Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Olympus dSLR (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/olympus-dslr-40/)
-   -   Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/olympus-dslr-40/sigma-30mm-f-1-4-a-141312/)

Rileigh May 16, 2008 6:21 PM

Very seriously considering purcashing this lens as my first non-kit lens for the e-510. Covers two things that I would be looking for in an additional lens, being that it's a prime lens and has a large aparature for low light shots.

Would mainly be using it for landscape shots, maybe some portraits, and ultimately I would want to use this before the kit lenses in any situation where it might be viable. The question is, for the money is it any good?

tkurkowski May 16, 2008 6:38 PM

There are two Popular Photography reviews you might want to look at. This one (June 2007) is of the Sigma lens:

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses...dc-hsm-af.html

and this one (October 2007) is of theLeica 25mm f/1.4:

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses...mm-f14-af.html

The Leica has less barrel distortion but then it costs twice as much (if you can find one at all), and the Sigma's barrel distortion was "slight" and "about average for 30mm". In my experience reading PopPhoto lens reviews, they tend to be obtuse about a "good" lens and only enthusiastic about the best-in-class lenses (maybe you get that way after reviewing lots of lenses). My interpretationof their review is that they liked the Sigmafor the price.

Ted

gwillys May 16, 2008 7:37 PM

another consideration is the leica is sharp w/o, the sigma isnt. the leica was worth the price to me. great glass. its unusual to have a fast lens so sharp w/o.

-=edge=- May 17, 2008 2:45 AM

i'd buy the sigma, dSLRs are already problematic when it comes to sharpness in some way or another, that's why we have photoshop and USM/SS....the leica is only readily available in japan, though you may luck out at a big box camera store, there is likely to only be the grey market available...the sigma shows better quality through the full spectrum of larger prints

tri-state has the sigma for less than $375

gwillys May 17, 2008 4:31 AM

-=edge=- wrote:
Quote:

...dSLRs are already problematic when it comes to sharpness in some way or another, that's why we have photoshop and USM/SS
Quote:

...the sigma shows better quality through the full spectrum of larger prints



the logic here evades me, but to each, his own. no doubt some people are happy with the sigma.... alot of people are happy with the kit zooms. but its a cr*p shoot as far as QC. from my experience, the sigma 150 is the first, andlast sigma lens i'll own.

i've had the leica since it was released and followed the discussions all along. its expensive, hard to find, doesnt focus very close, but this is the first time i've heard a claim that the sigma is 'better'. im curious how you reached this conclusion. im assuming you haven't used either.

back to the OP - you can be sure the sigma 30 will deliver better IQ thana kit zoom, just not w/o.but if i was you, i'dget one from a store whereyou could try before you buy, mainly to check the af works correctly, and the barrel distortion wont be a problem for you.

maybe consider the zd 50?

e1/zeiss zf 50
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s43/gwillys/ww.jpg

tkurkowski May 17, 2008 7:32 AM

gwillys wrote:
Quote:

the logic here evades me
I think he's saying that the Pop Photo reviews showed that the Sigma had 0.2% better Subjective Quality Factor than the Leica.

But I'm with you - I have two Leica 4/3 lenses and they are superb. I'd need to see a magnified side-by-side comparison pair of images to believe the Sigma is as good as the Leica. Nevertheless it's not clear the Leica is worth over twice the price.

Ted

PS: Great photo!



gwillys May 17, 2008 8:20 AM

oh, "0.2% better Subjective Quality Factor" - that definitely evades me, lol.

.2%?

Subjective Quality Factor?

those people are on drugs :?.

-=edge=- May 17, 2008 11:35 AM

you came back to this thread to flame me? i was pointing out what was said in the reviews and their comparison, there are two pages for each review, i'm assuming you didn't read either one. This is a photography forum, check your ego at the door, there are people that have thier own budget, not your's and the Sigma is a fine lens for half to one third the price. This isn't based on a .2% better ratio of image quality in larger prints, it just drives home the point that the lens isn't a turd like some people would have you believe.....the Leica is nice, the sigma is as well

tkurkowski May 17, 2008 2:01 PM

gwillys wrote:
Quote:

Subjective Quality Factor?

those people are on drugs :?.
Although I share your scepticism about the Sigma being equal to the Leica, frankly Edge is correct about your response IMHO. It's amazing to me that you would dis one of the major, and oldest, photography magazines on this planet without a clue as to what they are doing. So maybe I can shedsome light on wha they mean by SQF:

1. It is a quantitative evaluation of qualitative plus quantitative factors.

2. It is based on the work of Dr. Edward Granger, Senior Scientist at Eastman Kodak. Possiblyyou have heard of that company.

3. They have been doing SQF measurements since 1990. Presumably they would have stopped doing that if a lot of experienced professional and amateur photographers provided reasons why their SQF tests were leading to inaccurate conclusions. With Pop Photo's readership that certainly would have happened. Evidently it has not.

4. I suspect that if youreview Pop Photo's SQF evaluations regarding the lenses you own, you will find them to be quite accurate. I have.

Should you wish to know more about Pop Photo's SQF measurement technology you can find an article about it here:

http://www.popphoto.com/assets/downl...2003124535.pdf

Ted

gwillys May 17, 2008 2:47 PM

e1/rokkor mc 300mm

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s...s/litepole.jpg


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:10 AM.