Sigma 30mm f1.4 Vs Nikkor 28mm f1.4 Vs 17-55mm f2.8 DUW

Had a play with something interesting? Got something that we all covet? Found a real lemon? Write a few lines about it, and share your experiences.

Moderator: Moderators

Forum rules
Please ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.

Sigma 30mm f1.4 Vs Nikkor 28mm f1.4 Vs 17-55mm f2.8 DUW

Postby padey on Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:58 am

There has been a lot of talk recently about the 17-55mm and the Sigma 30mm f1.4. So i thought I'd share this review that i undertook at the end of last year.

The Glass
Sigma 30mm f1.4. Touted as the affordable wide prime and packs the latest Sigma technology; EX DC HSM. Is it a bang for buck champion and will it deliver the goods?

Nikkor 28mm f1.4. The big dog of the fast WA prime world. Big dog and big bucks, is it worth it?

17-55mm f2.8. A late entry into this review. Nikon touted this as 'the digital zoom'. Can it compete with these prime time contenders?


The Proving Ground
The subject for this test is the bookshelf in my study, once heavily used during my degree. Incandescent light dimmed right down to test the fast glass. I have not photo-chopped the images in any way. ISO 100, WB auto, D2x, mid level in camera sharpening.

30mm f1.4 @ 1/8sec
Image

28mm f1.4 @ 1/8sec
Image

30mm center 100% crop
Image

28mm center 100% crop
Image


30mm corner 100% crop
Image

28mm corner 100% crop
Image

f2.8. Enter the 17-55mm

30mm f2.8 @ 1/2sec
Image

28mm f2.8 @ 1/2sec
Image

17-55mm @ 28mm f2.8 @ 1/2sec
Image

28mm centre 100% crop
Image

30mm centre 100% crop
Image

17-55mm centre 100% crop
Image

30mm corner 100% crop
Image

28mm corner 100% crop
Image

17-55mm corner 100% crop
Image

Conclusion

You can make your own conclusions.

Therefore let me liken these lenses to movies. The 28mm is like the 'Lord of the Rings'. There is nothing girly about it, heaps of violence, things blowing up with amazing visuals. But it costs you, at least 3 hours a sitting and three years in total waiting at the cinema!

The Sigma 30mm is like 'Pride and Prejudice'. There is no question about it, it's a girls movie; soft and bubbly. It ain't no Lord of the Rings, but it at least gives you a cinema experience at a fraction of the cost.

The 17-55mm is like 'The Usual Suspect'. It keeps you interested throughout the length of the movie, and the surprise is at the end. 'Who is Keyser Soze?' He is one sharp dude!!!


Image
Image
Last edited by padey on Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Andrew


Canon make photocopiers and stick lenses on them....
padey
Member
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:23 pm
Location: Sydney, Hills Area

Postby Alpha_7 on Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:34 am

I love the movie analogy, something I can easily relate too!
May I suggest if you can squeeze it into the title, a (DUW) of some sort, as the post is pretty image heavy. Thanks for the comparison!
User avatar
Alpha_7
Senior Member
 
Posts: 7259
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 6:19 pm
Location: Mortdale - Sydney - Nikon D700, x-D200, Leica, G9

Postby shutterbug on Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:42 am

How is the focus speed of the sigma 30mm?
User avatar
shutterbug
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1853
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:32 am
Location: A Pub in Sydney / Bankstown

Postby dooda on Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:14 am

I think that the sigma did better than the 28mm at 2.8, but the problem is I don't know where the focus stops and the lens softness begins. The 28 seemed better at 1.4 (sharpness).

Surprisingly the 17-55 was really sharp wide open. Makes you wonder what it would get at 5.6?
love's first sighs are wisdom's last

Dave
http://www.flickr.com/photos/elton/
User avatar
dooda
Party Animal
 
Posts: 1591
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 11:47 am
Location: Vancouver, B.C. Canada

Postby MCWB on Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:26 am

dooda wrote:Surprisingly the 17-55 was really sharp wide open. Makes you wonder what it would get at 5.6?

You're right, at f/5.6 it's sensational. ;) Thanks for the comparo padey!
User avatar
MCWB
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2121
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:55 pm
Location: Epping/CBD, Sydney-D200, D70

Postby padey on Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:33 am

dooda wrote:I think that the sigma did better than the 28mm at 2.8, but the problem is I don't know where the focus stops and the lens softness begins. The 28 seemed better at 1.4 (sharpness).

Surprisingly the 17-55 was really sharp wide open. Makes you wonder what it would get at 5.6?


I'd have to disagree, the 28mm is sharper at every stop. Don't get me wrong, it's no 85mm f1.4. I'd love to see it go head-to-head with a Canon 24mm or 35mm f1.4.

Shutterbug, the sigma was faster then the 28mm. About the only thing that i thought was better.
Andrew


Canon make photocopiers and stick lenses on them....
padey
Member
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:23 pm
Location: Sydney, Hills Area

Postby jdear on Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:07 pm

I recognise most of your books in your test shots! :D

What did you study for your degree?

J
User avatar
jdear
Senior Member
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:34 am
Location: Shellharbour, NSW

Postby padey on Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:48 pm

jdear wrote:I recognise most of your books in your test shots! :D

What did you study for your degree?

J


philosophy and theology.
Andrew


Canon make photocopiers and stick lenses on them....
padey
Member
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:23 pm
Location: Sydney, Hills Area


Return to Equipment Reviews