Sigma 24mm f1.8

[herc182]

Has anyone used or been tempted by this lens? I want to treat myself over christmas and want a prime lens. I am getting into using these instead of zooms.

Reasons I want it are that I have read good reviews, its fast, and has "macro" capabilities.

Anyone have an opinion why I should or should not buy it?

Thanks

[herc182]

Also, is it full frame?

The seller on ebay says it is, whereas i have found that it is "designed for DSLRs"....which is it? FF or not?!

thanks

[e_dawg]

I had the 4/3 mount version. It's good, but not great. It is full-frame, but I suspect the corners would be a bit soft at large apertures. There were already signs of that on 4/3, so I can only imagine that it would be more apparent on FF. Flare control is good for such a wide and fast lens, but not as good as your typical 24-25 mm prime.

The main drawback to this lens IMO is the auto focus. On my 4/3 bodies, the AF struggled in low light more than my Olympus lenses, despite it being faster than all of them (and would thus let in more light to the AF sensors). I don't know if this would carry over to the Nikon-mount version, but I don't see why it wouldn't, as I have seen the same behaviour with other third party lenses like the Tamron 70-200/2.8 (although, Nikon's AF system has a lower threshold for minimum light / edge contrast levels anyways, so it isn't as finicky as the Olympus AF system).

If it were up to me, though, I would choose the Nikon AF 24/2.8D (if you want AF) or the Zeiss ZF 25/2.8 (if you like MF). I am actually using the Zeiss on my Panny G1 with stacked 4/3 to m4/3 and a Nikon F to 4/3 adapters. Works great with the G1's 10x mag MF-assist mode in the EVF. Interestingly, the Zeiss 25 is also a semi-macro lens: the MFD is 6.7 in, or 2.4 in from the front of the lens.

Or, if you're not attached to the idea of having a 24-25 mm lens, I think a certain someone would strongly recommend the Nikon 35/2 ;) I would also suggest that if you could have one "all-purpose prime" for APS-C that a 35/2 would typically be your best bet. And again, the choices are the Nikon AF 35/2D (if you want AF) or the Zeiss ZF 35/2 (if you like MF). The Zeiss 35, BTW, is said by some to be the best wide/normal prime money can buy. Myself, I am more of a wide-angle shooter, hence the four 24-25 mm primes in my collection ;)

BTW, if you're interested in the Nikon 24/2.8, send me a PM ;)

[herc182]

hmmm, thanks for the info!

I already have the 35mm. I just thought the 24mm would give me more wide angle shots.

Maybe I should just stick with the 35mm then. On my D80, I get 52.5mm and the 24mm would give me 36mm. although its a fairly big difference, the 35mm is more closely related to the view of my eye.

The 1.8 is not that much faster than my f2.

As for YOUR 24mm....what you thinking (PM me!)? I am always in the market for nikon lenses....!

[herc182]

BTW, if you're interested in the Nikon 24/2.8, send me a PM ;)

I have just noticed your signiture...how do you ever decide what camera to use?! Why are you running all those different systems?

What do you think of the A900?

[Esoterra]

I bought the Sigma 24 mm F/1.8 from some guy in excellent condition for $50- he switched to Canon a while back and was dumping off his Nikon lenses... I also got the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 for $50... I figured it was a good enough deal... I can always turn around and sell them if I don't like the output. I haven't messed around with the 105mm yet, but as for the 24mm I do notice that it is soft in the corners and a sometimes problematic to use at f/1.8 because of focusing inconsistencies (much like the Nikkor 85mm 1.8), but it does have a creamy smooth look to it. Over all its a decent lens and I think I am gonna keep this lens for some astro photography.

[herc182]

I bought the Sigma 24 mm F/1.8 from some guy in excellent condition for $50- he switched to Canon a while back and was dumping off his Nikon lenses... I also got the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 for $50... I figured it was a good enough deal... I can always turn around and sell them if I don't like the output. I haven't messed around with the 105mm yet, but as for the 24mm I do notice that it is soft in the corners and a sometimes problematic to use at f/1.8 because of focusing inconsistencies (much like the Nikkor 85mm 1.8), but it does have a creamy smooth look to it. Over all its a decent lens and I think I am gonna keep this lens for some astro photography.

WTF?! $50? I cannot believe it. How do you make friends like that?!

I was looking to spend up to £180 on it (second hand) whereas the cheapest I found it online was £260.

I dont think I will plump for it though. I dont shoot at that wide an aperture often...only for portraits. and I wouldnt take a portrait at 24mm!

how much is a second hand D700 these days :D