sigma 35 1.4 vs Nikon 35mm 1.8

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by david_debalko|1, Oct 27, 2014.

  1. I am shooting with a Nikon D4, D3 and 750, I am looking for a light alternative to the 24-70 and I purchased a Nikon 35mm 1.8 FX lens, I like it but I wonder if I should have gotten the Sigma 35 1.4, its only a few hundred dollars more, and still a lighter option than the 24-70. I will use it for shooting mainly indoors in dim light. 2 important things to me are reliable focus and a light lens to carry and of corse quality photos. thanks
  2. The Sigma weighs more than twice the weight of the Nikon - more than half way between it and the 24-70: 305g vs 665g vs 900g. In other words, light it is not. I own the Sigma and am happy with it - when I purchased it, the Nikon 35mm hadn't been announced yet - not sure whether my decision would have turned out otherwise.
  3. EDIT.. crossed with Dieter... He types faster!
    I have the Sigma and although it's over twice the weight, 665g v 305g, of the Nikon, I don't regret carrying it around. It's pictures are just that good. I don't often shoot wide open, but by 1.8/2 it's sharper than a very sharp thing.
    However, beyond about f4, they're very similar resolution wise, but aberrations that are absent in the Sigma start to look ugly in the Nikon...both Long and Lat Chromatic are too strong.
    I also happen to like the thinking and implementation of the much more comprehensive Lens fine-tuning possible with the Sigma USB thingy. It focuses quickly and accurately on my D700 as-well as my D300 and D5300.

    Note...the D3000 and D5000 series have no AF Fine Tune, so the USB gadget is priceless.
  4. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I am looking for a light alternative to the 24-70 and I purchased a Nikon 35mm 1.8 FX lens, I like it but I wonder if I should have gotten the Sigma 35 1.4, its only a few hundred dollars more​
    So you were looking for a lighter lens and you are happy with the 35mm/f1.8 AF-S you got. That should be the end of the story.
    I have the Sigma 35mm/f1.4, which I reviewed for last year:
    And then I bought one myself before Nikon introduced the 35mm/f1.8. The Sigma 35mm/f1.4 is an outstanding lens, but it is quite heavy, most likely due to a lot of metal used in the construction. If you set out to find a lighter alternative, the Sigma seems to defeat that purpose completely.
  5. I would never give up my Sigma 35/1.4 (used it for hours shooting an event yesterday, which meant working on my feet and carrying a heavy load), but I didn't buy it for low mass.

    It's a fantastic lens, and I use it wide open or nearly so on a regular basis as the results are just so compelling. I imagine if I happened to have Nikon's more petite f/1.8, there would be times when I'd skip carrying the Sigma. But for now, I'm happy to get the extra exercise and the fantastic results.

    Just happened to pick up a Metabones adapter, too, so I can use it on a couple of Sony E-Mount devices. Love that Sigma lens.
  6. According to DxO, the Sigma 35mm f1.4 is the sharpest possible wide angle lens you can put on a Nikon. If you generally shoot with a tripod and are after MAXIMUM sharpness, this is the no-brainer choice. I am looking for one to buy, to go with my Nikon 24mm PC-E, and also a Sigma 50mm f1.4 ART. The Sigma 50mm brother is the second sharpest lens available anywhere that you can put on a Nikon, the sharpest being the $4,000 Zeiss Opus.
    Kent in SD
  7. my experiences with the sigma 35 have all been quite positive. it's certainly lighter than the 24-70 and focuses great on a D3s. but since you already have the nikon, you might want to rent the sigma for a few days and do some head to head comparisons.
  8. Why did no-one mention the Nikkor 35mm f/1,4G? Just curious. For me this has been an outstandingly sharp lens for general photography that's a joy to carry around - very light.
  9. Oliver, that's because it's seriously overpriced and worse in every way to the Sigma.
    The Nikon is ~600gms, a tiny bit lighter than the Sigma.
  10. Thanks for all the great responses, one review I read actually said the Nikon 35 1.8 was sharper than the Nikon 35mm 1.4 and the 1.4 is very overpriced, so I never considered the Nikon. The store did say they would take back the Nikon 35 1.8 applying the $ to the Sigma.
  11. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    As far as I am concerned, whether the Sigma 35mm/f1.4, Nikon 35mm/f1.4 or Nikon 35mm/f1.8 is a bit sharper is almost irrelevant. You buy a fast 1.4, 1.8 lens for indoor, hand held photography, typically with available light (i.e. no flash). Unless you lock the camera down on a tripod, use base ISO (100 or so), and a shutter speed on the fast side, i.e. 1/125 sec for 35mm, camera vibration, subject motion, high ISO noise ... are going to dominate all the small differences among those lenses.
    The Nikon 35mm/f1.8 AF-S is relatively light because it has more plastic parts. I don't have that particular lens but I have the 28mm, 50mm, and 85mm f1.8 AF-S lenses. They are all light but I think their construction quality is sufficient, but they are not built to the same strength as something like a Sigma 35mm/f1.4.
    Do you prefer light weight or more metal in the construction?
  12. << You buy a fast 1.4, 1.8 lens for indoor, hand held photography, typically with available light >>
    Uh no, Shun. I buy lenses based on sharpness because I want maximum sharpness for enlargements, or cropping. I rarely shoot hand held, rarely shoot indoors, and use a pro quality Gitzo carbon fiber tripod and AcraTech head. I do agree that if you are NOT using a tripod, the differences in sharpness between most lenses quickly disappears.
    Kent in SD
  13. When you got the 35mm for lightness in the first place, why the heck would you pay extra to get a lens that's twice as
    heavy when it's not even clear which is better in actual use?
  14. DoF wise at f1.4, if your subject is eg 2m away, you get about 30cm, if it's 4m you get 1.1m, if it's 10m (or 30ft) you get nearly 8m.
    When working on subjects like Kent S, @ maybe 20m you get well over 50m....WIDE OPEN.
    Interestingly at 25m DoF is over 171m, BUT crucially it's only 11m in-front and a whopping 160m behind the plane of focus.
    Now I know DoF is an illusion, but those are interesting figures never-the-less. Everyone kinda assumes that at big apertures you get a wafer thin Dof, well you do only if you're shooting pretty close. Landscape wise it's not really relevant, other factors enter into the equation, such as vignetting etc. CoC 0.03mm (Default for D800)
  15. Why did no-one mention the Nikkor 35mm f/1,4G?
    I use that lens and like it a lot, but a lot of people scream murder if one suggests a lens that is not the "bang for buck" leader in the marketplace, so I mostly keep what I think to myself. ;-) I think the 35/1.4 AF-S is ergonomically, mechanically and optically excellent, and consistent with the rendering of the other nano-coated Nikkor fast primes, but ... it is expensive, and newer, significantly less expensive lenses exist now in the market including the Sigma 35/1.4 and Nikon 35/1.8, which you may or may not prefer depending on what you want in a lens. To me it is important that the "look" of the image is consistent between different lenses that I may use together for e.g. documenting an event. I would like to preserve the character of the images across focal lengths; of course post-processing affects this greatly as well, but the lens plays its own role.
  16. why the heck would you pay extra to get a lens that's twice as heavy when it's not even clear which is better in actual use?​
    actually, every review ive seen notes that the Sigma is much better than the nikkor in every respect except weight. over the long run, 200 or 300 dollars is not really that much for superior optics and build, especially on a high-res sensor like the d750's. moreover, the sigma balances well on Nikon pro bodies.
  17. The biggest difficulty I had with my 35mm Sigma is with getting it to focus on my D800 - the AF fine tuning in the body is inadequate, since the required offsets are vastly different at short and long distances. I have picked up the dock, so at some point I need to use it; reports suggest that this should solve the problem. In the mean time, I just use live view with it, having missed focus on some shots of a family wedding by a large margin when I tried the phase detect AF. It's a solid lump, but then so is everything else I normally carry around.
  18. To continue on the theme, of 'Good Glass First...Better Body Later', I see absolutely no point buying virtually any Nikon lens at the moment, except maybe the 85mm 1.8G. They are usually overpriced and there are better alternatives in more innovative focal length combos from many of the independents.
    Having a dedicated method of firmware update and multi-focal length AF Fine Tune for zooms, additional Focus Limiters, AF Speed options etc with the Sigma USB hub AND a simple (if a little expensive) method of changing mount if I jump ship to Canon....why would I buy Nikon?
    Focusing needs light to AF happily and having a lens with a faster MAX aperture should help....
    However, as there seems to be no way to determine what aperture the lens is actually closed down to when attempting LV AF.... who knows? It might be under Dynamic control, but if I want to take a pic @ f16 is it really trying to AF already stopped down? In regular VF AF, the lens only stops down at the last possible moment to let the AF module get full-aperture light and make the best effort.
  19. Which aperture the camera closes down to in LV may depend on the camera, but most commonly it is the aperture that is selected as the current shooting aperture. Stopped down LV image is useful if you want to see the real depth of field and also in case the focus of the lens shifts when the aperture is closed down, in which case it is the only way to focus accurately. If you need more light you can roll the sub-command dial to adjust the aperture and then after focusing, go back to shooting aperture, on cameras that support changing the aperture during live view such as the D810.
  20. I see absolutely no point buying virtually anyNikon lens at the moment, except maybe the 85mm 1.8G.​
    that's a little harsh. Nikon has some good lenses, maybe even some great ones. i wouldnt make a blanket statement about all of their lenses, just as for years i advised people not to make blanket statements about 3rd party lenses. it is true that Sigma has stepped up their game in the past few years, beginning with the 50/1.4 and continuing with the 85/1.4, 35/1.4 and 50/1.4 ART. but Nikon's 1.8 line of primes has generally been welcomed and i'm personally considering the 20/1.8 because it plugs a gap in my FX arsenal and also because there is no equivalent, except an older Sigma badly in need of updating. WRT to the 35/1.8, it's lighter and cheaper than the Sigma, which may make a difference for some. it's not optically better but none of the reviews i've seen say its a dog.
  21. that's a little harsh.​
    Indeed, I'll admit it was a little inflammatory...Sorry! I just wish Nikon would try and compete.

    They only seem to make 18-something DX lenses.....just add 10mm annually. Nothing doing there.

    ...and renew old FX formulae. But equally, there's a long list of 'Why haven't they updated the XXXmm yet?'

    Maybe I should start a thread with 'Which lens do you want Nikon to update next?' I suspect it will be a bit divisive, but will run to a couple of pages, easily.....:)

    Sigma have a strong, thought-out vision and are undeniably going for it. I don't want Nikon to be left behind, but I'm worried for them; I never expected Kodak to go down either! I always kinda assumed Nikon made money on making high quality lenses. I wouldn't go as far as saying Nikon are racing for the bottom as fast as Sigma are racing to the top, but they're making slow lenses cheaply (the 1.8 series), where-as Sigma are making very high quality fast primes (1.4s), sometimes more expensively than Nikon's and they're selling them. Mention a Pro 2.8 zoom and whichever Nikon lens you choose, there's an as good or better lens made by someone else cheaper.

    I'm not saying Nikon lenses are dogs, very far from it, but others are making all the ground at the mo'.

    They have more competition than ever but don't seem to be responding.
  22. I shot a test this morning, 35mm 1.8 vs 24-70 2.8 set at 35mm, tripod, various apertures, at 2.8 the straight 35mm is sharper on the edges,
  23. they're making slow lenses cheaply (the 1.8 series), where-as Sigma are making very high quality fast primes (1.4s), sometimes more expensively than Nikon's and they're selling them.​
    i own three sigma 1.4 lenses, so you're preaching to the choir here, mike. but since when is 1.8 a slow lens?
  24. Lens design is an optimization problem. If you want a lens with the highest MTF & best correction of aberrations at the lowest price but place no value whatsoever on small size or low weight, then the product developers can take some liberties in lens design and come up with a higher performance design without necessarily very high cost, but not everyone wants to go with such a lens if the weight gain is enormous and the image quality of the smaller and lighter lenses is ok. There is quite a lot of pressure towards DSLR manufacturers to make cameras and lenses smaller and lighter, and makes it challenging to increase quality while reducing weight at the same. The 50/1.4 Sigma weights 815 grams, while the Nikon 50/1.8 AF-S weighs 187 grams, 50/1.4 AF-S 280 grams and the 58/1.4 AF-S 385 grams. While in this case the Sigma may have better MTF (I assume it does, but I haven't used it) but I wouldn't want a normal lens that weights 815 grams.
    Nikon has manage to reduce the weight of their FX camera bodies as well; e.g., the D700 was heavier than the D810 which in turn is heavier than the D750, so there is a tendency towards lighter weight in newer bodies of the compact FX DSLR (while maintaining high quality viewfinder and high performance AF). The 400/2.8 lost about 800 grams in the latest incarnation. If you don't regard these as significant developments then you may well think Nikon is not heading in the right direction, but a lot of people appreciate reduced weight of the gear that they have to carry, where it is possible to achieve weight reduction without losing performance, image quality or build quality. If weight can be ignored, a totally different type of lens set might evolve, but I don't believe that this is the direction Nikon should head towards (Zeiss seems to be).
    they're making slow lenses cheaply (the 1.8 series)
    f/1.8 lenses aren't slow. They're an excellent practical compromise, providing high quality, a wide aperture, compactless, light weight and moderate cost. Especially advanced amateurs and photography students are likely to take advantage of them. These lenses together with the 70-200/4 make FX more affordable and a bit less heavy than it has been. I think one of the key advantages of prime lenses is that they can be comparatively small and light weight for the image quality and maximum aperture that they provide. For example the Nikon 20/1.8 provides FX coverage yet is only 357 grams while the DX only Sigma 18-35/1.8 weights 811 grams. As far as I'm concerned the difference is quite significant.
    Mention a Pro 2.8 zoom and whichever Nikon lens you choose, there's an as good or better lens made by someone else cheaper.
    Which f/2.8 zoom outperforms the 14-24/2.8 Nikkor while covering those focal lengths on FX?

    They only seem to make 18-something DX lenses..

    Nikon doesn't want to make many high end DX lenses that would lock users to a DX only future. An important motivation in getting into a Nikon or Canon system is the knowledge that there are almost limitless options. These options come at a price. If you only want a DX system then perhaps one of the other manufacturers give a better selection of lenses tailored to this format. I believe many people are driven by dreams and want to keep doors open.
    Maintaining a full lens lineup with very fine gradations of focal length and aperture is expensive and when Nikon introduce new items between existing ones, product sales get divided among greater number of lens types, thus each lens is sold in fewer copies and the costs per lens go up. But many of us who actually like Nikon use it because we like the plethora of options that they give.
    But equally, there's a long list of 'Why haven't they updated the XXXmm yet?'

    They have been rapidly updating their lens lineup in recent years and many of the new lenses are of significantly higher optical quality than their predecessors. 20 to 85mm is extensively covered, as is 200mm to 800mm with primes, and 14mm to 400mm with zooms. Nikon simply have so many lenses that updating everything takes a few decades. The "gap" in primes consisting of 105mm, 135mm and 180mm lenses is where most of the demanding users seem to prefer to use a telezoom (70-200 mostly, either f/2.8, or f/4), thus it is understandable that the lower focal lengths (where large apertures are often needed for indoor photography) and long focal lengths (where zooms are not as good) get more frequent updates. Personally I would like to see the 135/2 in AF-S; it would be very useful to me, but I can wait. As for the 300/4 getting a VR update, well, high resolution cameras have made me cynical of the usefulness of VR; I now think that for high quality hand held shots, a fast shutter speed is a much more effective solution than VR. So I don't really mind that much if it takes a few more years before this lens is updated.
    Nikon users cover such a wide range of needs and preferences that it is difficult for the company to keep everyone happy with fresh updates all the time. I think it's ok; the pictures that need to be made get to be made even so. If you're unhappy with Nikon products perhaps you should in fact switch brands; there is no use in lingering on without being able to do what you want to do.
  25. but since when is 1.8 a slow lens?​
    In the series of common 50mm 'standard' lenses with apertures 1.2 - 1.4 - 1.8 and maybe 2.... it certainly isn't fast!
    For current Nikon FX 35, 50 and 85mm lenses, there's a 1.4 and a 1.8. 1.4 is fast and 1.8 is slow. In this case fast and slow are comparative not absolute terms.
    OK, you could call them very fast and fast, but in this 35mm 1.4 v 35mm 1.8 debate, there's one fast lens and one slow lens.
    Apertures are kinda relative! 2 is slow for 50mm but fast for 200mm.
  26. Nikon doesn't want to make many high end DX lenses that would lock users to a DX only future.​
    because... why? they'd rather leak those potential buyers to Fuji?
    In the series of common 50mm 'standard' lenses with apertures 1.2 - 1.4 - 1.8 and maybe 2.... it certainly isn't fast!​
    i consider anything under 2.8 fast, actually. calling a 1.8 'slow' seems like taking excessive liberties IMO. i usually shoot fast primes at f/2-2.2 anyway, with wider apertures reserved for bokeh shots or special circumstances. sometimes i might actually stop down to (gasp) 2.8! on a prime which can shoot at a much lower aperture number!
  27. Fuji makes a mirrorless camera system where the flange distance and lack of mirror make it possible to design compact and fast short
    focal length lenses without as much compromise for the smaller sensor. Nikon's F mount is designed for 24m x36mm and thus it makes
    sense to make most F mount lenses to cover this format. The size and weight of fast wide angle primes for Nikon DX would not be that
    much smaller or lighter than their FX cousins if they are to have good image quality. The 20/1.8 and 28/1.8 are very light weight lenses for
    the angle of view and absolute aperture (to make equivalent lenses for Fuji, you'd need 13/1.2 and 18/1.2 roughly speaking, to get the
    same amount of light, angle of view and depth of field. Even though Fuji system is mirrorless even their fastest wide primes aren't quite
    that fast, and we're talking about what Mike calls slow lenses here ...For DX to compete with FX in this area the lenses would need to be
    f/1.0 to f/1.2 which are not very practical to make nor would they likely produce all that great image quality wide open on the small sensor.
    It makes more sense to get an FX camera to use with f/1.8 or f/1.4 primes than a DX camera with imagined f/1.2 or f/1.0 primes that
    would likely make the DX kit more expensive yet of lower quality. Thus it is sensible to use FX for what FX does best, and not lock users
    to solutions that are less than ideal. DX does well a lot of things but fast wide is not among its strengths. Fuji makes a nice system of
    lenses but I find the nonstandard sensor they use problematic (compared to D7100's sensor) and the autofocus does not work all that
    great in low light. I think they have potential to grow but their products are in a different market from Nikon's. Nikon could never do DX
    lenses for F mount that would be as compact for the specifications as the Fuji wide angles are. A separate system might be possible if the
    technological problems related to viewfinders and autofocus tracking in low light are solved without compromising compatibility with
    existing lenses and accessories for the F mount. But I think the market for small sensor only systems is saturated as it is and I doubt
    Nikon could enter this market successfully. Of the mirrorless manufacturers only Sony seems to be doing par from this segment of
    products and ... curiously enough they are now making 24x36mm mirrorless. I think that's what drives people to Sony. Nikon seems to be
    taking the approach of making FX DSLRs and lenses better and yet less heavy, which to me at least is a sensible approach, given the
    market's desire for light weight but good performance and image quality. Personally I find the D750 already a bit too small but my hands
    are relatively large. I very much enjoy light weight in prime lenses even though many of my current lenses are on the heavy side.
    However I'm not willing to sacrifice the optical viewfinder to gain further compacness or weight reductions; it is an essential feature to me.

    Anyway, this can be debated on and on, it won't change what Nikon decide to do. They cannot do everything all at once, but must
    concentrate resources on areas where they can do well. Other manufacturers such as Fuji and Sony have different focus areas and so
    users can make choices based on what fits their needs best. In the first years of the digital interchangeable lens camera boom Nikon and
    Canon seemed to be the only ones that did really well commercially, so people made choices based on that. However today there are
    many more manufacturers that are competing for market share in the DX size system market. It cannot be expected that Nikon can cater every type of user's needs optimally with so many competitors. What they can try to do is make the best out of their strengths.
  28. Personally I would have liked to see at least one DX wide angle prime such as a 18/2 or 23/2, but in the time frame where it would have made the most sense (2000-2006) it didn't happen, and today we have the reasonably priced and lightweight 20/1.8 which according to early reports works well on both formats so that's the end of that basically; a good solution was found without breaking compatibility. Also, used prices of FX cameras are getting quite close to new DX camera prices. While many users may never buy an FX camera, the majority of those who are interested in a prime lens lineup probably should go FX to get the most out of the lenses (or get a Fuji or another compact mirrorless system, if the desire of compactness overrides the need for optical viewfinder, FX image quality, autofocus tracking ability in low light, and the need for fast long glass - quite a long list actually). If one ever wants to photograph a candle lit precession in a church or outdoor wedding at night by a fire in India, or use fast long lenses for sports while blurring the advertisements in the background, then those options remain open to a Nikon or Canon user while a compact system user may end up having to switch up to N/C if they want to work on such subjects. In light of this I don't see either N or C stumbling much as long as there are people interested in photography and breaking ground with new subjects in difficult conditions. It is very human to always want to try something that wasn't previously possible. And that's where the real forefront of photographic technology is, as far as I'm concerned.
  29. Personally I would have liked to see at least one DX wide angle prime such as a 18/2 or 23/2,​
    Just recently found my way around that missing DX wide angle prime - in form of a Ricoh GR with a 18.3/2.8 lens. Also gives me a very light and compact camera to take along in situations where a DSLR is just too cumbersome. Reasonably priced too - unlike Nikon's Coolpix A (before the recent price decrease).
    Any discussion about the missing Nikon DX primes are moot now anyway - with the Sigma 18-35/1.8 there is an - albeit heavy and bulky - fast-aperture alternative. Would even be more attractive had Sigma managed to make it a 16-35. But it still is an attractive alternative - though heavier - to using a 20/1.8 on DX.
  30. The 2nd photo in on my homepage is shot backstage with the Nikon 35mm 1.8, very dim FLUORESCENT lighting.
  31. Fuji makes a mirrorless camera system where the flange distance and lack of mirror make it possible to design compact and fast short focal length lenses without as much compromise for the smaller sensor. Nikon's F mount is designed for 24m x36mm and thus it makes sense to make most F mount lenses to cover this format.​
    I think this is a compelling explanation for Nikon's apparent focus on FX. Technical virtues of each format aside, it just makes sense - Nikon F mount was developed for the 135 format. Why should Nikon throw its weight behind competing in the APS-C format with one hand tied behind its back? It's not black and white though. Obviously Nikon makes a lot of great DX cameras and lenses. But if you are Nikon, are you going to commit resources to making niche performance lenses for DX users? It would be nice if they did (I am a DX user) but I am not surprised by the absence of those lenses. Sorry, this is way off topic.
  32. Sigma and Tamron make some very good lenses, but so does Nikon. I occasionally have Canon envy (for lenses like the T/S 17mm and possibly the new 200-400), and I'm certainly happy with my Sigma 35 f/1.4 - and I'd love a Sigma 50mm "A". But I've no objections to my 200 f/2, and, while the 120-300mm f/2.8 Sigma seems like an impressive optic, I'm still looking longingly at a 400 f/2.8, thanks.

    Incidentally, I've always thought of "fast" as a relative term. I generally think of f/2.8 as "fast" in a zoom, though the 18-35 certainly raises eyebrows about that. f/5.6 is a fast lens on large format, and f/2.8 primes are "fast" on medium format. A 600mm f/4 is "fast" by the standards of other ways to get to 600mm, and I think of the 200-400 f/4 as "fast" - for a zoom - too. I don't tend to think of 50mm f/2.8 as "fast" because f/1.2 lenses are available - everything in between is a gradient. At 300mm, the rare Nikkor 300 f/2 notwithstanding, f/2.8 is still "fast" - a 70-300 f/5.6 is not fast, and a 300 f/4 is in between.

    Pedantically, Fuji do make a couple of 56mm f/1.2 lenses, which are a bit more convincing than trying to persuade a DX shooter that one of the f/1.2 Nikkors is useful. I have mild lust for the APD version, since I've always thought fondly of the Minolta/Sony STF lenses (which seem to be "DC" but done right). Sadly, the going rate is a bit much, even with recent bundles on the X-Pro1...

    I buy the argument that Nikon feel they can differentiate with FX, having a complete full-frame lens set and a mount that's compromised in DX by being designed for an FX frame area. Body size is also less relevant if you're shooting FX, though I'm not going to argue that the 35mm lens on my Bessa R doesn't look a lot smaller than my 14-24. I'm sure they'll keep selling DX while they can - but the DX market has a lot of squeeze from cell phones and competent compacts and by the budget end of FX. And by its own back-catalogue, of course.
  33. it


    I bought the Canon ART version recently to replace the 35L which I had been shooting full time with for about 7 years and probably had 250,000 shots on it. (Rebuilt a couple of times.)
    The Sigma is an awesome replacement. Just as sharp, nice contrast and I think the corners are a bit better. Would expect roughly the same for the Nikon.
  34. When I was being taught photography back in the days when 35mm was a small format. Fast was between f/5.6 on the high end and f/2.8 on the low. Lenses that where faster then f/2.8 where called super speed lenses.
    And yes I am very happy with my Sigma lenses the 35mm f/1.4 is a superior lens in every way and the 120-300 f/2.8 is the lens I make most of my money with. It has lasted through 7 years of horse show photography and has never let me down.
  35. Personally I would have liked to see at least one DX wide angle prime such as a 18/2 or 23/2​
    not incoincidentally, fuji makes an 18/2 and a 23/1.4 for their x-system...

Share This Page