


or does that just mean that it ALSO has autofocus capability?
Click to expand...

?

There is a switch on the lens that allows you to auto focus and manual focus, you just flip it back and forth. To my knowledge though, manual focus is used in the film making world and is what I exclusively use. Just got an email from Adorama saying all shipping was delayed due to the weather :(
 
I have the Sigma 30/1.4, and it's a HSM lens, so you don't even need to flick the switch, the focus ring is live all the time. Canon USM lenses refer to this feature as "Full-Time Manual".
 
The 30/1.4 Sigma is a good deal for its focal length and aperture size and the autofocus is nice when taking pictures, but the focus ring is pretty terrible to use. It feels like someone put sand in the lens when they built it because they didn't want it to turn too smoothly. When you're shooting video, manual focus is your only option, so a bad focus ring can be frustrating.

One thing you might consider is to purchase a far less expensive 1970s era manual lens in a similar focal length but with a slower aperture. I have a 28/3.5 S-M-C Takumar that I love and the Takumars have some of the smoothest focus rings available. Then you could cover that focal length with the Takumar whenever you have enough light to shoot f3.5 or above and resort to the Sigma only when you need a larger aperture. An alternative to the Takumar that delivers similar quality is the Zuiko with the same specs. They also made f2.8 versions of both, but you can probably get an f3.5 version for less than $50 easily and in excellent condition.

After using old manual lenses, I honestly have a hard time putting the Sigma back on my camera unless I absolutely need autofocus for some pictures.
 
I would send your Sigma in to be checked because my Sigma 30/1.4 works great and I have no problems with focusing manually. We rack focus with it ALL the time. In fact, it's a lot better than many of the other lens I have used, especially a Nikon 50mm/1.8.

I love my Sigma, it's actually my favorite and least expensive lens. I got it off of craigslist for $350 so it wasn't too horrible priced. Given it is so inexpensive, I feel I am not so worried about something happening to it either. If it broke, I would replace it immediately with the same lens.

I also used the 50/1.8 from Sigma though I don't own it, I plan on adding it. Also, the 85/1.4 is supposed to be out at any time.

I have other lenses that do 30mm, but being 3.5 or higher, I just don't use them. Having F1.4 means I get so much more light into the camera. I HATE sigma zoom lenses, but they've really come a long way with their primes.

I haven't used the 28mm, I might have to check that out with the 7.9" focal distance (30/1.4 is around 15).

I actually don't buy lenses slower than 2.8 anymore. That's my cutoff OUTSIDE of a lens over 150mm.
 
I'm probably exaggerating a bit. It's not much worse than the focus ring on my Tokina 11-16mm, which is my only other modern lens right now. That said, it's still much worse than any of my old manual lenses. Once you turn the focus ring on a Takumar, you really can't go back.

As for pricing, you can still get some of the best lenses from 1970 for cheaper than budget modern lenses. You can get an S-M-C Takumar 50/1.4 for around $100 in near mint condition. It's made of metal, the focus ring is smooth, and the IQ is probably better than the Sigma anyway. There's no reason not to own an older 50mm or two because the only modern lens you can get for that price is the Fisher Price/Canon 50/1.8.

That said, you're right about finding wider lenses with fast apertures. You usually have to pay more to go faster than 2.8 at wider focal lengths. That's why I'm not ready to junk my Sigma just yet and that's why my other modern lens is the 11-16mm Tokina. To get a fast wide with a good focus ring, you usually have to venture into Zeiss territory and that's usually no bargain.

Finally, even if the focus ring on the Sigma is smooth enough for you, the focus throw is still entirely too short in my opinion and the focus ring keeps turning past infinity and close focus distance, so it's a bad lens for a follow focus. Nevertheless, it continues to be a popular choice for the crop bodies and it was the first lens I bought with my 60D before I even knew about alt lenses.
 
Well I do have the Tokina 11-16 as well and the focus on it is nicer to me, which is really to equate the resistance of the focusing as being smoother to me, if that is what you mean. But, I do know what you mean. The Sigma throw distance is short, but wow, compared to my Nikon 50/1.8, it is MUCH longer. I do wish it was a little longer. I do use the lens with a follow focus on occasion, but, I do have to be careful. I can tell when the lens has hit the end of its range, but it's not much of a resistance change.

I tried the Zeiss lenses out as well, and not just the SLR type but the cinema type converter to EOS. I do understand how different they are, it's night and day. But, I am just not in that place where they make sense, and I don't like how slow they are. Mechanically, amazing.

We have one of those Canon 50/1.8 lenses and I REALLY don't like it. The CA wide open is HORRIBLE. That's why I was using the Sigma 50/1.4 which was MUCH better. (Of course, a lot more expensive too, but still cheap in my opinion). Given the Sigma 50 is designed for FF35 and I am using it on APS-C or 4/3, it's a beauty.

It also comes down to what you are doing. If you are shooting video only (like me) and don't care about photo resolution, most of the SLR lenses I have used (Nikon, Canon, Tokina, Bower, Sigma, Zeiss) have been very sharp and exceed the roughly say 800 lines of resolving power on the AF100. I've not used any of the 4/3 lenses, because they are so slow, so I cannot comment. Although the 7-14mm sounds VERY interesting since I would use it outside mostly.
 
Yeah it's a bit nicer and the construction of the Tokina seems better overall, but the focus ring still feels like doing a pan on a friction based tripod, whereas a lens designed for manual focus feels like using a fluid head tripod.

The Zeiss lenses are generally amazing, but the prices can be intimidating. There are plenty of older lenses that are built to the same mechanical standards that are much cheaper.

I've heard good things about that Sigma 50, but again I see no reason to bother with it because 50mm is easily the most commonly available focal length in older lenses and there are tons to choose from.

I agree with you that shooting video changes your priorities altogether when it comes to lenses as autofocus becomes pointless and resolving power usually exceeds the resolution being recorded by the sensor. However, I think the priority then becomes a lens that is as painless as possible to focus manually and that has good contrast and color rendition.

So for me, it's worth it to keep a couple modern lenses for photos, but to have a set of older lenses for video, even with overlap in the focal lengths. Plus, some of these lenses are so tiny that you don't mind tossing them in the bag with your modern lenses. Here's the Sigma 30/1.4 with my Takumar 28/3.5:

Sigma%2BTak.jpg
 
I agree on the contrast issues. I don't like the contrast on my Bower lens (85/1.4) so much.

The biggest thing for me is finding a set of lens that have similar color/contrast rendition as well. The 30 and 50 are pretty well matched (at least the two I used) so it was nice to work with them. The Tokina is a little different though, but given I use it in such bizarre situations mostly (for effect) it's never been a problem. I stopped using the kit lens that came with my 7D so much because I just don't really care for what it does to the image as much. But given it is a 28-135, it is handy.

I do keep my eyes out for older lenses. Just haven't found anything I want just yet. Compared to all my lenses, other than the Nikon 50/1.4, the Sigma is the smallest. The Tokina is the heaviest I have. But it's built like a tank.

I tell people this, if you really want to know a lens, rent it. (which is hard on older lenses) or rent multiple lens that you are comparing and try them out. People have different discerning tastes, so you being able to use them, you'll know if you like them or not. Renting still lenses is CHEAP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top