Request for advice: SIGMA 20mm F/1.8 EX DG Aspherical RF for Canon FF?

[pedro]

Hi everyone,

Tested my 16-35 F/2.8 USM II and my 50 f/1.4 on the 5D3 wide open at low light and 51k ISO. The 50 f/1.4 had the edge exposure value wise. As I took the pictures at about 20mm I thought I could gain some aperture using a Sigma 20 F/1.8. I read the reviews at photozone.de (see Nikon part). They were not very flattering. But due to the price I just think, why not? Is there anybody out there shooting either the 20 or 24mm siggy?

Thank you for any advice
Peter

 

[sjschall]

I own the Sigma 20 1.8 and have used it on both crop and FF. I use it primarily for video though. For that, it's pretty awesome. It has a little distortion on FF, but I use it for glidecam stuff and I love the look of it, usually shooting at f/2 or higher. For stills, it's rough. It's a very soft lens and I don't think you'll ever see anything close to the quality of the 16-35, especially shooting at 1.8. For that reason, I feel like the 16-35 is still much better. Plus, with 5D3 you have the ISO performance - you can get much better shots with the 16-35 and high ISO than the 20 1.8.

 

[preppyak]

Depends on what you are shooting. If you are shooting landscape, architecture, night stuff, etc, then I think you'd find it disappointing. The corner sharpness just isn't there at all, and so if you're shooting people, or scenes where the borders dont matter, you'd be fine.

As mentioned, you can get away with it on video too since its lower resolution to begin with

 

[pedro]

Thanks a lot! This really helps. Peter

 

[Lenscracker]

I have a Sigma 24mm F/1.8. I like it enough that I actually sold my Canon 24-70mm F/2.8 L lens. The Sigma is better at F/1.8 than the Canon is at F2.8 at 24mm. My Sigma 50mm f1.4 is better at f1.4 than the Canon was at 2.8 and my Sigma 70mm F2.8 is better wide open than the Canon was at wide open 70mm.
The Sigma 70mm is really clunky and noisy but the image quality is superb. The Sigma 24 is also a terrific close up lens. I also use it at night on a tripod on the floor of my boat to capture night fishing action (with intervalometer). It is far superior to any of the zooms I have owned so far. However, I have not compared it directly to my Canon 16-35L II at f2.8.

 

[pedro]

I have a Sigma 24mm F/1.8. I like it enough that I actually sold my Canon 24-70mm F/2.8 L lens. The Sigma is better at F/1.8 than the Canon is at F2.8 at 24mm. My Sigma 50mm f1.4 is better at f1.4 than the Canon was at 2.8 and my Sigma 70mm F2.8 is better wide open than the Canon was at wide open 70mm.
The Sigma 70mm is really clunky and noisy but the image quality is superb. The Sigma 24 is also a terrific close up lens. I also use it at night on a tripod on the floor of my boat to capture night fishing action (with intervalometer). It is far superior to any of the zooms I have owned so far. However, I have not compared it directly to my Canon 16-35L II at f2.8.

Very helpful post. Thank you so much! Much different to what photozone.de wrote about the siggy WA primes.