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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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. :-)
I prefer the 18-35 if you don't mind the extra weight. Great zoom range, amazing quality, I'm never wider than F1.8 anyway for video, and just an overall amazing lens. bhpho.to/2kz0BZe
I have not compared them but both are good enough that if you have an issue, the issue is you not the lens lol. My guess is that the 30mm would be sharper given that it is a prime lens.
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.
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 :)
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!
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?
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.
is it big difference between 35 and 30mm for picture quality? i cannot decide if its worth getting the 35mm..30mm cost like 450€ and the 35m cost almost 700€.. pls help!
A little but the 35mm is much larger, heavier, and more expensive so I would stick with the 30mm unless you were planning on buying/renting a full frame camera soon
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm looking for lens for my D7000 and thought of buying this Sigma 30mm...mostly for video although something like a manual aperture control (ie. Nikkor 35mm 1.8D). What do you think of this lens for my use as I'm on a budget?
fandi1770 The sigma is a great lens for the D7000, especially if you want AF for photos. If you don't need autofocus, you may look at the Rokinon 35mm f1.4 which will also work with full frame cameras unlike the Sigma: @769577
Sorry for bothering you (it's me from just beneath) - but I am not sure my comments goes throght to you - so I try here (I appologize for the inconvenience, if you get my message double) - you just always seem to give quick answers, som I have an idea my last comment didn'r get to you. Hi again - once more; thanks so much for you very informative and helpful advice. I really appreciate!! I have e few more questions I hope you will help me answering: “…new cropped sensor cameras like the Canon 7D2 come close to performance of full frame cameras like the 6D” - How do you consider (my) 60D in that comparison? “Plus keep in mind that you are wanting shallow depth of field...Your 60D will give you about the same depth of field at f2.8 that a full frame would give you at f4. That means to actually see the advantage, you would need to shoot the full frame at the same aperture which means expensive lenses.” - Can you please explain that to me? “If you can't afford to get that and end up going for f4 lenses, you have lost both the Depth of field and low light advantage of full frame.” - Can you explain a bit more detailed (sorry for all the questions, but I really want to get I right…? ;-) A photo salesman told me that the (Sigma) 18-35 at aperture 1.8 has a very shallow DOF and therefor has a very little area which is sharp. That concerns me a bit - what do you think about that comment? I hear some (photo wise, e.i. here: ruclips.net/video/ojXW9F1CnfA/видео.html) people say that you have to multiply the crop factor not only to the focal length but also to the aperture, that is e.i. a prime at 1.8 gives an aperture of 2.88 at my 60D 1.6 crop camera - and others say you don’t multiply the crop factor to the aperture. Which is correct? I have decided to stick with my Canon 60D for a while. I still don’t know if that is forever or if I have the real ‘full frame itch’ and will obey it. My biggest concern now is if I should upgrade my Tamron 17-50 2.8 to the Sigma 18-35 1.8 (worth it?) and add for example Canon 70-200 f/4 (would you recommend IS or non IS?) - or a third party equal? I am a bit afraid that the 85 mm prime will give me a bit of a ‘stuck’ feeling. Do you have any good thoughts - or other suggestions? Very kind and grateful regards, Susanne
No problem. RUclips often marks things as spam if they have links in them and yours did so I didn't see your comment until I checked my 'spam' comments. From the 60D, you will see a small increase in image quality but most of the differences would be at ISO values over 800 where the 7D2 will show noticeable improvement. When it comes to build, features, speed, focus, and other items like that, the 7D2 is a massive improvement and you will immediately feel like you are holding a Professional camera and your 60D will feel more consumer grade. There will be some extra learning curve though with all those new features, settings, and dials. There are 5 pages of menus just to operate the focus system on the 7D2 so make sure you are ready to learn. Larger sensors allow the depth of field (DOF) to be more shallow and thus, a full frame Canon 6D will have more shallow DOF to the cropped sensor of your 60D or the 7D2. The other factor of shallow DOF is the lens aperture so an aperture of f2.8 would have shallower DOF than a lens at f4. What happens is that full frame lenses are more expensive and thus many 6D buyers will buy an f4 lens like the full frame kit Canon 24-70mm f4 IS while 60D buyers can buy cheaper smaller f2.8 lenses only good on cropped sensor cameras like the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS. What I am saying is that unless you purchase f2.8 lenses for full frame cameras like the 6D, you will not have shallower DOF to your current setup with an f2.8 lens on the 60D. The comment on the Sigma from the salesman was very misleading. First of all what he meant to say is that the depth of field is shallow at f1.8 which means that if you took a picture of me and focused on my eyes, my eyes would be perfectly sharp but the area in front of me (like my nose) might be blurred and the area behind me such as my ears or the background would also be blurred. The focus plane would still be absolutely sharp, it's just the area in front and behind the focus plane that would be blurred. This is what we would call shallow depth of field. This is not a shortcoming of the lens though, this is a positive thing and you need to understand how aperture works to get that. If you want more depth of field (the area in focus), you can shoot the lens at a different aperture...f1.8 is the maximum aperture but you can shoot it at f2.8, f4...all the way to f22 where EVERYTHING would be in focus and sharp. You can test this on your camera. Take your 60D, set it to aperture priority mode, and turn the dial so your aperture is as wide as it can go (smaller number) and take a picture of a flower. Then put the aperture to a larger number like f11 and you will see that the smaller number blurs the background while the larger number (f11) keeps more of the background in focus. The multiply of the crop factor thing is tough to explain here but I'll say this: The technical right answer is that you absolutely have to multiply the crop factor by the focal length AND the aperture. However and it would take me a while to explain fully so I can't, the cameras are already doing this for you when it comes to exposure so don't do it when you are thinking about exposure or light/brightness. In otherwords, a f2.8 lens on a full frame camera will yield an identical exposure to a f2.8 lens on a cropped sensor camera because the camera is already accounting for the differences in sensor size. You can still do the multiplication when thinking about depth of field so your 60D with your f2.8 lens would act like a f4.5 lens aperture on a full frame camera (2.8*1.6) which is what is what I was trying to explain earlier that using an f4 lens on your full frame camera will basically be the same (in terms of aperture and DOF) as using a 2.8 lens on the cropped sensor camera. It's a tough concept to explain and even harder to do in writing. I would not upgrade your Tamron yet. Even though I love the Sigma, it sounds like you might be changing cameras in the next 2 years and the Tamron is still a decent lens and then just make sure you have 1 wide aperture prime lens like the 50mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4 or Sigma 30mm 1.4. I would consider the Canon 70-200 if you need that focal range because it will work on cropped or full frame cameras. If your subjects are not moving quickly, you should splurge for the IS version. If your subjects are moving quickly, the IS will not end up helping you much so maybe save the cash.
LearningCameras.com You are REALLY helpful with your detailed (and quick) answers! Thanks a lot! I am (still) giving a bit more thought to the full frame upgrade or not - just before I invest too much in crop lenses. I read a (one among many…) review of the Sigma 18-35 1.8 at photographylife.com (I will not put the full link since I end up in youtubes junkmail;-) and here I found this comment from the person behind the review: “The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 Art deserves the highest of praises for being such an amazing lens. Being a full-frame shooter, I am saddened by the fact that such lens does not exist for FX, but I also realize that a lens like this would have probably been twice larger in size and much heavier, perhaps making it rather prohibitive to use on full-frame cameras” It is that true? That an equal lens for full frame will more often be twice the size/weight (and maybe even price?)? Because if it is, then it settles the deal for me and I stay happily with crop sensor camera;-) ….. Thanks for your very kind description of DOF and how it works together with the aperture value. I did know beforehand how it works together - I am only mentioning this if it influences your recommendations for my next photo buy;-) There was just some confusion about the specific comment from the salesperson about the very shallow DOF in Sigma 18-35. In your answer you wrote: “First of all what he meant to say is that the depth of field is shallow at f1.8 which means that if you took a picture of me and focused on my eyes, my eyes would be perfectly sharp but the area in front of me (like my nose) might be blurred and the area behind me such as my ears or the background would also be blurred.” I am a bit concerned about this fact, because it gives me an idea that I will not be able to make a completely sharp all face picture at 1.8? Is that correct or misunderstood? ….. Another review of Sigma 18-35 1.8 has this comment: “With few exceptions, every lens can be used as a portrait lens. But not every lens is good for all types of portraits. The perspective required for tight 18-35mm portraits make this lens a bad choice for such - unless you want to get "artistic". Notice the big nose and small hands in the sample picture below? This lens will be better-used for half-body and more-loosley cropped portraits - and for group portraits”. Now, I do realize that the Sigma 18-35 1.8 is not made specific for portraits, but since I would use it very often for capturing the kids (preferably also a bit nearby) I hope the reviewer is not too right about this point. How do you see the Sigma 18-35 doing capturing the children around you from 1-2 meters distance? ….. And back to my needs and thoughts on upgrading: To be specific - I think my main desire for going full frame is the better performance at lowlight/high ISO. I just can’t figure how much better at full frame. I find my 60D sometimes giving me ‘noise’ problems inside the house shooting at higher ISO values and would enjoy the more light - either from lower aperture or higher ISO. Which would benefit the most do you think? On the other hand I find it somehow difficult going out and spending a lot of money (relatively) at a new crop sensor camera like 7D2 (maybe because I just didn’t give a lot of thought to this before). Somehow it feels right to either stay with my canon 60D or go full frame - or I am missing a good point? So, right now I fell mostly towards buying the Sigma 18-35 1.8 (and hope I can sell it at a good price in 1-2 years time if I decide to go full frame) + maybe also the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS (by the way, will you be using that inside your house with that focal range? And will the f/4 be good enough for that?). Unless I get convinced that a new camera will give me a lot of value for money;-) Hmmm - a lot of decisions… I can’t emphasize enough how great a deal your comments and thoughts help me in this process - really worth a lot to me;-)!! Kind Regards, Susanne
Susanne Geert Hey, So yes it is true that full frame lenses must be heavier and larger because they have to cover a larger sensor which requires much more glass. There are rumors of a Sigma 24-70 f2 lens but they have been around for a while so they are still rumors. Most likely, even if it does exist, it will be way larger and heavier than the Sigma 18-35. It will not be exactly twice the size/weight because there are many other factors involved but full frame lenses will always be larger and heavier than APS-C lenses. The advantage too is that you can still use full frame lenses on APS-C cameras while it doesn't work the other way around. Depending on your distance from the subject (the further you are away, the more will be in focus) the entire face may not be in focus when shooting at f1.8...but the simple solution would be to change your aperture. You don't have to shoot at f1.8 just because you have a lens that is capable of it. I have a lens that works at f1.2 but I rarely shoot at f1.2 because the depth of field is so thin and the lens is sharper when stopped down to around f2. The 18-35mm is a wider lens and personally I rarely use wider for close up portraits as it does alter the perspective (yes, objects closer to the camera such as your nose can seem larger). You are better off in the 50-135mm range for portraits though 35mm on a cropped sensor camera is not bad so I wouldn't worry about using the 18-35 zoomed in to 35mm...but I still prefer to shoot portraits in the 50-135mm range. Full frame is usually better but costs more and so depending on the features you need an $1800 cropped sensor camera may be better overall than a $1800 full frame camera. The image quality is almost always better on a full frame and low light performance also better though this also depends on the specific camera. The 7D2 is a great camera and produces awesome results up to 1600-6400 ISO. A full frame camera like the 6D will look a little better in that range but you have to give up a ton of features to get there and you have to spend much more on a camera like the 5D Mark III to get similar features to the 7D2 in a full frame camera. If you are shooting live action shoots such as weddings/events/sports/wildlife, I would take a 7D2 over the 6D given the feature set. If this is just a casual camera and you just want good image quality, you may look more at the Canon 6D or other full frame options like the Nikon D610 or Sony A7 Mark II if you want a smaller/lighter option. My personal favorite all around full frame option under $2000 right now is the Nikon D610. It has great low light performance and still has a feature set good enough for almost any photographer...much better than the Canon 6D. If you check out the website www.learningcameras.com I often post deals to these cameras (many are on sale right now) and if you use any of the links on the site when making your purchases at Amazon, b&h, Adorama and more, it helps support me and the site so I appreciate it. Thanks
LearningCameras.com Hi again Dan Thanks for (all of) your advices! As you can probably tell, I have a hard time deciding whether an upgrade to ff (6D) is the right choice for me or if my (less) money are better spend at lenses for my 60D. So, the choices are now: Keep 60D and buy for example Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 + maybe Canon 70-200 f/4 IS (sell Tamron 17-50 and Tamron 18-270) - or: Get 6D + an all round + maybe Canon 70-200 f/4 IS. I would spend the money on the latter if I know I get (visible/remarkable) better pictures (not only at enlarged prints but also regular sizes) - and I do know that I am the only one to decide whether the investment is worth it to me, but it is so useful to have great advices from someone with that much insight and experience as you have. I would like to ask you why you seem not very fond of the 6D? I hear so much great about it. The 7D2 could be a good choice also, but from what I see it seems better for the photographers shooting action/sport/wildlife and since I don’t do any of those it might be overkill to buy another crop camera suited those needs. Can you explain? If I stay with my current 60D I can’t really figure where to do the upgrade. I am impressed with the reviews of Sigma 18-35 1.8 but not pleased with the fact that it is difficult for faces too close since people/my kids would be one of my primary objects. Ahr… I really wish I knew that an upgrade to 6D would give me a great upgrade that would make a visible difference to my current pictures…. My main frustration with 60D - as far as I am aware of - is the low light performance/ISO noice and I do know this is one of 6D’s key performances - however, is it a great deal of difference at ordinary inside house lightning or will my money be better spend at great lenses for my 60D? Are there any good reasons to postpone the decision ½-1 year? If I do go for the 6D, which all round lens would you recommend (probably I will also buy the Canon 70-20 f/4 IS): Canon 24-105 f/4 IS Sigma 24-105 f/4 OS Canon 24-70 f/4 IS Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC Or another? I really keep appreciating your great advice and during the last couple of weeks I have seen several of your RUclips reviews - and you really seem to know your stuff (and how to inform the rest of us about it;-) Kind Regards, Susanne
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.
Hi Dan, thinking of getting this Sigma 30mm f1.4 art for my canon 7D, because of the price. But in your experience, for portrait, is the sigma 35mm f1.4 art much better at it, and worth the $300 price difference? Thank you in advance.
The quality is similar enough that you would likely not notice anything on the 7D. The big question is that the Sigma 35 will work with full frame cameras so if you were to ever upgrade your 7D, would you be more likely to go with a 7D Mark II or upgrade body wise to full frame like the 5D or 1Dx. If you plan on sticking with the cropped sensor cameras like the 7D, I would probably just get the 30mm unless you got a great sale on the 35mm
The Sigma 30mm 1.4 will work perfectly on the T4i. The Art series brings Sigma's new look and technology. To me, the Art lenses have been sharper with faster focusing so I would get the Art. Plus it will hold resale value much better since they have tested so well.
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.
Confused about the differences? Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC HSM Art or Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC DN or Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC DN Contemporary or Sigma 30mm f1.4 EX DC HSM ??
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
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
I own both the canon 18-55 STM and 24 2.8 STM, the 18-55 is extremely quiet but the 24 is horrendously loud, it's really not what I was expecting
@@sayslouangphakdy910 my 50mm stm is dead quiet maybe u got a dud?
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.
This is the best review of this lens I've seen! :)
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
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
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.
Can you record video with this lens using the Canon Rebel T2i?
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.
Q
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
This is a great review. There are so many bad reviews on YT, so I'm really happy to see someone get straight to the point.
Is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 similar in range and quality as to the Cannon 50mm f/1.4? LearningCameras.com
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.
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.
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
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
Thanks! Sigma has the 35mm f/1.4 for Sony...although it is not available yet. Who knows, they might do a Sony mount for this lens.
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.
Can you record video with this lens using the Nikon D5100?
+stylebycourt Of course. Any lens can record video as long as the camera can.
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.
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!
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.
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 hope to get one soon so maybe I can show the value in a review. The bigest value is going to be on zoom lenses though.
The Sigma is a great lens. I doubt you will regret it. I personally use the Sigma 35mm 1.4 the most.
So has anyone notice the performance of the new Sigma Art 30mm 1.4 DC HSM better than the previous Sigma EX 30mm 1.4 HSM series?
Sure is, in fact I would highly recommend it for the Nikon D7000
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.
Is there a lot of difference between this new version (DC HSM) and the old one (DC DN) in terms of portrait photography on a DSLR? Great video btw!
Thanks. Yep, Sigma has really taken a step up in quality both build and optically on these new lenses so I would go for this newer one.
Thanks! Quick last question, and again for portrait photography is the 35mm really way better than this one?
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
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.
Do you prefer the 30mm focal length to the 35mm on a crop sensor? I think the 30m is closer to a classic 50mm FF equivalent on Canon.
Personally I prefer the 35mm for people as I like to be further away it's usually safer to get the 30 and crop in if you need to
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.
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?
Ricardo Riojas Might I add, it's for canon 70d
I think the 35 1.4 is worth it unless you know for a fact that you will not be upgrading, borrowing, or renting a full frame camera for 3-5 years.
Shot in RAW. You may consider trading in for another copy
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!
Thanks. It sure was.
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.
Thanks a lot for your reply. I am certainly thinking about buying this lens now! Glad to hear that you did not see colored fringes while wide open.
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
Thank you very much
What is the difference between the ART and EX DC HSM lens? (same in terms of 30mm and f/1.4)
+itsjanehorner The ART is the newer one with big improvements to design and quality. I'd highly recommend the ART lenses
That's great! Actually just received it as a gift and I am loving it :) thank you!
a gift man can you adopt me ??
Great video! I have this on my A6400. Very sharp.
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?
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.
Awesome, hope you enjoy the lens
Nice review. Would you recommend this lens for video?
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.
Great review, I hope this lens will be soon available here in Italy!
i have sigma 30mm lense. but i have big problem with auto focus.
do you have some tips ? buying the usb to correct the problem ?
What is the difference between this, "Art", Lens and the older 30 mm model?
Tha most complete review , all the answers here !!! saludos desde México !
Great review! Was the review done with a Canon 7D?
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.
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. :-)
Which is better for video: Sigma 30mm 1.4 Art or Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 Art?
I prefer the 18-35 if you don't mind the extra weight. Great zoom range, amazing quality, I'm never wider than F1.8 anyway for video, and just an overall amazing lens. bhpho.to/2kz0BZe
Dan Watson Thanks. Based on your opinion, which lens is sharper or are they equally sharp?
I have not compared them but both are good enough that if you have an issue, the issue is you not the lens lol. My guess is that the 30mm would be sharper given that it is a prime lens.
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
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 :)
Can I use the Sigma 30mm 1.4 lens with a Canon t5i camera?
Yep, it's a great lens for the T5i
OK thank you
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!
Thanks a lot for this review! Helped with choosing 😊
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?
I have bought a Nikon D5200 recently. Choosing between a Nikon 35mm and Sigma 30mm lens.
Hi,
Can you record video with this lens using the EOS Canon500D?
Mariana Gomes You absolutely can.
Thanks for the great review Dan!! Will this lens accept filters, such as a circular polarized filter?
Sure will. Has a 62mm front filter thread
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.
+Diogo Higino Thanks man! Appreciate your support and glad you enjoyed the reviews
is it big difference between 35 and 30mm for picture quality? i cannot decide if its worth getting the 35mm..30mm cost like 450€ and the 35m cost almost 700€.. pls help!
A little but the 35mm is much larger, heavier, and more expensive so I would stick with the 30mm unless you were planning on buying/renting a full frame camera soon
Good review!! I'll place my order today!! And about those highlights... How about a video light?
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.
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.
what mic are u wearing ?
Honestly, I'm pretty sure it is a cheap wired $40 Lav mic that I was wearing then. I use an Audio Technica pro 70 now...still wired though.
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.
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!
Btw, I am a Nikon user, I have the Nikon D5100.
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.
try flare without sun, lol.
I'm looking for lens for my D7000 and thought of buying this Sigma 30mm...mostly for video although something like a manual aperture control (ie. Nikkor 35mm 1.8D). What do you think of this lens for my use as I'm on a budget?
fandi1770 The sigma is a great lens for the D7000, especially if you want AF for photos. If you don't need autofocus, you may look at the Rokinon 35mm f1.4 which will also work with full frame cameras unlike the Sigma: @769577
Sorry for bothering you (it's me from just beneath) - but I am not sure my comments goes throght to you - so I try here (I appologize for the inconvenience, if you get my message double) - you just always seem to give quick answers, som I have an idea my last comment didn'r get to you.
Hi again - once more; thanks so much for you very informative and helpful advice. I really appreciate!!
I have e few more questions I hope you will help me answering:
“…new cropped sensor cameras like the Canon 7D2 come close to performance of full frame cameras like the 6D”
- How do you consider (my) 60D in that comparison?
“Plus keep in mind that you are wanting shallow depth of field...Your 60D will give you about the same depth of field at f2.8 that a full frame would give you at f4. That means to actually see the advantage, you would need to shoot the full frame at the same aperture which means expensive lenses.”
- Can you please explain that to me?
“If you can't afford to get that and end up going for f4 lenses, you have lost both the Depth of field and low light advantage of full frame.”
- Can you explain a bit more detailed (sorry for all the questions, but I really want to get I right…? ;-)
A photo salesman told me that the (Sigma) 18-35 at aperture 1.8 has a very shallow DOF and therefor has a very little area which is sharp. That concerns me a bit - what do you think about that comment?
I hear some (photo wise, e.i. here: ruclips.net/video/ojXW9F1CnfA/видео.html) people say that you have to multiply the crop factor not only to the focal length but also to the aperture, that is e.i. a prime at 1.8 gives an aperture of 2.88 at my 60D 1.6 crop camera - and others say you don’t multiply the crop factor to the aperture. Which is correct?
I have decided to stick with my Canon 60D for a while. I still don’t know if that is forever or if I have the real ‘full frame itch’ and will obey it. My biggest concern now is if I should upgrade my Tamron 17-50 2.8 to the Sigma 18-35 1.8 (worth it?) and add for example Canon 70-200 f/4 (would you recommend IS or non IS?) - or a third party equal? I am a bit afraid that the 85 mm prime will give me a bit of a ‘stuck’ feeling. Do you have any good thoughts - or other suggestions?
Very kind and grateful regards,
Susanne
No problem. RUclips often marks things as spam if they have links in them and yours did so I didn't see your comment until I checked my 'spam' comments.
From the 60D, you will see a small increase in image quality but most of the differences would be at ISO values over 800 where the 7D2 will show noticeable improvement. When it comes to build, features, speed, focus, and other items like that, the 7D2 is a massive improvement and you will immediately feel like you are holding a Professional camera and your 60D will feel more consumer grade. There will be some extra learning curve though with all those new features, settings, and dials. There are 5 pages of menus just to operate the focus system on the 7D2 so make sure you are ready to learn.
Larger sensors allow the depth of field (DOF) to be more shallow and thus, a full frame Canon 6D will have more shallow DOF to the cropped sensor of your 60D or the 7D2. The other factor of shallow DOF is the lens aperture so an aperture of f2.8 would have shallower DOF than a lens at f4. What happens is that full frame lenses are more expensive and thus many 6D buyers will buy an f4 lens like the full frame kit Canon 24-70mm f4 IS while 60D buyers can buy cheaper smaller f2.8 lenses only good on cropped sensor cameras like the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS. What I am saying is that unless you purchase f2.8 lenses for full frame cameras like the 6D, you will not have shallower DOF to your current setup with an f2.8 lens on the 60D.
The comment on the Sigma from the salesman was very misleading. First of all what he meant to say is that the depth of field is shallow at f1.8 which means that if you took a picture of me and focused on my eyes, my eyes would be perfectly sharp but the area in front of me (like my nose) might be blurred and the area behind me such as my ears or the background would also be blurred. The focus plane would still be absolutely sharp, it's just the area in front and behind the focus plane that would be blurred. This is what we would call shallow depth of field. This is not a shortcoming of the lens though, this is a positive thing and you need to understand how aperture works to get that. If you want more depth of field (the area in focus), you can shoot the lens at a different aperture...f1.8 is the maximum aperture but you can shoot it at f2.8, f4...all the way to f22 where EVERYTHING would be in focus and sharp. You can test this on your camera. Take your 60D, set it to aperture priority mode, and turn the dial so your aperture is as wide as it can go (smaller number) and take a picture of a flower. Then put the aperture to a larger number like f11 and you will see that the smaller number blurs the background while the larger number (f11) keeps more of the background in focus.
The multiply of the crop factor thing is tough to explain here but I'll say this: The technical right answer is that you absolutely have to multiply the crop factor by the focal length AND the aperture. However and it would take me a while to explain fully so I can't, the cameras are already doing this for you when it comes to exposure so don't do it when you are thinking about exposure or light/brightness. In otherwords, a f2.8 lens on a full frame camera will yield an identical exposure to a f2.8 lens on a cropped sensor camera because the camera is already accounting for the differences in sensor size. You can still do the multiplication when thinking about depth of field so your 60D with your f2.8 lens would act like a f4.5 lens aperture on a full frame camera (2.8*1.6) which is what is what I was trying to explain earlier that using an f4 lens on your full frame camera will basically be the same (in terms of aperture and DOF) as using a 2.8 lens on the cropped sensor camera. It's a tough concept to explain and even harder to do in writing.
I would not upgrade your Tamron yet. Even though I love the Sigma, it sounds like you might be changing cameras in the next 2 years and the Tamron is still a decent lens and then just make sure you have 1 wide aperture prime lens like the 50mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4 or Sigma 30mm 1.4. I would consider the Canon 70-200 if you need that focal range because it will work on cropped or full frame cameras. If your subjects are not moving quickly, you should splurge for the IS version. If your subjects are moving quickly, the IS will not end up helping you much so maybe save the cash.
LearningCameras.com
You are REALLY helpful with your detailed (and quick) answers! Thanks a lot!
I am (still) giving a bit more thought to the full frame upgrade or not - just before I invest too much in crop lenses. I read a (one among many…) review of the Sigma 18-35 1.8 at photographylife.com (I will not put the full link since I end up in youtubes junkmail;-) and here I found this comment from the person behind the review:
“The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 Art deserves the highest of praises for being such an amazing lens. Being a full-frame shooter, I am saddened by the fact that such lens does not exist for FX, but I also realize that a lens like this would have probably been twice larger in size and much heavier, perhaps making it rather prohibitive to use on full-frame cameras”
It is that true? That an equal lens for full frame will more often be twice the size/weight (and maybe even price?)? Because if it is, then it settles the deal for me and I stay happily with crop sensor camera;-)
…..
Thanks for your very kind description of DOF and how it works together with the aperture value. I did know beforehand how it works together - I am only mentioning this if it influences your recommendations for my next photo buy;-) There was just some confusion about the specific comment from the salesperson about the very shallow DOF in Sigma 18-35.
In your answer you wrote: “First of all what he meant to say is that the depth of field is shallow at f1.8 which means that if you took a picture of me and focused on my eyes, my eyes would be perfectly sharp but the area in front of me (like my nose) might be blurred and the area behind me such as my ears or the background would also be blurred.”
I am a bit concerned about this fact, because it gives me an idea that I will not be able to make a completely sharp all face picture at 1.8? Is that correct or misunderstood?
…..
Another review of Sigma 18-35 1.8 has this comment: “With few exceptions, every lens can be used as a portrait lens. But not every lens is good for all types of portraits. The perspective required for tight 18-35mm portraits make this lens a bad choice for such - unless you want to get "artistic". Notice the big nose and small hands in the sample picture below? This lens will be better-used for half-body and more-loosley cropped portraits - and for group portraits”.
Now, I do realize that the Sigma 18-35 1.8 is not made specific for portraits, but since I would use it very often for capturing the kids (preferably also a bit nearby) I hope the reviewer is not too right about this point. How do you see the Sigma 18-35 doing capturing the children around you from 1-2 meters distance?
…..
And back to my needs and thoughts on upgrading:
To be specific - I think my main desire for going full frame is the better performance at lowlight/high ISO. I just can’t figure how much better at full frame. I find my 60D sometimes giving me ‘noise’ problems inside the house shooting at higher ISO values and would enjoy the more light - either from lower aperture or higher ISO. Which would benefit the most do you think?
On the other hand I find it somehow difficult going out and spending a lot of money (relatively) at a new crop sensor camera like 7D2 (maybe because I just didn’t give a lot of thought to this before). Somehow it feels right to either stay with my canon 60D or go full frame - or I am missing a good point?
So, right now I fell mostly towards buying the Sigma 18-35 1.8 (and hope I can sell it at a good price in 1-2 years time if I decide to go full frame) + maybe also the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS (by the way, will you be using that inside your house with that focal range? And will the f/4 be good enough for that?). Unless I get convinced that a new camera will give me a lot of value for money;-)
Hmmm - a lot of decisions… I can’t emphasize enough how great a deal your comments and thoughts help me in this process - really worth a lot to me;-)!!
Kind Regards,
Susanne
Susanne Geert Hey,
So yes it is true that full frame lenses must be heavier and larger because they have to cover a larger sensor which requires much more glass. There are rumors of a Sigma 24-70 f2 lens but they have been around for a while so they are still rumors. Most likely, even if it does exist, it will be way larger and heavier than the Sigma 18-35. It will not be exactly twice the size/weight because there are many other factors involved but full frame lenses will always be larger and heavier than APS-C lenses. The advantage too is that you can still use full frame lenses on APS-C cameras while it doesn't work the other way around.
Depending on your distance from the subject (the further you are away, the more will be in focus) the entire face may not be in focus when shooting at f1.8...but the simple solution would be to change your aperture. You don't have to shoot at f1.8 just because you have a lens that is capable of it. I have a lens that works at f1.2 but I rarely shoot at f1.2 because the depth of field is so thin and the lens is sharper when stopped down to around f2.
The 18-35mm is a wider lens and personally I rarely use wider for close up portraits as it does alter the perspective (yes, objects closer to the camera such as your nose can seem larger). You are better off in the 50-135mm range for portraits though 35mm on a cropped sensor camera is not bad so I wouldn't worry about using the 18-35 zoomed in to 35mm...but I still prefer to shoot portraits in the 50-135mm range.
Full frame is usually better but costs more and so depending on the features you need an $1800 cropped sensor camera may be better overall than a $1800 full frame camera. The image quality is almost always better on a full frame and low light performance also better though this also depends on the specific camera. The 7D2 is a great camera and produces awesome results up to 1600-6400 ISO. A full frame camera like the 6D will look a little better in that range but you have to give up a ton of features to get there and you have to spend much more on a camera like the 5D Mark III to get similar features to the 7D2 in a full frame camera. If you are shooting live action shoots such as weddings/events/sports/wildlife, I would take a 7D2 over the 6D given the feature set. If this is just a casual camera and you just want good image quality, you may look more at the Canon 6D or other full frame options like the Nikon D610 or Sony A7 Mark II if you want a smaller/lighter option. My personal favorite all around full frame option under $2000 right now is the Nikon D610. It has great low light performance and still has a feature set good enough for almost any photographer...much better than the Canon 6D.
If you check out the website www.learningcameras.com I often post deals to these cameras (many are on sale right now) and if you use any of the links on the site when making your purchases at Amazon, b&h, Adorama and more, it helps support me and the site so I appreciate it. Thanks
LearningCameras.com
Hi again Dan
Thanks for (all of) your advices! As you can probably tell, I have a hard time deciding whether an upgrade to ff (6D) is the right choice for me or if my (less) money are better spend at lenses for my 60D.
So, the choices are now: Keep 60D and buy for example Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 + maybe Canon 70-200 f/4 IS (sell Tamron 17-50 and Tamron 18-270) - or: Get 6D + an all round + maybe Canon 70-200 f/4 IS.
I would spend the money on the latter if I know I get (visible/remarkable) better pictures (not only at enlarged prints but also regular sizes) - and I do know that I am the only one to decide whether the investment is worth it to me, but it is so useful to have great advices from someone with that much insight and experience as you have.
I would like to ask you why you seem not very fond of the 6D? I hear so much great about it. The 7D2 could be a good choice also, but from what I see it seems better for the photographers shooting action/sport/wildlife and since I don’t do any of those it might be overkill to buy another crop camera suited those needs. Can you explain?
If I stay with my current 60D I can’t really figure where to do the upgrade. I am impressed with the reviews of Sigma 18-35 1.8 but not pleased with the fact that it is difficult for faces too close since people/my kids would be one of my primary objects.
Ahr… I really wish I knew that an upgrade to 6D would give me a great upgrade that would make a visible difference to my current pictures….
My main frustration with 60D - as far as I am aware of - is the low light performance/ISO noice and I do know this is one of 6D’s key performances - however, is it a great deal of difference at ordinary inside house lightning or will my money be better spend at great lenses for my 60D? Are there any good reasons to postpone the decision ½-1 year?
If I do go for the 6D, which all round lens would you recommend (probably I will also buy the Canon 70-20 f/4 IS):
Canon 24-105 f/4 IS
Sigma 24-105 f/4 OS
Canon 24-70 f/4 IS
Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC
Or another?
I really keep appreciating your great advice and during the last couple of weeks I have seen several of your RUclips reviews - and you really seem to know your stuff (and how to inform the rest of us about it;-)
Kind Regards,
Susanne
Peter Hansen
Sorry - Peter Hansen is my husbands Google login;-)
Great video, thanks!
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.
Hi Dan, thinking of getting this Sigma 30mm f1.4 art for my canon 7D, because of the price. But in your experience, for portrait, is the sigma 35mm f1.4 art much better at it, and worth the $300 price difference? Thank you in advance.
The quality is similar enough that you would likely not notice anything on the 7D. The big question is that the Sigma 35 will work with full frame cameras so if you were to ever upgrade your 7D, would you be more likely to go with a 7D Mark II or upgrade body wise to full frame like the 5D or 1Dx. If you plan on sticking with the cropped sensor cameras like the 7D, I would probably just get the 30mm unless you got a great sale on the 35mm
can you use the sigma 30mm f/1.4 on the canon t4i?
also what are the differences between the sigma 30mm f/1.4 and the sigma 30mm f/1.4 art lens?
The Sigma 30mm 1.4 will work perfectly on the T4i.
The Art series brings Sigma's new look and technology. To me, the Art lenses have been sharper with faster focusing so I would get the Art. Plus it will hold resale value much better since they have tested so well.
great review! any chance if you know if this will work on Canon 1d?
Can i use that in m series using viltrox ef m2?
Thanks for the review. Did you need to use a grad filter when shooting in daylight at1.4, particularly for shooting video?
Very good work!!! Excelent review!
They look decent but I have never used them.
is it that much better optically than the old 30mm?
Is it worth the upgrade from the Nikon 35mm 1.8G? Thanks in advance.
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.
would you say that this lens produces better image quality than the sigma 50mm 1.4 non-art?
I have not used the older 50mm 1.4 but I would say yes from what I have seen. This new lens is very sharp, especially from 1.8 and up
Confused about the differences?
Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC HSM Art or
Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC DN or
Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC DN Contemporary or
Sigma 30mm f1.4 EX DC HSM ??
The contemporary is mirrorless only and the DN lenses are older. The ART is the one that you want if you are looking for a dslr: bhpho.to/2lYAR81
Dan Watson you beautiful man! thank you haha
great work :) , great video and thanks for info i really liked ur review