[Jonathan Mac]

Well, sorry for posting on a way ancient topic, but since I'm considering buying an used Sigma 30mm 1.4 (the old version), I would like to ask if it's okay for landscape and street shooting? A lot of people say its main weakness is corner sharpness. I buy the lens mostly for indoor and portrait photos of my daughter, but it doesn't hurt if I can also use it as a walkaround lens, the 30mm focal length seems good for this purpose. Thank you.

It's a good focal length for what you want. I don't remember having a problem with corner sharpness but I never really used that lens for shots that would have benefited much from it. The main weaknesses are inaccurate and inconsistent AF and being soft at anything close to wide open, a combination that is very frustrating as it produces a lot of photos that might have been good had they been sharp.

It's not a lens I would really recommend to anyone due to those problems but then other than the very expensive 31mm f/1.8 and gigantic Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (neither of which I've tried) there isn't anything in a Pentax mount that's similar in specs. I suppose the closest that's reasonably priced and small would be the DAL 35mm f/2.4, but that's also not my favourite lens but a lot of people seem to like it a lot.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

It's a good focal length for what you want. I don't remember having a problem with corner sharpness but I never really used that lens for shots that would have benefited much from it. The main weaknesses are inaccurate and inconsistent AF and being soft at anything close to wide open, a combination that is very frustrating as it produces a lot of photos that might have been good had they been sharp.

It's not a lens I would really recommend to anyone due to those problems but then other than the very expensive 31mm f/1.8 and gigantic Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (neither of which I've tried) there isn't anything in a Pentax mount that's similar in specs. I suppose the closest that's reasonably priced and small would be the DAL 35mm f/2.4, but that's also not my favourite lens but a lot of people seem to like it a lot.

My copy is decently sharp wide open. It's not a technically flawless lens, but it will give you nice photos and is a very useful focal length. One of the best bargains out there, IMO.

I've thought about selling it a few times since I've started mostly using m43 for my walk-around camera, but then I get it out and take some pictures with it and remember why I love it.

[Bui]

It's a good focal length for what you want. I don't remember having a problem with corner sharpness but I never really used that lens for shots that would have benefited much from it. The main weaknesses are inaccurate and inconsistent AF and being soft at anything close to wide open, a combination that is very frustrating as it produces a lot of photos that might have been good had they been sharp.



It's not a lens I would really recommend to anyone due to those problems but then other than the very expensive 31mm f/1.8 and gigantic Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (neither of which I've tried) there isn't anything in a Pentax mount that's similar in specs. I suppose the closest that's reasonably priced and small would be the DAL 35mm f/2.4, but that's also not my favourite lens but a lot of people seem to like it a lot.

I thought about getting the DA 35mm 2.4 too but since I already have the DA 40, I abandoned this idea, because 35mm and 40mm is too close, and 2.8 sometimes still not fast enough indoor. Do know if IQ of the Sigma at 2.4 is comparable with the DA 35 at 2.4? If it is then I think the Sigma of is a better choice.

[Jonathan Mac]

I no longer have the Sigma so I can't test IQ at f/2.4, but I do remember that it had to be stopped down to f/2.8 to get what I regarded as acceptably sharp results for most purposes. However, I'd say the same of the 35/2.4.

I'm probably one of the few people who has both the DAL 35/2.4 and DA 40mm limited - you're right that they're too close in focal length and speed to justify having both and I will eventually sell off one or the other. When I tested the 35/2.4 against the DA 35/2.8 limited I found that it was only 1/4 of a stop faster than the limited, not 1/2 as claimed, at least in light transmission (depth of field may be another matter). I haven't tested it against the DA 40mm but maybe I should.

If you're happy with the AF and get acceptably sharp results below f/2.4 then it sounds like the Sigma is what you're looking for and it won't be worth a change to the 35/2.4.

[Doundounba]

I have both lenses, and I guess I could run a head-to-head... In practice, the DA35 only comes out when I'm shooting some other (usually longer) lens and I want a really light normal in the bag just in case. Or maybe if I'm going to be shooting paintings in a museum. But it's true that the Sigma has very uneven resolution - very sharp in the center, up to about two-thirds of the APS-C frame, and then it rapidly gets weaker, with very weak corners, even stopped down significantly. But I find very few cases where I really need sharp corners. I quite enjoy shooting the Sigma, and would warmly recommend it, except (maybe) for landscapes.

Here are a few Sigma shots, including a brick wall shot with the Sigma at F/5.6 (though not straight on). Fairly high res images available over at Flickr.




Evening shot at F/2:




Street shot at F/2.8:




In this last shot, saw the moment and I immediately framed and hit the shutter, and then thought "I should stop down some more". I did that and took some more shots, which do have better corners (the name of the street is much clearer, for instance), but the expressions of the people were just not as good.

[Bui]

I think your photos are fine for my eyes. But my quick test with the Sigma 30 and the DA 40 shows that the DA 40 is sharper, especially at corner. Stopping down reduces this gap, but the DA 40 stills edges a little. So may be this will be the case with the DA 35. Still, I choose to own the Sigma for its best ability: indoor portrait.