( 11 reviews )
-
Posted: Jul 4 2009
I really can't fault this lens for what it is not - after considering its modest price tag. Sure it's not a Canon 24/1.4L and it's not exactly sharp wide open on a full-frame DSLR. For less than $300, however, its few shortcomings (AF clutch design, AF speed/accuracy) become just minor inconveniences and you get a great lens for available light environmental portraits. My copy provides useable 8x10" prints at F/1.8 and is very sharp by F/3.5. Flare control, contrast and color rendition are fine. Bokeh and macro performance are surprisingly good for a wide angle. All in all, I'm glad I didn't spend a lot more (in these tough times) to own the 24/1.4L.
-
Posted: Oct 18 2008
Well built, well damped MF, solid all around, great contrast and color, sharpness is fine at 1.8, maybe a bit better than my Sigma 24-70/f2.8 at 2.8. I didn't notice serious light fall-off around the corners. At 1.8 it is soft around the corner as comparing to the center. This may partly due to the fact that when focused close at f1.8, the DOF is rather shallow. Just did some quick AF test on a tripod shooting a ruler at 45 degree angle from 5' to 1' distance, AF are spot on! But the IQ is clearly better at the center when focus closely. At 5' f1.8, the IQ isn't great anywhere. Will try this lens on a better body (maybe 5D MkII) in the future to make sure the low IQ at farther distance wide open isn't caused by the sensor on my 40D, because low light shots are more taxing on the sensor. For the price and focus length, otherwise would be a miracle. This lens at 1.8 (wide open) seems to be more grainy than my Canon 50/1.4 at 1.4 and 100/f2 at f2. But it is usable for me as a hobbyist for sure. Though there is nothing to be bragged about. IQ gets a lot better stop down at all distances. So I am glad I don't have the AF problem heard so often online. I did similar test on my other lenses, Canon as well as Sigma/Tamron. Some do have AF problems, front, off-center, back, you name it. Zoom is worse than prime of course. So I am just glad this Sigma is not one of them. AF is on par with my other non USM/HSM lenses, both speed and noise wise. For now this lens complete my primes for indoor low light use. I am a hobbyist and have no stomach for $$$$ L lenses. But I do notice that the only L I have - 70-200/F4L produces superior IQ/Contrast/Color consistently, comparing to the rest of the crowd. But this lens certainly performs good enough for my purpose. I did use Sigma 10-20 and Sigma 24-70, Sigma 17-70 for landscape shots. The results are good for 10-12 prints. Flaw usually becomes apparent when zoomed to the original size on screen (I use a 27"). Also, a small piece of good news: this lens has a front cap like the Tamron's (rather than Canon's) - you can pinch and hold the cap around the center rather than around the brim. This is very helpful with the hood on. This new design is great but the material used seems to be less solid than the older ones. But I really appreciate this change. On some of the lenses, I just have to remove the hood before I can do anything with the cap (e.g. Sigma 170-500, or Canon 70-200), very awful in the field, especially when you are in a hurry... Thanks, Sigma! Bottom line - a great low light wide angle lens for crop sensor cameras if you are a hobbyist like myself, especially for subjects near by at close distance.
-
Posted: Oct 18 2008
Not great wide open, barely usable at low light. But still, something is better than nothing. Canon 50/f1.4 is far better wide open. But I can't get much of a shot sitting across from a restaurant table, there this Sigma comes to rescue. This lens is otherwise well build. Just that I wish it's better wide open. 1.8 is so much better than 2.8. In regular household light, 2.8 is not very useful unless the subject is completely still. I kinda expected this lens not to be sharp at 1.8 wide open. But indeed it isn't. For the price, I can't complain too much. Happy shooting.
