sigma 35 1.4 vs Nikon 35mm 1.8

<p>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</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>EDIT.. crossed with Dieter... He types faster!</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. <br /> <br /> Note...the D3000 and D5000 series have no AF Fine Tune, so the USB gadget is priceless.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I have the Sigma 35mm/f1.4, which I reviewed for photo.net last year: http://www.photo.net/equipment/sigma/35mm-f14/<br>

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.</p>

<p>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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>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. </p><div></div>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Oliver, that's because it's <em><strong>seriously</strong></em> overpriced and worse in <strong><em>every</em></strong> way to the Sigma.</p>

<p>The Nikon is ~600gms, a tiny bit lighter than the Sigma.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Do you prefer light weight or more metal in the construction?</p>

<p><< You buy a fast 1.4, 1.8 lens for indoor, hand held photography, typically with available light >></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

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?

<p>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.</p>

<p>When working on subjects like Kent S, @ maybe 20m you get well over 50m....WIDE OPEN.</p>

<p>Interestingly at 25m DoF is over 171m, <em><strong>BUT</strong> </em>crucially it's only 11m in-front and a whopping 160m behind the plane of focus.</p>

<p>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 <em><strong>only</strong> </em>if you're shooting pretty close. Landscape wise it's not really relevant, other factors enter into the equation, such as vignetting etc.</p>

<p>http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html CoC 0.03mm (Default for D800)</p>

<p><em>Why did no-one mention the Nikkor 35mm f/1,4G?</em></p>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> 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?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>To continue on the theme, of 'Good Glass First...Better Body Later', I see absolutely no point buying virtually <em><strong>any</strong></em> 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. </p>

<p>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 <em><strong>AND</strong></em> a simple (if a little expensive) method of changing mount if I jump ship to Canon....why would I buy Nikon?</p>

<p>Focusing needs light to AF happily and having a lens with a faster MAX aperture should help....</p>

<p>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 <em><strong>really</strong> </em>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> I see absolutely no point buying virtually <em><strong>any</strong></em>Nikon lens at the moment, except maybe the 85mm 1.8G.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>that's a little harsh.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed, I'll admit it was a little inflammatory...Sorry! I just wish Nikon would try and compete.<br>

<br>

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

<br>

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

<br>

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.....:-)<br>

<br>

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.<br>

<br>

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

<br>

They have more competition than ever but don't seem to be responding.</p>

 

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>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, </p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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).</p>

<p><em>they're making slow lenses cheaply (the 1.8 series)</em></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><em>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.</em></p>

<p>Which f/2.8 zoom outperforms the 14-24/2.8 Nikkor while covering those focal lengths on FX?<br /> <br /> <em>They only seem to make 18-something DX lenses..</em><br /> <br /> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><em>But equally, there's a long list of 'Why haven't they updated the XXXmm yet?'</em><br /> <br /> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but since when is 1.8 a slow lens?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>In the series of common 50mm 'standard' lenses with apertures 1.2 - 1.4 - 1.8 and <strong><em>maybe</em></strong> 2.... it certainly isn't fast!</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Apertures are kinda relative! 2 is slow for 50mm but fast for 200mm.</p>

<p> </p>