The most overrated lens of all time, Sigma's 30mm f/1.4
 

On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 17:16:39 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote:
: I had that lens. At the same time, I had the Nikon 35mm f/2.0 and
: the Pentax 35mm f/2.0. To say the Nikon and Pentax killed it in image
: quality would be kind. Even at f/8.0, even centrally, where they
: should have all given similar performance, the Nikon and Pentax were
: head and tails better. At f/1.4, the edges of the Sigma were so bad
: as to be unusable. This was due in-part to Sigma's weird, "sacrifice
: the edges" design philosophy. The argument might be "it allows you to
: isolate the subject better!" Really? Done any portraits with 30mm
: lenses lately? Maybe distorted flowers... The only thing that Sigma
: could claim about the 30mm was that it was better (at the time) than
: Nikon's 35mm f/1.4 which had an ancient design by then. Today, if you
: can't afford Nikon's current 35mm f/1.4, you would be far better off
: getting the Samyang (or any variant company's) manual 35mm f/1.4. at
: roughly the same price-point as Sigma's current 30mm.

Maybe you got a bad copy. My Canon-mount version of that lens doesn't seem to
have all those bad properties.

That said, I hardly ever use the lens. I bought it for a camera whose high-ISO
performance was vastly inferior to that of the cameras I own today. So an
f/1.4 lens seemed to make a lot more sense then than it does now. But compared
to the prices of today's lenses, I didn't pay a lot for it, so I don't lose
any sleep.

Bob

The most overrated lens of all time, Sigma's 30mm f/1.4
 

On 3/9/2013 10:20 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 17:16:39 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote:
: I had that lens. At the same time, I had the Nikon 35mm f/2.0 and
: the Pentax 35mm f/2.0. To say the Nikon and Pentax killed it in image
: quality would be kind. Even at f/8.0, even centrally, where they
: should have all given similar performance, the Nikon and Pentax were
: head and tails better. At f/1.4, the edges of the Sigma were so bad
: as to be unusable. This was due in-part to Sigma's weird, "sacrifice
: the edges" design philosophy. The argument might be "it allows you to
: isolate the subject better!" Really? Done any portraits with 30mm
: lenses lately? Maybe distorted flowers... The only thing that Sigma
: could claim about the 30mm was that it was better (at the time) than
: Nikon's 35mm f/1.4 which had an ancient design by then. Today, if you
: can't afford Nikon's current 35mm f/1.4, you would be far better off
: getting the Samyang (or any variant company's) manual 35mm f/1.4. at
: roughly the same price-point as Sigma's current 30mm.

Maybe you got a bad copy. My Canon-mount version of that lens doesn't seem to
have all those bad properties.

That said, I hardly ever use the lens. I bought it for a camera whose high-ISO
performance was vastly inferior to that of the cameras I own today. So an
f/1.4 lens seemed to make a lot more sense then than it does now. But compared
to the prices of today's lenses, I didn't pay a lot for it, so I don't lose
any sleep.

Bob


I used to really like my Nikkor 50mm f1.4. It worked well on my D200. I
g0t a lot of use from it in my film days, so it doesn't owe me anything.
Now, it just sits in my closet.

--
PeterN

The most overrated lens of all time, Sigma's 30mm f/1.4
 

On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 10:34:52 -0500, PeterN
wrote:
: I used to really like my Nikkor 50mm f1.4. It worked well on my D200. I
: g0t a lot of use from it in my film days, so it doesn't owe me anything.
: Now, it just sits in my closet.

Oh, yeah, when I used a film Nikon, the 50mm f/1.4 was my walking-around lens
too. My wife had the even sharper 50mm f/2.0 on her Nikkormat.

Now I think we have only two prime lenses in our collection: the
aforementioned 30mm f/1.4 and Martha's beloved 60mm f/2.8 macro. Everything
else is a zoom. It's quite a different world.

Bob

The most overrated lens of all time, Sigma's 30mm f/1.4
 

On 3/9/2013 7:34 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 3/9/2013 10:20 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 17:16:39 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:
: I had that lens. At the same time, I had the Nikon 35mm f/2.0 and
: the Pentax 35mm f/2.0. To say the Nikon and Pentax killed it in image
: quality would be kind. Even at f/8.0, even centrally, where they
: should have all given similar performance, the Nikon and Pentax were
: head and tails better. At f/1.4, the edges of the Sigma were so bad
: as to be unusable. This was due in-part to Sigma's weird, "sacrifice
: the edges" design philosophy. The argument might be "it allows you to
: isolate the subject better!" Really? Done any portraits with 30mm
: lenses lately? Maybe distorted flowers... The only thing that Sigma
: could claim about the 30mm was that it was better (at the time) than
: Nikon's 35mm f/1.4 which had an ancient design by then. Today, if you
: can't afford Nikon's current 35mm f/1.4, you would be far better off
: getting the Samyang (or any variant company's) manual 35mm f/1.4. at
: roughly the same price-point as Sigma's current 30mm.

Maybe you got a bad copy. My Canon-mount version of that lens doesn't
seem to
have all those bad properties.

That said, I hardly ever use the lens. I bought it for a camera whose
high-ISO
performance was vastly inferior to that of the cameras I own today. So an
f/1.4 lens seemed to make a lot more sense then than it does now. But
compared
to the prices of today's lenses, I didn't pay a lot for it, so I don't
lose
any sleep.

Bob


I used to really like my Nikkor 50mm f1.4. It worked well on my D200. I
g0t a lot of use from it in my film days, so it doesn't owe me anything.
Now, it just sits in my closet.


During the transition from film to digital I've kept my 50mm f1.4 Nikkor
lens. It's as good a lens now as it was back I was with film. Used with
one of my DX cameras, it becomes a decent 75mm group portrait lens. In
the bright light of the day, when used with various Neutral Density
filters (to allow use of more open f-stops) it's a good lens t use for
beach/desert scenes.

The most overrated lens of all time, Sigma's 30mm f/1.4
 

On 3/9/2013 2:30 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 10:34:52 -0500, PeterN
wrote:
: I used to really like my Nikkor 50mm f1.4. It worked well on my D200. I
: g0t a lot of use from it in my film days, so it doesn't owe me anything.
: Now, it just sits in my closet.

Oh, yeah, when I used a film Nikon, the 50mm f/1.4 was my walking-around lens
too. My wife had the even sharper 50mm f/2.0 on her Nikkormat.

Now I think we have only two prime lenses in our collection: the
aforementioned 30mm f/1.4 and Martha's beloved 60mm f/2.8 macro. Everything
else is a zoom. It's quite a different world.


My primary prime is my 200mm micro Nikkor. Once in a while I use the
20mm f4 and my 24mm f2.8. I recently used the 20 for street. I also use
my 10.5 semi fisheye. I am giving serious thought to a long telephoto.
So I guess one can say I am still in my prime.
However, I agree that times are changing. I find myself putting
extension tubes on my 70-299, for closeup work.
I

--
PeterN

The most overrated lens of all time, Sigma's 30mm f/1.4
 

On 3/9/2013 2:33 PM, nick c wrote:
On 3/9/2013 7:34 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 3/9/2013 10:20 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 17:16:39 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:
: I had that lens. At the same time, I had the Nikon 35mm f/2.0 and
: the Pentax 35mm f/2.0. To say the Nikon and Pentax killed it in image
: quality would be kind. Even at f/8.0, even centrally, where they
: should have all given similar performance, the Nikon and Pentax were
: head and tails better. At f/1.4, the edges of the Sigma were so bad
: as to be unusable. This was due in-part to Sigma's weird, "sacrifice
: the edges" design philosophy. The argument might be "it allows you to
: isolate the subject better!" Really? Done any portraits with 30mm
: lenses lately? Maybe distorted flowers... The only thing that Sigma
: could claim about the 30mm was that it was better (at the time) than
: Nikon's 35mm f/1.4 which had an ancient design by then. Today, if you
: can't afford Nikon's current 35mm f/1.4, you would be far better off
: getting the Samyang (or any variant company's) manual 35mm f/1.4. at
: roughly the same price-point as Sigma's current 30mm.

Maybe you got a bad copy. My Canon-mount version of that lens doesn't
seem to
have all those bad properties.

That said, I hardly ever use the lens. I bought it for a camera whose
high-ISO
performance was vastly inferior to that of the cameras I own today.
So an
f/1.4 lens seemed to make a lot more sense then than it does now. But
compared
to the prices of today's lenses, I didn't pay a lot for it, so I don't
lose
any sleep.

Bob


I used to really like my Nikkor 50mm f1.4. It worked well on my D200. I
g0t a lot of use from it in my film days, so it doesn't owe me anything.
Now, it just sits in my closet.


During the transition from film to digital I've kept my 50mm f1.4 Nikkor
lens. It's as good a lens now as it was back I was with film. Used with
one of my DX cameras, it becomes a decent 75mm group portrait lens. In
the bright light of the day, when used with various Neutral Density
filters (to allow use of more open f-stops) it's a good lens t use for
beach/desert scenes.


I have been getting a lot of CA with digital that I never got with film.

--
PeterN

The most overrated lens of all time, Sigma's 30mm f/1.4
 

On 3/9/2013 4:21 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 3/9/2013 2:33 PM, nick c wrote:
On 3/9/2013 7:34 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 3/9/2013 10:20 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 17:16:39 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:
: I had that lens. At the same time, I had the Nikon 35mm f/2.0 and
: the Pentax 35mm f/2.0. To say the Nikon and Pentax killed it in
image
: quality would be kind. Even at f/8.0, even centrally, where they
: should have all given similar performance, the Nikon and Pentax were
: head and tails better. At f/1.4, the edges of the Sigma were so bad
: as to be unusable. This was due in-part to Sigma's weird, "sacrifice
: the edges" design philosophy. The argument might be "it allows
you to
: isolate the subject better!" Really? Done any portraits with 30mm
: lenses lately? Maybe distorted flowers... The only thing that Sigma
: could claim about the 30mm was that it was better (at the time) than
: Nikon's 35mm f/1.4 which had an ancient design by then. Today, if
you
: can't afford Nikon's current 35mm f/1.4, you would be far better off
: getting the Samyang (or any variant company's) manual 35mm f/1.4. at
: roughly the same price-point as Sigma's current 30mm.

Maybe you got a bad copy. My Canon-mount version of that lens doesn't
seem to
have all those bad properties.

That said, I hardly ever use the lens. I bought it for a camera whose
high-ISO
performance was vastly inferior to that of the cameras I own today.
So an
f/1.4 lens seemed to make a lot more sense then than it does now. But
compared
to the prices of today's lenses, I didn't pay a lot for it, so I don't
lose
any sleep.

Bob


I used to really like my Nikkor 50mm f1.4. It worked well on my D200. I
g0t a lot of use from it in my film days, so it doesn't owe me anything.
Now, it just sits in my closet.


During the transition from film to digital I've kept my 50mm f1.4 Nikkor
lens. It's as good a lens now as it was back I was with film. Used with
one of my DX cameras, it becomes a decent 75mm group portrait lens. In
the bright light of the day, when used with various Neutral Density
filters (to allow use of more open f-stops) it's a good lens t use for
beach/desert scenes.


I have been getting a lot of CA with digital that I never got with film.


Has that been just with the 50mm f1.4 lens? It seems like we have been
dealing with chromatic aberration for quite some time when going digital.

The most overrated lens of all time, Sigma's 30mm f/1.4
 

On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 16:59:11 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote:
: On Mar 9, 7:21*pm, PeterN wrote:
: On 3/9/2013 2:33 PM, nick c wrote:
: During the transition from film to digital I've kept my 50mm f1.4 Nikkor
: lens. It's as good a lens now as it was back I was with film. Used with
: one of my DX cameras, it becomes a decent 75mm group portrait lens. In
: the bright light of the day, when used with various Neutral Density
: filters (to allow use of more open f-stops) it's a good lens t use for
: beach/desert scenes.
:
: I have been getting a lot of CA with digital that I never got with film.
:
: --
: PeterN
:
: Some blame it on the micro-lenses on the pixels rather than the lens
: itself. Some models and brands of cameras seem to show more, but
: that's anecdotal. But check out the kind of chromatic aberration it
: is. Is it the classical, reddish-puple on one side and green on the
: other, or, is it the "new" red on one side and blue on the other we
: see with some digital set-ups? The Olympus 17mm and 25mm f/2.8 primes
: both have it, and it doesn't seem to vary if they are stopped down.
: When you have a deep scene of a repeating object (like a white fence)
: do the slats in focus look white while the ones inside (closer) focus
: are purplish tinged while the ones outside of focus (further from
: focus) look greenish?

And those who place the blame as Rich describes also maintain that lenses
introduced since the digital revolution are specifically designed to minimize
the digital form of CA. And that they therefore outperform (on digital
cameras) older film-camera lenses of comparable optical quality.

Bob

The most overrated lens of all time, Sigma's 30mm f/1.4
 

On 3/9/2013 8:28 PM, nick c wrote:
On 3/9/2013 4:21 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 3/9/2013 2:33 PM, nick c wrote:
On 3/9/2013 7:34 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 3/9/2013 10:20 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 17:16:39 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:
: I had that lens. At the same time, I had the Nikon 35mm f/2.0 and
: the Pentax 35mm f/2.0. To say the Nikon and Pentax killed it in
image
: quality would be kind. Even at f/8.0, even centrally, where they
: should have all given similar performance, the Nikon and Pentax were
: head and tails better. At f/1.4, the edges of the Sigma were so bad
: as to be unusable. This was due in-part to Sigma's weird,
"sacrifice
: the edges" design philosophy. The argument might be "it allows
you to
: isolate the subject better!" Really? Done any portraits with 30mm
: lenses lately? Maybe distorted flowers... The only thing that Sigma
: could claim about the 30mm was that it was better (at the time) than
: Nikon's 35mm f/1.4 which had an ancient design by then. Today, if
you
: can't afford Nikon's current 35mm f/1.4, you would be far better off
: getting the Samyang (or any variant company's) manual 35mm f/1.4. at
: roughly the same price-point as Sigma's current 30mm.

Maybe you got a bad copy. My Canon-mount version of that lens doesn't
seem to
have all those bad properties.

That said, I hardly ever use the lens. I bought it for a camera whose
high-ISO
performance was vastly inferior to that of the cameras I own today.
So an
f/1.4 lens seemed to make a lot more sense then than it does now. But
compared
to the prices of today's lenses, I didn't pay a lot for it, so I don't
lose
any sleep.

Bob


I used to really like my Nikkor 50mm f1.4. It worked well on my D200. I
g0t a lot of use from it in my film days, so it doesn't owe me
anything.
Now, it just sits in my closet.


During the transition from film to digital I've kept my 50mm f1.4 Nikkor
lens. It's as good a lens now as it was back I was with film. Used with
one of my DX cameras, it becomes a decent 75mm group portrait lens. In
the bright light of the day, when used with various Neutral Density
filters (to allow use of more open f-stops) it's a good lens t use for
beach/desert scenes.


I have been getting a lot of CA with digital that I never got with film.


Has that been just with the 50mm f1.4 lens? It seems like we have been
dealing with chromatic aberration for quite some time when going digital.



It's only this lens.

The most overrated lens of all time, Sigma's 30mm f/1.4
 

On 3/10/2013 11:55 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 3/9/2013 8:28 PM, nick c wrote:
On 3/9/2013 4:21 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 3/9/2013 2:33 PM, nick c wrote:
On 3/9/2013 7:34 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 3/9/2013 10:20 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 17:16:39 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:
: I had that lens. At the same time, I had the Nikon 35mm f/2.0 and
: the Pentax 35mm f/2.0. To say the Nikon and Pentax killed it in
image
: quality would be kind. Even at f/8.0, even centrally, where they
: should have all given similar performance, the Nikon and Pentax
were
: head and tails better. At f/1.4, the edges of the Sigma were so
bad
: as to be unusable. This was due in-part to Sigma's weird,
"sacrifice
: the edges" design philosophy. The argument might be "it allows
you to
: isolate the subject better!" Really? Done any portraits with 30mm
: lenses lately? Maybe distorted flowers... The only thing that Sigma
: could claim about the 30mm was that it was better (at the time)
than
: Nikon's 35mm f/1.4 which had an ancient design by then. Today, if
you
: can't afford Nikon's current 35mm f/1.4, you would be far better
off
: getting the Samyang (or any variant company's) manual 35mm
f/1.4. at
: roughly the same price-point as Sigma's current 30mm.

Maybe you got a bad copy. My Canon-mount version of that lens doesn't
seem to
have all those bad properties.

That said, I hardly ever use the lens. I bought it for a camera whose
high-ISO
performance was vastly inferior to that of the cameras I own today.
So an
f/1.4 lens seemed to make a lot more sense then than it does now. But
compared
to the prices of today's lenses, I didn't pay a lot for it, so I
don't
lose
any sleep.

Bob


I used to really like my Nikkor 50mm f1.4. It worked well on my
D200. I
g0t a lot of use from it in my film days, so it doesn't owe me
anything.
Now, it just sits in my closet.


During the transition from film to digital I've kept my 50mm f1.4
Nikkor
lens. It's as good a lens now as it was back I was with film. Used with
one of my DX cameras, it becomes a decent 75mm group portrait lens. In
the bright light of the day, when used with various Neutral Density
filters (to allow use of more open f-stops) it's a good lens t use for
beach/desert scenes.


I have been getting a lot of CA with digital that I never got with film.


Has that been just with the 50mm f1.4 lens? It seems like we have been
dealing with chromatic aberration for quite some time when going digital.



It's only this lens.

Thanks ..