Anyone try the Sigma 20mm f1.8?

[Jacek Zakowicz]

kudos for Sigma!!

kudos for Sigma!!

Looks like they are getting better-that's good news. They have an outstanding line of primes with all FL priced amazingly low.Hi speed.
Best kept secret in the industry:coolgleamA:

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

I'm ordering one of these puppies from B&H tomorrow evening when they re-open. Can't wait to try this thing out and see which version (soft or crisp) they send me! (I'm hoping for crisp.) If it's a keeper, this lens will complete my lens collection:

Tokina 11-16mm f2.8
Sigma 20mm f1.8
Canon 24mm f1.4 L II
Canon 35mm f1.4 L
Canon 50mm f1.2 L
Canon 85mm f1.2 L II
Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro L
Canon 135mm f2.0
Canon 200mm f2.8

Yeah. . . I like fast primes. Oh, and that Birger mount, too.

Stephen

 

[Brad Webb]

I'm ordering one of these puppies from B&H tomorrow evening when they re-open. Can't wait to try this thing out and see which version (soft or crisp) they send me! (I'm hoping for crisp.) If it's a keeper, this lens will complete my lens collection:

Tokina 11-16mm f2.8
Sigma 20mm f1.8
Canon 24mm f1.4 L II
Canon 35mm f1.4 L
Canon 50mm f1.2 L
Canon 85mm f1.2 L II
Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro L
Canon 135mm f2.0
Canon 200mm f2.8

Yeah. . . I like fast primes. Oh, and that Birger mount, too.

Stephen

That right there is my lens wish list right now. I've been so close on ebay for most of these so many times.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Crossing my fingers for you for that Sigma!

Any reports on the focusing motor? Is it loud?

 

[Matt W.]

Just making your decision harder for you:

I do not like this lens in particular. My sample was almost uselessly soft at f1.8, substantially better by f2, and usable by f2.8, though the corners remained quite soft. Used it on a d70 and pre-mx red and sold it a couple years ago.

That said, I found the 24mm f2.0 AIS pretty soft wide open, too. Maybe it's the nature of retro-focus lenses but I'm rarely impressed by the wides that are available for SLRs. So much CA and distortion. And the lenses themselves are so big.

Just my opinion, but for a crop sensor, I'd get the 17-55mm f2.8 zoom instead. This lens might as well be f2.8 for how badly it performs wide open. It is pretty cool how you can get a bit of shallow focus with a wide lens, but then you have to pull focus! Currently I'm using the 18-55mm IS kit lens for wide stuff (on my dSLR) and this lens is embarrassingly good at the wide end (for the price) with very good IS except it has just horrible CA. And tons of distortion, but what doesn't?

So I'd rather use the kit lens than this one. To put things in perspective. It's not horrible, just...disappointing and of pretty limited utility.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

cherry picking

cherry picking

Not a new concept really
I've been doing it with ARRI Angie, Cookes, etc.
Although much more consistent(and for the cost they better be!) they vary as well.
here is my take:
Sigmas:
20 f1.8
24f1.8
30 f1.4
50 f1.4
85 f1.4
I couldn't find newer 135 to complete the set but I found this:
http://slrlensreview.com/web/carl-z...-carl-zeiss-sonnar-t-135mm-f18-telephoto.html
Not too shabby(?)
Just got to do your homework cherry picking:thumbup1:

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

Cherry picking is indeed a part of this crazy game. Wish I lived in NY. I could cherry pick for days and not pay a single shipping charge.

As it is, it took me four different Canon 135mm f2.0 L lenses to find one that didn't have a left-right image shift while pulling focus. I even sent one back to the factory for adjustment, and they said it was just fine. I did eventually find one, and I just love that lens, but it was quite a hunt.

I'm hopeful that my search for a fast 20mm lens will end with just one Sigma, but time will tell!

Thanks for all the comments, guys.

Stephen

 

[Matt W.]

Even if you get a good sample (and it may take a while with sigma), the mtf curves for this thing are awful wide open. So at best it's not great. I think I got a decent sample since I had good performance by f2.8, which many don't, and I still was unimpressed. There's straight up tons of curvature of field. Try it out if you will, but if you're holding it against L glass as your standard, it's a wild goose chase. At least demo this thing before buying. I've heard from people who love this lens, but I think it's more a matter of standards than it is a matter of sample-to-sample variation. The mtf curves indicate it's never really "good." But then again what else is this fast in this focal length?

 

[Robert Jackson]

At least demo this thing before buying. I've heard from people who love this lens, but I think it's more a matter of standards than it is a matter of sample-to-sample variation. The mtf curves indicate it's never really "good." But then again what else is this fast in this focal length?

You know, there are very few "good" extreme wide angle lenses. You're always bumping up against distortion (frequently complex), field curvature, soft corners, etc. Sigma has an interesting lens here. And all Sigma EX lenses seem to have a very particular flavor of bokeh that I like quite a bit. The 20mm focuses as close as 8 inches and if you play to its strengths it can be used wide open, but wide open means careful composition and no camera movement or the soft corners will be immediately obvious. But it has fairly low distortion...I don't know of any zooms that have as little...and of course the speed is hard to match.

 

[Robert Jackson]

I couldn't find newer 135 to complete the set but I found this:
http://slrlensreview.com/web/carl-z...-carl-zeiss-sonnar-t-135mm-f18-telephoto.html
Not too shabby(?)

That Zeiss 135 f/1.8 is a thing of beauty. I've very nearly bought an a900 two or three times just to be able to use it. It focuses closer than most 85mm lenses and it's very sharp.

 

[Matt W.]

Oh, I know the issues with fast retrofocus lenses as well as anyone. My favorite ever (65mm f4 Mamiya for the rz system) was flawless except distortion, so there's no winning with these. (Meanwhile, my 135mm sironar-s plasmat weighs 200 grams and is legitimately flawless.)

The Sigma is still really soft. I'd much rather have a 17-55mm Canon EF-S zoom than an f1.8 prime that needs to be stopped down to f2.8 for normal use. The lack of distortion may be compelling, and f1.8 is cool in theory, but in practice it's not that useful a lens. If you find it useful, great, I just have trouble recommending it when there are tons of killer fast zooms in this focal length range, most of which should be sharper.

 

[James Brundige]

I have no knowledge of this lens. I've had precisely one Sigma, and I won't have another one. 'nuff said.

Same here. Lens died in the Amazon, finished shooting with my Nikons, but had to do without the focal length the Sigma covered. Sent it back to the lame salesman who talked me into it.

 

[Robert Jackson]

The Sigma is still really soft. I'd much rather have a 17-55mm Canon EF-S zoom than an f1.8 prime that needs to be stopped down to f2.8 for normal use. The lack of distortion may be compelling, and f1.8 is cool in theory, but in practice it's not that useful a lens. If you find it useful, great, I just have trouble recommending it when there are tons of killer fast zooms in this focal length range, most of which should be sharper.

The Sigma certainly is soft wide open. Not so bad by f/2.8, but by then you're losing its raison d'être. A better solution by far for general use is the Zeiss 21mm f/4.5 ZM Biogon, but alas...no way to use it on an Epic.

That's the frustrating part, really. In 35mm still lenses all the really good wide-angle still lenses are rangefinder lenses (really the only compelling reason to own a rangefinder, IMO), obviously because of the short flange distances, but the Epic can't mount those lenses.

 

[Robert Jackson]

Same here. Lens died in the Amazon, finished shooting with my Nikons, but had to do without the focal length the Sigma covered. Sent it back to the lame salesman who talked me into it.

Lemme tell you my one and only story of a dead Sigma.

Back when I owned Olympus OM stuff I had a Sigma 70-210mm f/2.8 APO. I owned this lens in Olympus OM mount because Olympus never really got around to offering a quality f/2.8 telephoto zoom. They offered the amazing 35-80mm f/2.8 ED, which I owned and loved, but never a telephoto lens to compliment it.

This lens was very sharp and handled well, but it was pretty huge on a tiny OM body. It was like a thermos or something. Still, it was a nice lens.

In about 2000 the lens took a really nasty blow to the front element. I had a UV filter on it and the filter was shattered and had to be cut off. The front element of the lens was damaged by the broken shards of glass from the UV filter. I emailed Sigma USA and they said to send it to them, even though they hadn't made this lens for years. I sent them the lens and they contacted me and said that they did not have a replacement for the front element, but they'd contact Sigma Japan and see if they had one. A couple of weeks later they said that Sigma Japan didn't have one, either, but the front element was a meniscus element that could be re-ground without optical degradation and asked me if I wanted them to proceed. I told them it would be fine and a week or so later my lens arrived back home with a note saying that there was no charge for the repairs. It seemed perfect to me. I never conducted any tests, but it seemed to perform exactly as it always had. I've always liked Sigma lenses, but Sigma won my confidence as a customer with that. I don't know of many companies that would go to such effort to get a customer's lens back into working order, particularly a lens that they hadn't built in years.

I still use some Sigma glass, particularly the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM APO Macro, which is one of the best macro lenses I've ever used.

The trio of fast, wide primes; the Sigma 28mm f/1.8 EX DG Aspherical Macro, 24mm f/1.8 EX DG Aspherical Macro and Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG Aspherical RF are each useful in their own way with the 28mm being the best of the lot, followed by the 24mm and with the 20mm bringing up the rear. Which is kinda what you'd expect. So I'm not exactly gonna champion the lens, but I do think it's a useful optic and I am a Sigma supporter. I won't say that everything they make is worth owning. In general I don't think I'd own most of their zooms (although I do own their 20-40mm f/2.8 EX DG Aspherical and like it quite a bit), but they've made some very nice apochromatic lenses over the years, IMO.

BTW, this was photo was taken with that 20-40mm f/2.8 at 40mm. Even their wide-angle EX stuff has that particular kind of bokeh. I don't know exactly what it is. It's not a clean and sparkling glimmer like a good Zeiss. It's kind of a funky, slightly color-shifted area of liquidy reality-related thing. Which I like. The 18 does that same king of thing and I can fully understand people not liking it or thinking of it as a "flaw" of the lens, but it seems to be consistently similar between EX lenses, so I think it's a thing they're doing. Anyway, you can see it pretty clearly in near-field stuff like this even on the wide angle lenses like this one.