Sigma Vs Canon Glass

K

KennonF

Active member
First off, I searched the forums first and did not find this thread like I thought I would...

So here we go.

As far as VIDEO goes (and we aren't going to get into photo in this threat hopefully) do Sigma Lenses show their cheaper price point over a Canon L Lens?

For example:

Canon 35m F/1.4L vs Sigma 30mm F/1.4.

Tell me what I need to know about the difference it will actually create for VIDEO. I don't think I'm necessarily sold on the fact that the Sigma glass even compares.
 
I have no doubt that either of these lenses would be well suited to 4K+. At 1080p, I'd be they will be nearly indistinguishable for all intents. Maybe one will be slightly cooler or warmer, or one might be a bit more contrasty, but either one will outperform the sensor with ease.

Most decent glass from the 1960s and 1970s outperforms these sensors in video mode and many in stills mode.
 
PerroneFord said:
I have no doubt that either of these lenses would be well suited to 4K+. At 1080p, I'd be they will be nearly indistinguishable for all intents. Maybe one will be slightly cooler or warmer, or one might be a bit more contrasty, but either one will outperform the sensor with ease.

Most decent glass from the 1960s and 1970s outperforms these sensors in video mode and many in stills mode.
Click to expand...

Thank you - this is exactly the answer I was looking for.

So as I thought, with video, the only *real* factors with lenses will be the speed of it and the range / field of view
 
KennonF said:
Thank you - this is exactly the answer I was looking for.

So as I thought, with video, the only *real* factors with lenses will be the speed of it and the range / field of view
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that. When putting forth their best effort, the third party manufacturers can make glass just as well as the major manufacturers. BUT, they make the bulk of their money from selling cheaper glass. And cheaper glass has issues. Whether that be distortion, chromatic aberration, or other things, it's there. And some of it may show up in video.

I find people on this quest to get "super sharp, super-contrasty" glass absolute folly. That super sharp glass is doing nothing but making aliasing and moire worse on these cameras, and that super-contrasty glass is pushing the sensor places it can't go.

Look at the Hollywood guys using $25k primes and having to put black pro-mist or other diffusers in front of the glass because it's just "too sharp" on their $250k digital cameras. At some point people really need to step back from this sharper/more contrast race to the top, and ask if it's really even serving the image.
 
PerroneFord said:
That super sharp glass is doing nothing but making aliasing and moire worse on these cameras, and that super-contrasty glass is pushing the sensor places it can't go.
Click to expand...

I know the moire and aliasing is a problem and I have found it when looking in the right places, but in the work I've shot over the last 6 months it hasn't been nearly the problem I was expecting. Maybe because the subjects I have been working with are more organic which makes sharp glass work well to bring out the detail.
I don't really see this much differently than following the basic rules of film to tape, there are things to avoid. Just experience and common sense will get you where you need to go.
 
Last edited:
ROCKMORE said:
I know the moire and aliasing is a problem and I have found it when looking in the right places, but in the work I've shot over the last 6 months it hasn't been nearly the problem I was expecting. Maybe because the subjects I have been working with are more organic which makes sharp glass work well to bring out the detail.
I don't really see this much differently than following the basic rules of film to tape, there are things to avoid. Just experience and common sense will get you where you need to go.
Click to expand...

It really depends on the scenario, and I don't know what glass you are shooting. I noted some time ago in Barry Green's tests with his shiny new (and quite expensive) Zeiss glass he was seeing far more problems than with the kit lens. I also noted that one of Phil Blooms recent blogs he had noted the same with a new piece of very sharp Canon glass.

What made Phil's problem tough was that it was a shot of a landscape... and the aliasing showed up on the body of water. Very organic, and very ugly. Not much there to "work around".

So the question in my mind is how sharp do we need to be? We are already at the point where the sharpness of the glass is a factor in closeups of the human face. And it's a problem for certain other subjects too. And that's on film where the film print softens the image a bit. Digital get's no such help.

I know my aesthetic is not everyones. I prefer more muted colors and softer images. That's why I prefer Fuji film and have since the late 80s. I prefer the look of older glass, halation, CA, flare, notwithstanding. I don't mind the slightly dreamy look of a soft frost on closeups, especially of women.

The gritty, hyper-real look of a lot of modern glass reminds me of watching TV. And that is not why I go to the movies.
 
I used a Sigma 28-70 2.8 AF for about a decade, for commercial still work. A really nice lens (dropped it twice, both times it failed completely - well, the last time a neighbor's cat was in the house and knocked a whole setup over, took the lens out again). I'll definitely get it repaired again - it's got a nice feel across the zoom range. Never tested it against the Nikon 35-70 2.8 Af of the same era, which is a legendary lens - I imagine technically the Nikon would blow it away, but... the Sigma kind of "feels" right when I look at the images.

I recently bought a Nikon and a Vivitar 28mm 2.8, both AI lenses - the Nikon being an older "series E" consumer lens from, like, the late 70's. I shot test charts (well, software boxes with lots of text and diagrams). The Nikon was definitely sharper, and had a wider range of sharp F-stops. But the Vivitar was decent.

Problem for DSLR video is that most people seem to be shooting in the f2.8 - f4 range, since we're (a) enamored of the DOF and (b) may not have the power to run a bunch of 2Ks. There aren't very many lenses that are tack sharp that wide open. Try shooting a test series of stills at each F-stop (balance exposure so they match) and see how badly a given lens falls off in sharpnesss wide open and stopped down. In my experience, roughly f5.6 - f8 is the sweet spot.

But in the end, I agree with PFord - with DSLR video compression, you're not going to see much difference. And any softness may be helping your image. (But it's good to test your main lenses and know where they perform best - esp. if you shoot stills).

The bigger issue for me: some lenses just seem to have "soul". Get any of the Nikon 80-200 2.8 AF range (the ones without the built in tripod mount - you can get a beater for $400 if you hunt). That lens just has gobs of mojo. The Nikon 50mm 1.8 AF is a good "utilitarian" lens on a full frame camera - but it's got a really cool crispness to it on crop-factor DSLRs, and it's very sharp wide open.

It's very cool when you are grabbing a lens with the "look" in mind before the field of view - I'll move a setup around to use the lens I have in mind.
 
PerroneFord said:
I have no doubt that either of these lenses would be well suited to 4K+. At 1080p, I'd be they will be nearly indistinguishable for all intents. Maybe one will be slightly cooler or warmer, or one might be a bit more contrasty, but either one will outperform the sensor with ease.

Most decent glass from the 1960s and 1970s outperforms these sensors in video mode and many in stills mode.
Click to expand...

Nail. Head.
 
PerroneFord said:
It really depends on the scenario, and I don't know what glass you are shooting. I noted some time ago in Barry Green's tests with his shiny new (and quite expensive) Zeiss glass he was seeing far more problems than with the kit lens. I also noted that one of Phil Blooms recent blogs he had noted the same with a new piece of very sharp Canon glass.

What made Phil's problem tough was that it was a shot of a landscape... and the aliasing showed up on the body of water. Very organic, and very ugly. Not much there to "work around".

So the question in my mind is how sharp do we need to be? We are already at the point where the sharpness of the glass is a factor in closeups of the human face. And it's a problem for certain other subjects too. And that's on film where the film print softens the image a bit. Digital get's no such help.

I know my aesthetic is not everyones. I prefer more muted colors and softer images. That's why I prefer Fuji film and have since the late 80s. I prefer the look of older glass, halation, CA, flare, notwithstanding. I don't mind the slightly dreamy look of a soft frost on closeups, especially of women.

The gritty, hyper-real look of a lot of modern glass reminds me of watching TV. And that is not why I go to the movies.
Click to expand...


Excellent post, it's like the Panasonic Gh1 hack which makes the footage razor sharp and personally I really do not like that look. Or even the HMC40 which is a lot sharper ( provided enough light)


Thanks for helping us young students out!
 
I personally had a bad experience with the one sigma lens I bought, though it was related to the AF and you said don't go into stills. If it were me, I would look at the canon 28 1.8 over the sigma 30 1.4 . I doubt you would miss the 2/3 stop and you would have a lens that covers full frame with accurate AF if you ever decided to shoot stills.
 
I have many Sigma EX lenses and several Canon L lenses. The biggest advantage of the Canon lenses is faster and more accurate AF.

As for the 30/1.4 vs 35/1.4, the biggest difference will be the vignetting. Wide open, the 30/1.4 will vignette more than the 35/1.4, other than that, you'd likely not notice the difference for video.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top