da 35 2,4 vs sigma 30 1,4. what to get?

fikkser · 10-27-2010, 10:33 AM

Need your help.

What would you get? I got no AF lens around 30mm and really need one. Big aperture is a plus.

Why I cant decide, cons:

The pentax is 2,4. Not much above my 2,8 zoom.

The sigma is 2x more expensive.

What would you get and why?

lowspark86 · 10-27-2010, 10:40 AM

What 2.8 zoom do you have?

paperbag846 · 10-27-2010, 10:55 AM

I'm really exploring this focal length right now and I discounted the sigma not because it is a bad lens, but seems like more of a specialty lens. The corners of the Sigma are soft, even stopped down, and tend to give you a dreamy photo. These dreamy photos look really beautiful. However, for my money I want as much flexibility as possible, and I did not see that in the sigma. The Pentax seems sharper, and since I would use the sigma in the 2.x range anyways, the stop difference does not bother me. That said I'm debating the DA 40 and the DAL 35

.

However it looks like a really nice lens.

northcoastgreg · 10-27-2010, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by fikkser

What would you get? I got no AF lens around 30mm and really need one. Big aperture is a plus.

What would you get and why?

Depends on what I wanted to do with it. The Sigma 30/1.4 seems to be a lens best fit for isolating subjects. If that's what you're going to use the lens for, get the sigma. If you need a low light lens, well, the sigma might not do so well, because of the very poor resolution away from the center. But then again, within the Pentax system at that focal length, the only other choice in fast lenses is the very expensive FA 31/1.8.

I personally would get the 35/2.4, but I'm primarily a landscape shooter who rarely shoots wide open.

mikemike · 10-27-2010, 12:38 PM

The Sigma also weighs almost half a kilo if that is any consideration, it would be a nice big plus in the pentax column.

summonbaka · 10-27-2010, 02:42 PM

If you want to travel light, get the 35. If you need subject isolation, get the sigma. If you want a aps-c "normal" and a lens for low light, the 35/2.4 plus a Pentax A or M 50/1.7 might be a better option. You can get nice subject isolation at 35mm even at f/3.5 or f/4. Try it with your zoom and you'll notice that.

fikkser · 10-28-2010, 03:48 AM

Hard pick... The sigma might not be super sharp but according to the internet many are happy With the sharpness.

I mainly use Pentax 16-45, sigma 50-150 hsm ii and Pentax m 50 1,7.

Yes the 1,7 is good for low light shooting, but low light is mainly done indoors in my case. Its a bit long then. I think i'm more in for the sigma, but i'm afraid Its going to be a bad performer. Still the 2,4 is a bit dark... Would need a flash or iso 3200 indoors at winter. Looks pretty bad on k-7.

How is the sigma stoppped Down to like F2?

Excause the iphone auto correction if something Looks stupid.

benchan21 · 10-28-2010, 07:35 AM

I sold off my Sigma 30/1.4 due to its size and weight. Its not as big as the Sigma 50/1.4, but I preferred a kit. Optically, it was great. Very sharp lens with a 1.4 aperture.

fikkser · 10-28-2010, 12:16 PM

OK. I calculated. I can get fa 50 1,4 and da-l 35 2,4 for roughly 100 dollars above the sigma alone.

What to do?

Will I miss the wide angle in low light? 30 1,4 seems pretty sweet.

Jonathan Mac · 10-28-2010, 12:56 PM

I want a standardish prime too, and at the moment there is nothing that really fits the bill. The Sigma has the numbers, but does not perform too well. I may get the 35 ltd at christmas, and then wait for either a re-vamped mkII of the Sigma, or a Pentax along the same lines. That way, if I pick up something else later, I´ll be able to justify keeping the 35 ltd due to the macro function.

ytterbium · 10-28-2010, 01:04 PM

Sigma is quite slow in focusing (probably because of the weight). It the DA is similar to FA 35/2, it will be a lot snappier.

Sigma is quite big and heavy. Still where i live the price difference is quite small. It is more a question of requirements and features than price.

35mm might be quite long'ish. 30 (45mm equiv.) on the other hand is somewhat odd, i always feel like i need either a bit longer or shorter.

Reportage · 10-28-2010, 01:10 PM

well...do you need f/1.4?

also take note of the crop factor of that 30mm lens.

I use my 50mm f/1.4 more as a portrait/short telephoto as i find i get more keepers that way.

summonbaka · 10-28-2010, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by fikkser

Hard pick... The sigma might not be super sharp but according to the internet many are happy With the sharpness.

I mainly use Pentax 16-45, sigma 50-150 hsm ii and Pentax m 50 1,7.

Yes the 1,7 is good for low light shooting, but low light is mainly done indoors in my case. Its a bit long then. I think i'm more in for the sigma, but i'm afraid Its going to be a bad performer. Still the 2,4 is a bit dark... Would need a flash or iso 3200 indoors at winter. Looks pretty bad on k-7.

How is the sigma stoppped Down to like F2?

Excause the iphone auto correction if something Looks stupid.

With normal-bright indoor lighting ISO 400, 1/60 @ f/4 can work well. I've shot (outside) my M50/1.7 at ISO1000, 1/30 wide open and got pretty good results, mind you it was 10 p.m. and candle lighting.

The DAL is one stop slower than the M, but you can go one stop slower in exposure and still get keepers (except when subject is also moving, then it gets difficult). Try and see what exposure you need for the M in your normal indoor lighting and then you can figure out what you need.

All in all, it still ends with what you want. If you want the sigma, go with the sigma. Better get what you want than regret it later.

simico · 10-29-2010, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by fikkser

The sigma might not be super sharp

It is super sharp, except in the extreme corners and borders.

Originally posted by ytterbium

Sigma is quite slow in focusing

Lol? It's focusing very fast.

Gotta love all the nonsense spread by armchair experts who never even seen the lens...

RolloR · 10-29-2010, 01:35 AM

i am getting the sigma 30/1.4 soon. If not, probably the sigma 28/1.8.

i really want a pentax 31/1.8, but it's way out of my budget.

the pentax 35/2.4 is nice but it won't open wider than f2.4.

10-27-2010, 10:33 AM	#1
fikkser Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Borlänge, Sweden Posts: 373	da 35 2,4 vs sigma 30 1,4. what to get? Need your help. What would you get? I got no AF lens around 30mm and really need one. Big aperture is a plus. Why I cant decide, cons: The pentax is 2,4. Not much above my 2,8 zoom. The sigma is 2x more expensive. What would you get and why?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: K20D, D-BG2 grip, Sigma 17-70, Sigma 10-20, SMC Takumar 1000mm	deadwolfbones	Sold Items	23	10-21-2009 02:57 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax AF-540FGZ Flash, Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6, Sigma 170-500mm F5-6.3	davebest	Sold Items	12	06-25-2009 02:48 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Lens Blowout; 50mm 1.4, Sigma 10-20mm, Sigma 400mm, etc.	nufenstein	Sold Items	13	03-30-2009 12:00 PM
For Sale - Sold: FS: FA 77mm limited, Sigma 17-70mm DC Macro, Sigma 70-300mm APO DG	chemxaj	Sold Items	10	03-17-2008 08:55 AM

10-27-2010, 10:40 AM	#2
lowspark86 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Southwest Photos: Albums Posts: 157	What 2.8 zoom do you have?

10-27-2010, 10:55 AM	#3
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	I'm really exploring this focal length right now and I discounted the sigma not because it is a bad lens, but seems like more of a specialty lens. The corners of the Sigma are soft, even stopped down, and tend to give you a dreamy photo. These dreamy photos look really beautiful. However, for my money I want as much flexibility as possible, and I did not see that in the sigma. The Pentax seems sharper, and since I would use the sigma in the 2.x range anyways, the stop difference does not bother me. That said I'm debating the DA 40 and the DAL 35 . However it looks like a really nice lens.

10-27-2010, 11:24 AM	#4
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,174	Originally posted by fikkser What would you get? I got no AF lens around 30mm and really need one. Big aperture is a plus. What would you get and why? Depends on what I wanted to do with it. The Sigma 30/1.4 seems to be a lens best fit for isolating subjects. If that's what you're going to use the lens for, get the sigma. If you need a low light lens, well, the sigma might not do so well, because of the very poor resolution away from the center. But then again, within the Pentax system at that focal length, the only other choice in fast lenses is the very expensive FA 31/1.8. I personally would get the 35/2.4, but I'm primarily a landscape shooter who rarely shoots wide open.

10-27-2010, 12:38 PM	#5
mikemike Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: New Orleans Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,053	The Sigma also weighs almost half a kilo if that is any consideration, it would be a nice big plus in the pentax column.

10-27-2010, 02:42 PM	#6
summonbaka Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Kagoshima, Japan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 237	If you want to travel light, get the 35. If you need subject isolation, get the sigma. If you want a aps-c "normal" and a lens for low light, the 35/2.4 plus a Pentax A or M 50/1.7 might be a better option. You can get nice subject isolation at 35mm even at f/3.5 or f/4. Try it with your zoom and you'll notice that.

10-28-2010, 03:48 AM	#7
fikkser Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Borlänge, Sweden Posts: 373 Original Poster	Hard pick... The sigma might not be super sharp but according to the internet many are happy With the sharpness. I mainly use Pentax 16-45, sigma 50-150 hsm ii and Pentax m 50 1,7. Yes the 1,7 is good for low light shooting, but low light is mainly done indoors in my case. Its a bit long then. I think i'm more in for the sigma, but i'm afraid Its going to be a bad performer. Still the 2,4 is a bit dark... Would need a flash or iso 3200 indoors at winter. Looks pretty bad on k-7. How is the sigma stoppped Down to like F2? Excause the iphone auto correction if something Looks stupid.

10-28-2010, 07:35 AM	#8
benchan21 New Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12	I sold off my Sigma 30/1.4 due to its size and weight. Its not as big as the Sigma 50/1.4, but I preferred a kit. Optically, it was great. Very sharp lens with a 1.4 aperture.

10-28-2010, 12:16 PM	#9
fikkser Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Borlänge, Sweden Posts: 373 Original Poster	OK. I calculated. I can get fa 50 1,4 and da-l 35 2,4 for roughly 100 dollars above the sigma alone. What to do? Will I miss the wide angle in low light? 30 1,4 seems pretty sweet.

10-28-2010, 12:56 PM	#10
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,904	I want a standardish prime too, and at the moment there is nothing that really fits the bill. The Sigma has the numbers, but does not perform too well. I may get the 35 ltd at christmas, and then wait for either a re-vamped mkII of the Sigma, or a Pentax along the same lines. That way, if I pick up something else later, I´ll be able to justify keeping the 35 ltd due to the macro function.

10-28-2010, 01:04 PM	#11
ytterbium Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,076	Sigma is quite slow in focusing (probably because of the weight). It the DA is similar to FA 35/2, it will be a lot snappier. Sigma is quite big and heavy. Still where i live the price difference is quite small. It is more a question of requirements and features than price. 35mm might be quite long'ish. 30 (45mm equiv.) on the other hand is somewhat odd, i always feel like i need either a bit longer or shorter.

10-28-2010, 01:10 PM	#12
Reportage Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 739	well...do you need f/1.4? also take note of the crop factor of that 30mm lens. I use my 50mm f/1.4 more as a portrait/short telephoto as i find i get more keepers that way.

10-28-2010, 06:16 PM	#13
summonbaka Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Kagoshima, Japan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 237	Originally posted by fikkser Hard pick... The sigma might not be super sharp but according to the internet many are happy With the sharpness. I mainly use Pentax 16-45, sigma 50-150 hsm ii and Pentax m 50 1,7. Yes the 1,7 is good for low light shooting, but low light is mainly done indoors in my case. Its a bit long then. I think i'm more in for the sigma, but i'm afraid Its going to be a bad performer. Still the 2,4 is a bit dark... Would need a flash or iso 3200 indoors at winter. Looks pretty bad on k-7. How is the sigma stoppped Down to like F2? Excause the iphone auto correction if something Looks stupid. With normal-bright indoor lighting ISO 400, 1/60 @ f/4 can work well. I've shot (outside) my M50/1.7 at ISO1000, 1/30 wide open and got pretty good results, mind you it was 10 p.m. and candle lighting. The DAL is one stop slower than the M, but you can go one stop slower in exposure and still get keepers (except when subject is also moving, then it gets difficult). Try and see what exposure you need for the M in your normal indoor lighting and then you can figure out what you need. All in all, it still ends with what you want. If you want the sigma, go with the sigma. Better get what you want than regret it later.

10-29-2010, 01:29 AM	#14
simico Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Budapest Posts: 821	Originally posted by fikkser The sigma might not be super sharp It is super sharp, except in the extreme corners and borders. Originally posted by ytterbium Sigma is quite slow in focusing Lol? It's focusing very fast. Gotta love all the nonsense spread by armchair experts who never even seen the lens...

10-29-2010, 01:35 AM	#15
RolloR Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 264	i am getting the sigma 30/1.4 soon. If not, probably the sigma 28/1.8. i really want a pentax 31/1.8, but it's way out of my budget. the pentax 35/2.4 is nice but it won't open wider than f2.4.