[micromacro]

(brides always asks if i can make the background blury)

For the blurry romantic background sigma 30mmf1.4 is very good, I really like the mood it creates.

[kp0c]

For the blurry romantic background sigma 30mmf1.4 is very good, I really like the mood it creates.

I have to agree with this and other comment on the older Sigma EX DC 1.4. I owned the FA 35mm f2, the DA limited 35mm 2.8 and the DA 35mm 2.4 and although all three of those lenses are better landscape - overall sharpness and flair resistance lenses, I kept the Sigma because it provided me with what I wanted, an ultra fast wide angle portrait lens (on apsc that is).

I use it for low light/ambiant light wide angle portraitures at large apertures, not for landscape. I don't use it in harsh direct light, mainly because I assume it will loose too much contrast and that it won't perform the way I'd like it too, but that is just me being overly careful with an older lens. In fact, I should probably trust it more as I absolutely love the pictures it produces.

In terms of center sharpness, the lens is actually great, my copy at least. (I just took several candid portraits of my laster child, I include two at full resolution (follow link) for personal assessment. Both where shot at 1.4 - wide open).

Many people fault the autofocus with this lens, but I find that with my K-5ii, it focuses perfectly with all the points but the two at the extreme edge (those non cross type points at the extreme left and right). To be fair, I never use those points with any lens as I find them unreliable regardless of the lenses used. To reiterate my point, I wouldn't be using this lens if only the center point was reliable as the dof is so thin at 1.4 and at close focusing distance that the focus and recompose technique would be very hard to do as the plane of focus changes a little bit as one move the camera from center to wherever else they want it. So, when I shoot portraits, I will use the points around the middle and the lens doesn't disappoint.

Although I do about 1-3 paid wedding a year, I have yet to use the lens during the reception and other hard-on-the-focussing-system situation. I guess it is possible that lens will hunt in such hard conditions. I suspect it won't be much worst that what I get with my FA primes, but the DA limited might be better in that regards (I kept the DA 70mm over the FA 77mm for its advantage in AF after all).

Two test shots, shot in jpeg, almost SOOC (no extra sharpening applied - natural in camera setting if memory serves me well)
(sorry, I tried using google photo to share them and they don't provide a direct embeddable link... sigh) Thus, you have to click on the links to see the pictures in their full resolution.


full size : https://goo.gl/photos/yjWfcmPK8hWtE7Ry6

Full size : https://goo.gl/photos/xWofC5nuL23XYdKa8

[micromacro]

Although I do about 1-3 paid wedding a year, I have yet to use the lens during the reception and other hard-on-the-focussing-system situation. I guess it is possible that lens will hunt in such hard conditions. I suspect it won't be much worst that what I get with my FA primes, but the DA limited might be better in that regards (I kept the DA 70mm over the FA 77mm for its advantage in AF after all).

I shot wedding first and so far last time as a guest, and 21mm ltd with 70mm ltd were more reliable than Sigma 30mm in a matter of focusing indoors. However, I did not use Sigma with flash there, I can't tell how it would be with flash.

[Adam]

Do you believe it is sharper than the DA 35 Macro Limited? The DA 35 Limited is what I think is one of my sharpest lenses, along with the DA 70 Limited and DFA 100 macro WR. I would wonder if there is a sharper lens than these and if I would see the difference on my 21 inch I Mac screen. I use these lenses on a K-3 and K-5 bodies.

At certain aperture settings (i.e. F2.8), the Sigma should do better, but of course it can't focus as close as the Pentax. I find the Sigma to be great for wide portraits thanks to the creamy bokeh when it's close to wide open.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[kp0c]

I shot wedding first and so far last time as a guest, and 21mm ltd with 70mm ltd were more reliable than Sigma 30mm in a matter of focusing indoors. However, I did not use Sigma with flash there, I can't tell how it would be with flash.

Both those limited are quite a bit slower, would you say the Sigma at comparable aperture, say 2.8, was still struggling more than the other lenses?
You didn't mention if the pictures were just softer with the sigma due to improper focus or if it simply struggle to focus (being slow) - I wonder, if it was the former, if it was just a matter of a lack of dof? I might be tempted to use it on my next wedding. I usually use the 16-50mm and 50-135mm on both my bodies during the ceremony, but I might try using the 50-135mm for close ups and the 30mm for wider shots, although I doubt it will give me the wide angle that I like to have for some shots. It also depends on the venue.

[G.E.Zekai]

Both those limited are quite a bit slower, would you say the Sigma at comparable aperture, say 2.8, was still struggling more than the other lenses?
You didn't mention if the pictures were just softer with the sigma due to improper focus or if it simply struggle to focus (being slow) - I wonder, if it was the former, if it was just a matter of a lack of dof? I might be tempted to use it on my next wedding. I usually use the 16-50mm and 50-135mm on both my bodies during the ceremony, but I might try using the 50-135mm for close ups and the 30mm for wider shots, although I doubt it will give me the wide angle that I like to have for some shots. It also depends on the venue.

For my next wedding i am thinking of running Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 on one body and probably 90mm f2.8 on other for close ups. (might put the 30mm and 50mm in the bag). I love my 70-200 but primes really helps to slow me down and think

[micromacro]

Both those limited are quite a bit slower, would you say the Sigma at comparable aperture, say 2.8, was still struggling more than the other lenses?
You didn't mention if the pictures were just softer with the sigma due to improper focus or if it simply struggle to focus (being slow) - I wonder, if it was the former, if it was just a matter of a lack of dof? I might be tempted to use it on my next wedding. I usually use the 16-50mm and 50-135mm on both my bodies during the ceremony, but I might try using the 50-135mm for close ups and the 30mm for wider shots, although I doubt it will give me the wide angle that I like to have for some shots. It also depends on the venue.

Actually, both lens, 70mm ltd and Sigma 30mm focused slower compare to 21mm ltd. I would say both lenses were about the same in that department.

I shoot with Sigma mostly on f 2.8 to make sure I get less out of focus. In my impression soft pictures were because of slow focusing on dance floor, not improper focus. I used Sigma with Canon because I did not had a copy for Pentax back then. I'm not sure if different system matters because my Sigma for Pentax behaves pretty much the same, plus has slight front focusing (Sigma for Canon focuses well)