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

clark · 10-29-2010, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by RolloR

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.

i have compared both the 30 1.4 and the 28 1.8, the 28 is a lot bigger, doesn't have hsm, and weighs a heck of a lot
it is razor sharp at 2.8 but very soft at 1.8, never got a good picture out of it at 1.8- depth of field is too thin too

30mm 1.4 is sharper at f2, but soft at 1.4 (not as soft as the 28@1.8) though, after 2,.8 both are razor sharp. 28mm focusses closer, almost inches from the front element.

they're both pretty different, depends on whether you want close focus, or a light/sharp lens

fikkser · 10-29-2010, 06:52 AM

Normal indoor lighting is not iso 400 1/60 f4 in Sweden. Not even close. Sun is down by 17:00 this time a year. So we are probably talking iso 1600 1/30 f2,8 or something with these modern 0 watt low engergy crap lamps.

A 1,4 would do the trick.

The sigma seems fast, but not as fast as my 16-45. Tried my friends 30 1,4 on a canon 7d. Something it's worthless for is tracking, not even on the 7d it managed to track a person moving fast towards it. Still, it's not made for that.

My last question:

Sigma 30 1,4 or Limited 43 1,9? Same price (43 is used).

chalion · 10-29-2010, 06:58 AM

Pentax FA 43mm ltd is nice and sharp wide open. I can't compare it against the Sigma, but against the DA 35mm 2.4 it's much sharper. It also looks to my eyes to have better color.

ytterbium · 10-29-2010, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by simico

....
Lol? It's focusing very fast.

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

Why so rude..? I sold mine just because of it's focus issues.

It depends a lot on camera and batteries. On k200d with NiMH's its nowhere near FA35/2. With lower lighting CA's also play a role in decreasing AF decisiveness. With AA lithiums or on higher end cam (k10d) it becomes somewhat faster and similar to FA35/2.

Otherwise it is just a bit too heavy for k200d to pull. Or maybe mine was defective.

summonbaka · 10-29-2010, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by fikkser

Normal indoor lighting is not iso 400 1/60 f4 in Sweden. Not even close. Sun is down by 17:00 this time a year. So we are probably talking iso 1600 1/30 f2,8 or something with these modern 0 watt low engergy crap lamps.

Wow, that is dark. Is it possible to change them or electricity is too expensive? I dunno, but it might be bad for the eyes. Dining room back home was like that, horrible lighting.

A 1,4 would do the trick.

The sigma seems fast, but not as fast as my 16-45. Tried my friends 30 1,4 on a canon 7d. Something it's worthless for is tracking, not even on the 7d it managed to track a person moving fast towards it. Still, it's not made for that.

My last question:

Sigma 30 1,4 or Limited 43 1,9? Same price (43 is used).

If you can get the 43 for the price of the 30, consider it. But you already got a 50/1.7 so it might also be a little redundant, not that i wouldn't get it... And i have four different normals. But the size/weight is so attracting that the DAL 35/DA40/FA43 is a dillema for me.

MrA · 10-29-2010, 01:56 PM

I have the 30/1.4, since June, and it's become my standard lens, because whatever the circumstances, indoors or out, day or night, I know I can get the shot, pretty much as I see it through my own eyes.

43mm (or worse 50mm) are getting longer, whereas I find 30mm (=45mm in old money) a very natural length to use, just taking a step forward or back as needed. I rarely ever used my 50mm, because even when it was my only fast lens, I could never frame things as I wanted.

On weight ... I have a cameraphone ... and an SLR. They do different things. When I want the SLR, it's because I want its capabilities, so a few extra 100g is expected.

ilya80 · 10-30-2010, 02:14 PM

Sigma had significant sample to sample variations regarding sharpness. But even if you manage to buy a bad copy online my bet is it will be sharper than DA @2.4

I`d go with Sigma, and buy locally so I could test it before buying. Good samples are quite sharp in center, even wide open (!)

fikkser · 11-01-2010, 02:28 AM

Finally solved the problem by getting an used fa 35 f2 for less then the sigma. Thanks for the help!

Jasvox · 11-01-2010, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by fikkser

Finally solved the problem by getting an used fa 35 f2 for less then the sigma. Thanks for the help!

Winning move!

Jason

MiLKMAN · 11-14-2010, 09:00 AM

I did today little test on both lenses.

Pentax 35 is weightless, i felt only K200D body in my hand. Lens is fast and sharp from wide open.

Sigma 30 is heavy, heavier than DA 55-300. Very stable combo in my big shaky hand. Lens is same fast focusing as DAL35 (focusing is quieter than with DA 18-55) and sharper wide open. But extreme borders and corners are soft. This softness doesn't bother me at all, I'm more face than landscape shooter.

Sigma build quality is better than Pentax's, because they are from different leagues, Sigma 30 is pro-crop-lens (and it's over two times more expensive) and Pentax 35 is basic kit.

ytterbium · 11-14-2010, 09:46 AM

Did you tried the sigma in complex focus situations (low light, low contrast, incandescent light, distant subject ~10[m]).

JHD · 11-14-2010, 09:53 AM

Long after the Pentax warranty has expired, Sigma continues stand behind their lenses. 10 years vs. 2 years? F1.4 vs. 2.4?

MiLKMAN · 11-14-2010, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by ytterbium

Did you tried the sigma in complex focus situations (low light, low contrast, incandescent light, distant subject ~10[m]).

In store was good fluorescent light. Focusing on subject ~10m was pretty fast

Focusing from beginning to the infinity was faster than DA 18-55. Focusing in low light and/or low contrast is challenging almost to every lens

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

10-29-2010, 06:28 AM	#16
clark Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 301	Originally posted by RolloR 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. i have compared both the 30 1.4 and the 28 1.8, the 28 is a lot bigger, doesn't have hsm, and weighs a heck of a lot it is razor sharp at 2.8 but very soft at 1.8, never got a good picture out of it at 1.8- depth of field is too thin too 30mm 1.4 is sharper at f2, but soft at 1.4 (not as soft as the 28@1.8) though, after 2,.8 both are razor sharp. 28mm focusses closer, almost inches from the front element. they're both pretty different, depends on whether you want close focus, or a light/sharp lens

10-29-2010, 06:52 AM	#17
fikkser Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Borlänge, Sweden Posts: 373 Original Poster	Normal indoor lighting is not iso 400 1/60 f4 in Sweden. Not even close. Sun is down by 17:00 this time a year. So we are probably talking iso 1600 1/30 f2,8 or something with these modern 0 watt low engergy crap lamps. A 1,4 would do the trick. The sigma seems fast, but not as fast as my 16-45. Tried my friends 30 1,4 on a canon 7d. Something it's worthless for is tracking, not even on the 7d it managed to track a person moving fast towards it. Still, it's not made for that. My last question: Sigma 30 1,4 or Limited 43 1,9? Same price (43 is used).

10-29-2010, 06:58 AM	#18
chalion Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: SE Pennsylvania Photos: Albums Posts: 628	Pentax FA 43mm ltd is nice and sharp wide open. I can't compare it against the Sigma, but against the DA 35mm 2.4 it's much sharper. It also looks to my eyes to have better color.

10-29-2010, 08:57 AM	#19
ytterbium Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,076	Originally posted by simico .... Lol? It's focusing very fast. Gotta love all the nonsense spread by armchair experts who never even seen the lens... Why so rude..? I sold mine just because of it's focus issues. It depends a lot on camera and batteries. On k200d with NiMH's its nowhere near FA35/2. With lower lighting CA's also play a role in decreasing AF decisiveness. With AA lithiums or on higher end cam (k10d) it becomes somewhat faster and similar to FA35/2. Otherwise it is just a bit too heavy for k200d to pull. Or maybe mine was defective.

10-29-2010, 10:31 AM	#20
summonbaka Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Kagoshima, Japan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 237	Originally posted by fikkser Normal indoor lighting is not iso 400 1/60 f4 in Sweden. Not even close. Sun is down by 17:00 this time a year. So we are probably talking iso 1600 1/30 f2,8 or something with these modern 0 watt low engergy crap lamps. Wow, that is dark. Is it possible to change them or electricity is too expensive? I dunno, but it might be bad for the eyes. Dining room back home was like that, horrible lighting. A 1,4 would do the trick. The sigma seems fast, but not as fast as my 16-45. Tried my friends 30 1,4 on a canon 7d. Something it's worthless for is tracking, not even on the 7d it managed to track a person moving fast towards it. Still, it's not made for that. My last question: Sigma 30 1,4 or Limited 43 1,9? Same price (43 is used). If you can get the 43 for the price of the 30, consider it. But you already got a 50/1.7 so it might also be a little redundant, not that i wouldn't get it... And i have four different normals. But the size/weight is so attracting that the DAL 35/DA40/FA43 is a dillema for me.

10-29-2010, 01:56 PM	#21
MrA Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: England UK Posts: 211	I have the 30/1.4, since June, and it's become my standard lens, because whatever the circumstances, indoors or out, day or night, I know I can get the shot, pretty much as I see it through my own eyes. 43mm (or worse 50mm) are getting longer, whereas I find 30mm (=45mm in old money) a very natural length to use, just taking a step forward or back as needed. I rarely ever used my 50mm, because even when it was my only fast lens, I could never frame things as I wanted. On weight ... I have a cameraphone ... and an SLR. They do different things. When I want the SLR, it's because I want its capabilities, so a few extra 100g is expected.

10-30-2010, 02:14 PM	#22
ilya80 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia Photos: Albums Posts: 410	Sigma had significant sample to sample variations regarding sharpness. But even if you manage to buy a bad copy online my bet is it will be sharper than DA @2.4 I`d go with Sigma, and buy locally so I could test it before buying. Good samples are quite sharp in center, even wide open (!)

11-01-2010, 02:28 AM	#23
fikkser Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Borlänge, Sweden Posts: 373 Original Poster	Finally solved the problem by getting an used fa 35 f2 for less then the sigma. Thanks for the help!

11-01-2010, 02:49 AM	#24
Jasvox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,107	Originally posted by fikkser Finally solved the problem by getting an used fa 35 f2 for less then the sigma. Thanks for the help! Winning move! Jason

11-14-2010, 09:00 AM	#25
MiLKMAN Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Tallinn Photos: Gallery Posts: 146	I did today little test on both lenses. Pentax 35 is weightless, i felt only K200D body in my hand. Lens is fast and sharp from wide open. Sigma 30 is heavy, heavier than DA 55-300. Very stable combo in my big shaky hand. Lens is same fast focusing as DAL35 (focusing is quieter than with DA 18-55) and sharper wide open. But extreme borders and corners are soft. This softness doesn't bother me at all, I'm more face than landscape shooter. Sigma build quality is better than Pentax's, because they are from different leagues, Sigma 30 is pro-crop-lens (and it's over two times more expensive) and Pentax 35 is basic kit.

11-14-2010, 09:46 AM	#26
ytterbium Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,076	Did you tried the sigma in complex focus situations (low light, low contrast, incandescent light, distant subject ~10[m]).

11-14-2010, 09:53 AM	#27
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	Long after the Pentax warranty has expired, Sigma continues stand behind their lenses. 10 years vs. 2 years? F1.4 vs. 2.4?

11-14-2010, 01:12 PM	#28
MiLKMAN Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Tallinn Photos: Gallery Posts: 146	Originally posted by ytterbium Did you tried the sigma in complex focus situations (low light, low contrast, incandescent light, distant subject ~10[m]). In store was good fluorescent light. Focusing on subject ~10m was pretty fast Focusing from beginning to the infinity was faster than DA 18-55. Focusing in low light and/or low contrast is challenging almost to every lens