Third party "standard" primes.

ulrikft · February 23, 2008

Hey!

Why doesen't Tokina and Tamron make competing primes in the 25-35mm 1.4-1.8 range? I would love a tokina 28 1.4 or a Tamron 35 1.4. Today the only options seem to be somewhat flawed sigma 30 1.4, canon 28 1.8, 35 f/2, or the extremely expensive (comparatively) l-glass from canon. I would love a lens as capable as my canon 50 1.4 in this range, and the border performance of the 30 1.4, 28 1.8 and the 35 f/2 leaves much to be desired according to quite a few reviews.. Am i too demanding? is this a very hard lens to make, and therefore the only real good ones will be the very expensive L-glass? Comments? thoughts?

ziggy53 · February 23, 2008

I have a Sigma 28mm, f1.8 that I bought specifically for a fast (large aperture), fairly wide, prime. It is an older lens with fairly slow autofocus, lots of flare, and I cannot use other than f1.8 and f2 (so not really compatible with modern cameras).

In the right conditions it proves itself to be a high quality optic.

On crop 1.3x and 1.6x cameras corner performance is pretty good.

I suspect that in this day of fairly fast and high quality zooms, the demand for prime lenses has diminished dramatically. I doubt that the trend will reverse.

claudermilk · February 25, 2008

Not enough demand. Especially with today's zooms. I keep looking at the wide angle primes, but comparing test data on photozone, it really doesn't appear there is much of any benefit any more. In looking at the numbers for my 24-70/2.8 vs the Canon & Sigma wide primes, the zoom is right there. It seems only the exotic adapted CZ lenses make any difference.

Looking further, really all the popular wide zooms commonly discussed & recommended (Canon's 24-70, 24-105, 17-55 IS, Tokina's 17-50) all are right together. So it gets back to demand, only we weirdos are wanting the high quality primes now.

TaDa · February 25, 2008

claudermilk wrote:

Looking further, really all the popular wide zooms commonly discussed & recommended (Canon's 24-70, 24-105, 17-55 IS, Tokina's 17-50) all are right together. So it gets back to demand, only we weirdos are wanting the high quality primes now.

Just to confirm, I think you mean Tamron 17-50? Tokina doesn't make a 17-50, but they do make a 16-50

ulrikft · February 25, 2008

claudermilk wrote:

Not enough demand. Especially with today's zooms. I keep looking at the wide angle primes, but comparing test data on photozone, it really doesn't appear there is much of any benefit any more. In looking at the numbers for my 24-70/2.8 vs the Canon & Sigma wide primes, the zoom is right there. It seems only the exotic adapted CZ lenses make any difference.

Looking further, really all the popular wide zooms commonly discussed & recommended (Canon's 24-70, 24-105, 17-55 IS, Tokina's 17-50) all are right together. So it gets back to demand, only we weirdos are wanting the high quality primes now.

For me 2.8 versus 1.4 aperture makes a lot of difference when it comes to low light/indoor photography. I do have a 18-50 2.8, but I would still love a 15 1.4, 25 1.4 in addition to my 50 1.4 :P

swintonphoto · February 25, 2008

These lenses are excellent, and have a very good price point:

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/325/superspeed-sigma-trio.html

ulrikft · February 25, 2008

swintonphoto wrote:

These lenses are excellent, and have a very good price point:

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/325/superspeed-sigma-trio.html

I have looked at those and at the 30 1.4, I'm just discouraged by the the-digital-picture reviews of a few of them:P I guess I should just buckle up and get either the 24 1.8 or 30 1.4

BenA2 · February 25, 2008

ulrikft wrote:

I have looked at those and at the 30 1.4, I'm just discouraged by the the-digital-picture reviews of a few of them:P I guess I should just buckle up and get either the 24 1.8 or 30 1.4

I own the 30 1.4 and am quite fond of it for low-light portraits and candid situations. While it is definitely soft in the corners, it's extremely sharp in the center. And, if you're shooting low light, in all likelyhood, you'll be at a large aperture where the corners will be out of focus anyway, while your subject will be in the sharp area. If that's how you plan to use the lens, I don't think you'll be disappointed.

If you're looking for edge-to-edge sharpness, skip this one. Even stopped down, it can't compete with the good zooms at the edges. A landscape lens it is not.

Full disclosure... I did have to send mine into Sigma to deal with a sticky focus ring and a well documented front-focusing problem, typical of earlier versions. But, it was fixed for free, even though it was out of warranty. And, I assume that if you buy a new one, you won't have the same problem.

Tee Why · February 26, 2008

Another vote for the Sigma 28mm f1.8. Great lens.
Here is my comparison of the 28mm against the Sigma 30mm and Tamron 17-50.
http://tomyi.smugmug.com/gallery/2000895_jMDFd#114325968

ulrikft · February 26, 2008

BenA2 wrote:

I own the 30 1.4 and am quite fond of it for low-light portraits and candid situations. While it is definitely soft in the corners, it's extremely sharp in the center. And, if you're shooting low light, in all likelyhood, you'll be at a large aperture where the corners will be out of focus anyway, while your subject will be in the sharp area. If that's how you plan to use the lens, I don't think you'll be disappointed.

If you're looking for edge-to-edge sharpness, skip this one. Even stopped down, it can't compete with the good zooms at the edges. A landscape lens it is not.

Full disclosure... I did have to send mine into Sigma to deal with a sticky focus ring and a well documented front-focusing problem, typical of earlier versions. But, it was fixed for free, even though it was out of warranty. And, I assume that if you buy a new one, you won't have the same problem.

For me it would be for concert photography and low-light/indoor images:) thanks for your input!

ulrikft · February 26, 2008

Tee Why wrote:

Another vote for the Sigma 28mm f1.8. Great lens.
Here is my comparison of the 28mm against the Sigma 30mm and Tamron 17-50.
http://tomyi.smugmug.com/gallery/2000895_jMDFd#114325968

Thanks for the link! Now I'm confused about sigma 24 1.8, 28 1.8 and 30 1.4 :P I'll think some more

claudermilk · February 26, 2008

TaDa wrote:

Just to confirm, I think you mean Tamron 17-50? Tokina doesn't make a 17-50, but they do make a 16-50

Oops! Yep that's the one.

I agree with the low-light advantage (how can I not?), but that's still a limited market it seems. If there's not enough $$$ there to justify the R&D and manufacturing start up, they aren't going to bother.