How would you compare the Sigma 30mm f1.4 vs. the Canon 24mm f1.4 L lens Is the Canon 24mm L version really worth nearly $1,100 more than the 30mm Sigma?????
385957
I really enjoyed my Sigma 30mm, but the 24L is something different. $1100 is worth different things to different people. I found it to be a better focal length on a crop sensor (7D) for general indoor low light shooting.
385958
Your question would be better stated, "Which tastes better, an orange on Tuesday or a turkey leg on Saturday?"
1526809
I am a professional photographer and I considered both before buying the Canon. I plan to use the lens regularly and for a long time and I need my images to be the best they can be. That uptick in quality is worth far more than $800, especially when spread out over years of ownership.
1966947
This is no easy call. Both lenses are said to perform similarly in terms of IQ. I've owned the EF 28mm f/1.8 and was never happy with it due to innacuracy of AF and image softness. Some folks like it quite a bit. Not my case. I wouldn't recommend this lens. I've read good reviews about the Sigma 30 mm, but I lack first hand experience. My two cents worth...
2041778
There are a couple of differences, but the real question is what are your needs as a photographer? I'm guessing that since you are asking what the differences are between these lenses, your needs are not of the professional nature, but I don't want to assume. The F1.2 is a pro lens. It is a stop faster, has sharper optics, manual focus override with just a twist of the lens, and from what I've heard nicer bokeh. Generally Canon puts everything it has into its "L" lenses. Better optics, build quality, and finish. I do not own the F1.2. I don't need it. To quote a friend of mine that shoots models all day in L.A., "If someone hadn't stolen my F1.4, I would not have purchased the F1.2". For someone who shoots portrait and magazine covers all day and makes a living at it, the subtle differences of the F1.2 are worth the extra money. For someone like me, who shoots portraits on occasion or shots for web sites etc., the F1.4 is a wonderful lens. It's very fast, handles well, and produces great photos. Not to discount the F1.2; it is an amazing lens and if money were no object of course I would own it. Hope this helps. Happy shooting!
1646078
Both lenses are excellent and brilliantly sharp. The Sigma is less expensive. The Canon focuses more quickly, a little, no macro lenses are fast. It should come down to what focal length you want. Canon offers an IS version of the macro. The stabilization is nice if you hand hold, but doubles the price and weight.
387101
This is a matter of personal choice, and finances....the Canon lens is about twice the price of the Sigma. You gain a stop of light. I use this lens for portraits, and get spectacular results. The bokeh is beautiful. However, at 1.4, it is entirely possible to lose focus on the subject's back eye. I did use it for an event, too....and opened it all the way up....beautiful shots.
840152
Thank you guys, really appreciate you help. I was in confused state in selecting sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 or tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 macro, but after a week study i have selected this sigma 50-150mm which is exactly in my budget. Once again thank you guys.
583552
This zoom lens is 110% better than the kit zoom lens. Basically Canon L glass is the top of the line glass. The quality of the shots taken with L glass is amazing. The construction is second to none, it's built like a tank and lasts for over 20 years with proper care. The resale value is usually high because of their quality. This was my first L glass from Canon and I never looked back. I don't know which zoom lens your talking about, the 75-300,55-250 or 70-300mm. My first ever zoom lens was the 70-300mm I still use this lens even though i upgraded to the L glass just because of the extra 100mm reach. But the only real shots i take with the 70-300 are shots of the moon. Other than that it's the 70-200mm F4 for me.
359061
Both are excellent lenses with great IQ. 60mm is cheaper, weatherproof, macro, lighter, thinner, but works well for landscape and portrait too. 75 is amazing esp if you need F1.8, but honestly the 60mm is comparable. I have both..should sell one, but either is hard to part with. You really can't go wrong with either.
346745
Good question. The 20mm 1.7 has a wider field of view. But ultimately I went with the 25mm because it's faster at 1.4 then the 20mm at 1.7. I've never personally compared the two but I've heard from people that the 25mm is also a lot sharper. It is an amazing lens!
236736
I honestly don't know what the difference may be between the two lenses. I do not own the canon 14mm lens to compare them. I am very happy with this Sigma lens. It takes a nice full wide angle shot.
1703579
There is some comparison which saying Canon 18-135 lense is sharper than Sigma 18-200. My frinds please Post Canon 18-135 or Canon 18-200. ( If both are from Canon. which is best).
108984
The contempporary version of sigma 17-70 has an upgraded array of optics, and is lighter compared to the initial version of Sigma´s 17-70, and more compatible with newer camera models ie canon60D. This is the reason beneath the price difference. I am quite happy with my choice. Lens performance is great, image sharpness is outstanding!
1824722
The 22mm lens is amazing! It feels and has better build quality than the plastic primes of Canon's. Image quality is just too good. 1. Its a prime lens 2. Its F2.0 hence way better than the kit lens.
794545
I'd always prefer a more extreme wide angle... So the 24mm is my favourite. The f/1.4 aperture is all the more glorious when the angle is wider.
220605
Hi JohnDo yo have a FF or 1.6! This one is perfect for 1.6 crop and good for FF too. However it's not exactly a portrait lens {by definition}, you can look at 85mm f1.2 mkii for that if you want a perfect portrait lens.24-70 is far more sharper than 24-105 though.
501125
I've got the sigma, it's a great lens and a good focal length. (48mm on crop cams) If you are going to be indoors, the f1.4 is handy. I've got the 50mm f1.8 and the extra 2/3's makes a difference when you're already at slow shutter speeds.