Just got one about a month ago. Been testing it out. Did some night shooting. I also brought along my Canon 28mm 1.8. I noticed the Sigma to be prone to flares. And I mean a decent amount. The Canon not so much. Also the flares look more pleasing on the Canon. Anyone else notice this?
Sigma 30mm f1.4 with flare
- Thread starter draven4
- Start date
thisisapocalypse
Well-known member
Do you have any filters on these lenses?
Yes I thought of that after I posted the question. I have footage but not the exact same angle with different lenses so it's kind of pointless. I will shoot some more test though with and without the filter along with the different lenses to show.
I am using the same exact filter on both lenses though even though the mm size of the Sigma is 62mm and the Canon is 58mm.
I am using the same exact filter on both lenses though even though the mm size of the Sigma is 62mm and the Canon is 58mm.
I don't own that Sigma but I love my 28mm which is my favourite lens now (yes, I love it more than my fifty 1.4). Mine is useable (quaite sharp, with no CA on higlights) at 2.0-2.2 so unless you can use that Sigma at 1.6-1.8 with nice results I would simply sell it. No need to have both. Next stop is 24mm L I guess 
BTW Even quite expensive filters can add flares and reflections.
BTW Even quite expensive filters can add flares and reflections.
thisisapocalypse
Well-known member
Yeah, some lenses really react to filters in terms of producing flares - there are so many factors involved it's really hard to know what's going on, but in general unless you are using the very best filters you are going to pick up some nastiness (standard issue Tiffens/Hoyas, etc.) can all cause flares especially on less expensive lenses (like Sigmas or non Canon L lenses). And even then, no matter how good the filter is, you're adding an additional lens element and because of the spacing between the front element and the lens you can get the flare effect. You can add a mattebox/hood and see if that helps too - but in general unless i NEED a filter, I don't shoot with them because of this.
I am happy to own both now, mainly for the sake of really knowing how good each one is but I can tell you too, I absolutely love my Canon 28mm 1.8. It is the one lens now too that I use as my standard lens. It is a great lens in I actually like it better than the Sigma. (although I haven't had the Sigma that long) I intend to shoot for a while with the Sigma too and run it through real world usage and tests. I can tell you now though that when someone wants a "standard lens" I 'd recommend the 28mm 1.8 Canon over the "nifty fifty" for sure. I own the nifty fifty and that almost never gets used. I hate the build and hate the focusing ring. I really don't feel like it's a good lens at all evenhough the images are razor sharp and look great. In other threads when people say get a nifty fifty, for someone who is starting out and on a budget I quickly jump in and say no.... try a 28mm.
The Canon 28mm 1.8 build is really good, the ring is tighter and better than the Sigma, and the weight of the lens is lighter. And like I said, even with a filter the Canon lens has less and more pleasing flares.
I will try the advice above and take off the filter. I usually have a UV on for the sake of not ruining the lens so after I test if it still is there then I will put it back on anyway.
I was worried my fifty is from some kind of low quality batch or was dropped by a salesman
I hate the build too. 28mm feels like a tank compared to 50mm 1.4 where the focus ring is a joke. My first lens was that fifty and I was thinking it's the best option for start, but now I know the 28mm is much better choice. I hardly ever use that fifty now.I was thinking some time ago about buying that 30mm Sigma, but first got the 28mm and it was a perfect buy.
Anyway I always remove any filters (even uv) when I know some direct light may hit the glass, it's better do it before than later find out and be sorry.
Snapper123
Well-known member
I'd honestly love the 50mm if I could actually use it. I think maybe it's because I've had some camera accidents with that lens attatched, but the shakiness of my 50mm is unbearable, I can't even take a photo with it unless the shutter is at like 200, and videowork with it is literally impossible no matter if I use a tripod or not. Even my kit lens with IS turned on isn't exactly smooth. But other than that, in terms of quality and build, I think the 50mm is a perfect example of how more lenses should be made. Some people just don't care about build or re-selling the lens, and many filmmakers out there would love to get a set of primes that all cost around $100. Paying $500 for a prime lens is just not worth it to me, and when you have to pay that much for it, it should actually have useful features like IS instead of the price being jacked up because it has a metal mount or a smooth focus ring or a red rubber band around it. Those features aren't worth $20. But an IS motor? That's actually something complex and would truly make a price of $500 or so very worth it for what I could then accomplish with the lens. I just have to have equipment where the price is justified, and most lenses just don't justify their own price nowadays.
A list of lenses I want to see made:
18-135mm - 2.8 IS
24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm - 1.4 IS
I mean really, if the industry produced perfect lenses such as that, and appropriately charged for them, they may be expensive but they'd be perfect end-all lenses. I'd pay $800 for that first lens. I'd pay $600 for each of those primes. And I know those lenses would sell like hot cakes. Sure, many lenses would become out of date and then hopefully cheaper, but it's not like Canon's still selling lenses from the 70's, they need to move on and accept that some of their expensive 90's lenses are way behind the times and price tags. Same with any lens company. I mean really, it's not like any of the current lenses cost even 1/2 of their price tag to make, it's not going to hurt to come out with new technology and then leave the old technology to be a bit cheaper.
Like the 50mm for example, I'm sure they've made more money off of that lens than they've made of any lens in existence, apart from maybe everytime someone buy's a 1.2.
A list of lenses I want to see made:
18-135mm - 2.8 IS
24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm - 1.4 IS
I mean really, if the industry produced perfect lenses such as that, and appropriately charged for them, they may be expensive but they'd be perfect end-all lenses. I'd pay $800 for that first lens. I'd pay $600 for each of those primes. And I know those lenses would sell like hot cakes. Sure, many lenses would become out of date and then hopefully cheaper, but it's not like Canon's still selling lenses from the 70's, they need to move on and accept that some of their expensive 90's lenses are way behind the times and price tags. Same with any lens company. I mean really, it's not like any of the current lenses cost even 1/2 of their price tag to make, it's not going to hurt to come out with new technology and then leave the old technology to be a bit cheaper.
Like the 50mm for example, I'm sure they've made more money off of that lens than they've made of any lens in existence, apart from maybe everytime someone buy's a 1.2.
Last edited:
markblasco
Well-known member
Well, considering they sell the 17-55 2.8IS for about $1000, you're never going to see an 18-135 2.8 IS for less than probably at least $2000, and the likelyhood of them ever making it is pretty much zero, considering the amount of glass and the difficulty needed to get such a large range while still keeping up image quality and the f2.8.
IS on prime lenses that are as wide as what you want isn't going to happen for a while, because most photographers don't need it at those ranges, and video is really a very small part of their market. I'd love to see them, but I'm not holding my breath.