When I read the first tests of a successor, the decision was made quickly. There, the lens has been consistently praised. The test values for the image quality were superb for this price range. The warnings of some "bitchy" AF I ignored, as has been said that one knows from its predecessor. Even with the chromatic aberration I wanted to arrange me. Such a thing can be corrected - I thought.
When unpacking it represents the first inevitably has the excellent workmanship. It acts as a unified whole, with the right materials to the right place. It makes real a better impression than on the product photos (renderings?). The focus ring can be turned smoothly and has just the right resistance. The filter slide smoothly into the thread. Herrlich. Then the first little damper: the lens hood while attaches securely and can not fall off, but in the end position has some play, so that it always rattles in movement.
Then the first impression the first pictures: Class! In the middle of very sharp. At the edge it is less sharp but really soft it is there only at full aperture and since fall through the screen design edge blur anyway practically never. Beautiful contrasts and no problems with stray light or flares. The ultrasonic motor is pleasantly quiet and fast enough. But you should not expect miracles. I have a few good lenses used with classic drive that are just as fast, sometimes even a bit snappier. But that's okay. In direct comparison even Canon's USM are not as fast as they are said (to YT can see enlightening direct comparisons).
In daylight, I tried a few times to photograph plants with open aperture. When I did not succeed I sought only to blame the wind, then at me. Then I switched to other objects (houses etc.). But after countless pictures I found. Something is wrong here.
Autofocus was virtually unusable. On the one hand he showed in about 3/4 of cases a visible tendency towards Front focus. At first I thought the Sigma USB dock for Canon lens mount black for sale and to correct the self. Then I read, however, that at 30cm distance correction to 1.5 cm or less requires the entire scope. But my lens focused about 2cm "before". At one meter, there were already around 10cm. This can be corrected with the dock and the Sigma firmware barely. On the other hand there are the 1/4 of the images where the focus was completely wrong and seemingly random focused - or even hit the mark in very rare cases times. Another test: The camera on the tripod, remote shutter button sighted a static object in the hand. Every time you half-press the shutter button, the AF twitches again, although the conditions, nothing has changed. The probability that the focus in any attempt at a different location remains as previously is unsatisfactorily high.
Yes, something was always sharp, but not what I had envisaged. I have both the central and the other sensors selectively tested - always with the same result. The percentage of images in which the focus was fit, virtually single digits. The lens went back and I got a replacement copy.
The second had a front focus again. This time, however slightly offset and possibly corrected with the dock. Also, I had at first under the impression that the AF no longer arbeitetet quite so random. So I have not given up the same and again subjected to practical tests. Once a day, once a night. The latter was one of the reasons for such a lens. In the daytime images I was set reasonably positive. The focus behaved really consistent, even if the random factor has always been much greater than in all other lenses that I knew so far. I tended a little to keep the lens and to order the dock. Then use the evening and at night. The AF was again virtually unpredictable and therefore unusable. I do not mean pitch-black night, but an illuminated historic city center - an environment in which I've used other lenses with AF successful.
At the same time I realized that the chromatic aberration was far above the tolerable limits. To some lights could be on the 18MPixel images a 15 to 20 pixels (!!!) watch wide color fringe - and that was not even at the very edge. Also in the focal plane and near the center, the CAs are extremely pronounced. Street lights and other white light sources drowned in purple and blue. Even on a 3 "small camera screen you could see this without zooming significantly. This is no longer using software correctable. Although you can see the color fringing" wegrechnen ", but you can see the image information that has been characterized not photographed not just out of nowhere Conjure.
Whence this strong aberrations occur? Now, the predecessor had - as befits good lenses - preventing LD lens in the lens to chromatic aberrations. The other lenses of the type series have even included several of such lenses. Only this type 30mm DC has built not only those special lens.
In summary, results from my point of view:
Benefits:
- First-class workmanship and haptic
- Excellent light intensity
- Pleasant sharpness in the center already at maximum aperture
- Light dimmed to sharpness and resolution is spreading even to the edge.
- 9 blade diaphragm that produces a great bokeh
- 30mm focal length for the perfect Normal Crop 1.6 APS is (even in 1.5 still close to it)
Disadvantages:
- Autofocus problems
- Extreme chromatic aberration (eg pictures in the gallery)
- Bad processed lens hood (rattled in two copies)
Too bad! The list of benefits is while longer but the AF and CA weigh just hard, so I unfortunately have to pass a negative judgment. With a little more effort (LD lenses) and care (adjustment / final) this could be a great lens. For Canon APS users there are not comparable. The Canon EF 35mm lens 1: 2 IS USM is quite nice but already a bit too long. The Sigma 35mm f / 1.4 DG HSM Lens (67mm filter thread) for Canon lens mount is great, but much more expensive and heavier than the 30 / 1.4. In addition, the sensor is 35mm on APS from the image cutout ago much closer to the 50mm than meets the eye (and many "FB fans" have probably a bright 50mm). Stay as a real alternative really only the 28mm lenses. But have indeed a very good picture quality but not enough light intensity, such as the Canon EF 28mm f 2.8 IS USM Wide Angle EF lenses - f2.8 makes in a KB-sensor for a small depth of field, but in the APS sensor, the effect is much less , Alternatively, the light intensity is good and the picture quality is not true: the Canon EF 28mm 1: 1.8 USM lens (58mm filter thread) is to use really only from F4. Nevertheless, the Sigma 30mm kind out of the race for me.
Now I have, for lack of alternatives, the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM (filter thread 72mm) for Canon lens mount also black from the Sigma type series. So far, this makes a much better impression. Thanks to five LD lenses the CA are only seen in extreme cases, the pixel Peeking. The apparently lower light intensity is bearable, because on the one hand reaches the 30 / 1.4, in practice, only 1.8 (if we are to believe the DxOMark) and on the other hand would be even 2/3 okay because the lens are quasi with f1.8 very sharp to the edge is. In general, the focus is at this on a significantly higher level than in 30mm. So far I've had to try it not right time in practice, but the AF makes far a much better impression. Those like me who has bad luck with the 30mm should VLT try also with the 18-35. Price, weight, size doubled, but the first impression it is worth.
