Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Sigma Primes?

Terry VerHaar

Terry VerHaar

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
7,013
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Location
Marin County, CA
I was wondering if anyone has used - and would, or would not, recommend - the Sigma primes as an alternative to Canon L glass. Specifically wondering about the 50 and the 85. Normally I'd assume that because they are so inexpensive they couldn't possibly be competitive, but the Tokina 11-16 has blown that theory. :-)

Thanks for any input. :cheers2:
 
many of them are competitive, even for the price - the question is - is the electronic aperture supported on RED's list? where does one find that list anyway, I know I've seen it.

www.fredmiranda.com is a great place to find comparative glass reviews for still glass, in terms of comparing sharpness, color rendering, etc. also a good place to buy used glass in great shape - it's one of those glass junky sites where people buy to try and then sell.
 
The 85mm f/1.4 is pretty nice. I like the images off the Canon 85mm f/1.2L a bit more though. It's just a better piece of glass. More contrast, pleasing out of focus effect, a bit sharper, etc.. Hate the fly by wire design though.

I have no experience with the Sigma 50mm. But I do own and like the 50mm f/1.2 a lot. Pairs well with the 24mm f/1.4L, 35mm f/1.4L, and 85mm f/1.2L.

I'd be curious to see how the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 holds up. Haven't had the chance to use one yet. Might give the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 another shot too.
 
The Sigma 50mm 1.4 was better than the Canon 1.4 when I tested (Wide open and to about f4)... linted to a sample of 1 each so YMMV...

that said I did try a wide Sigma ( 24mm 1.8???) and it was dreadfull... bought the Canon 24mm f1.4 mrk2 instead and it is ok (not great but ok). May just have been a bad sample...

M
 
I have the sigma 20mm 1.8. Worse piece of glass I own...I wish I would have bought a different sigma prime before I bought this because i have a foul taste in my mouth for sigma now. The more you close off aperture the more foggy the image looks, all clarity is lost... When wide open, what is in focus is pretty clear, but areas outside of focus are...foggy looking....not just blurry, but foggy...very unappealing.
 
I have to agree with the 20mm 1.8 sigma....it's pretty bad....almost unusable at certain f-stops...
 
Terry VerHaar said:
Phil - Thanks for the input. Not sure what you mean by "fly by wire design."
Click to expand...

The 85mm f/1.2L employs an electronic focus motor. Meaning the lens must be powered to actually manually focus the lens. It's a bit of a bummer as you don't have the "solid" feel you get with lenses that you yourself are mechanically moving, but it's certainly not a deal breaker.
 
The Sigma primes mostly suck. I tried them all. Bad CA & not sharp etc. Old designs that Sigma badly need to update. The new Sigma 8-16mm is amazing but slow. Very sharp and no CA. Sharper than any 10-22mm Canon I ever tried (5 or 6) and as good as the Tokina 11-16mm. I wanted a wider view so I put up with the 4.5-5.6.

Low budget - Try the Rokinon / Bower for the 24, 35 and 85 and I would get the Canon 50 F/1.4 which is great lens for the $$. The Canon 85mm F/1.8 is also excellent for the $$ and has much less breathing than the F/1.2. Just test them as all still lenses vary greatly and it usually takes 2 or 3 to find a good one.
 
Just one word of EXTREME caution... CONSISTENCY!!

Consistency is a word that is not known nor spoken at SIGMA... ;)

I have in the past purchased and tested many of their lenses especially those which were not available in the Canon L series, and while I could always get a bets out of 3 with Canon, with Sigma, would take some times up to a DOZEN lenses to get one that was SHARP... WOW, talk about INCONSISTENCY in their manufacturing.

One of advise, TEST, then TEST, then TEST, and hopefully you'll get lucky to find SHARP glass, but my biggest advise to you....

NEVER buy a Sigma lens you can't return... ;)
 
For those who do not want to waste their time looking at old 35mm adaptor footage, read no furthur.

A general impression of three lenses, Sigma 14mm f2.8, Noct-Nikkor 58mm f1.2 and Voigtlander 40mm f2 can be had from the clips listed below.

Here is a little extract from a family history project shot on Sony PMW-EX1/LETUS EXTREME with a SIGMA-For-Nikon 14mm rectilinear f2.8 and Noct Nikkor 58mm f1.2.

There was 15 points of sharpening applied to compensate for groundglass so it is not a fair sharpness test. The Sigma 14mm is soft wide-open, no question but it sweetens by f4 and beyond.

The colour rendition is pleasing. I am no colour grader or lens tech and not much of a camera op either, just an unrequited writer mainly with a liking for cameras. Lighting conditions in the gully required f3.5 - f4.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPAFlbyacoo


For those who want to preview a Voigtlander 40mm f2, one was used in this clip. The Letus Extreme had been modified for adjustable centricity and wider view of the groundglass. The view is closer to Super35mm than stanrdard 35mm. The vignette on the side edges is due to my haste and mismanagement of the relay path and I picked up the edges of the compound prism.

http://exposureroom.com/members/DARANGULAFILM/d46dec40cffd4f7d839d6b3f40a2cadd/

And there's more :-

Sigma 50mm - 500mm f4 - f6.3 zoom.

http://exposureroom.com/members/DARANGULAFILM/1d8cda1a081d42989646a3343879664d/

MTO "Jupiter" 1084mm f10.5 mirror lens.

http://exposureroom.com/members/DARANGULAFILM/f94b1771ded74f15809cb9faa0ae4a16/
 
Last edited:
Guess I'm lucky. My Sigma 20mm F1.8 isn't displaying any of those problems. It does breathe, but produces sharp images.
 
I have a Sigma 20mm f1.8. I can only vouch for its look via an AGUS35 groundglass adaptor. At its widest aperture it did soften and flare a bit. In the region of f4, it was sharp enough via the adaptor in images of a brickwalled building for the mortar lines to be clearly visible. Groundglass imaging by its nature tends to amplify any deficiencies in lens sharpness.
 
As usual, the information offered up on RU is invaluable. Crowd sourcing for info at its very best!! Thanks everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top