FAST wide angle lens options: Nikkor 28mm f/1.4 vs the cheap f/1.8 Sigma's?

[darren_cokin]

I shoot with a D100, and tend to favor wide angle views. My 12mm-24mm

DX spends the most time mounted. Great lens. However, with a maximum

aperture of f/4, I usually must use a flash when shooting indoors.

And I'd prefer not too! I love the look of available light

photography. Also, it would be nice to go unnoticed, without drawing

attention to myself by popping off a flash. Although I really

appreciate the versatility of a zoom, I'll forgo that to get some low

light capability. So, I'm shopping for my first prime, a fast lens

that will still have a fairly wide field of view with the D100's crop

factor.

 

The obvious choice would be Nikon's 28mm f/1.4D. But, at $1,700, this

is the most expensive lens in Nikon's line, not counting the monster

telephotos. And, it's an OLD design! I tried it out at a camera

shop, and although the pictures were nice, I was irritated by the loud

and slow autofocus mechanism, and the fact that I had to push a button

and turn a ring in order to switch from manual to auto focus. I've

grown accustomed to my silent wave motors and M/A focus mode. It's

kind of hard for me to justify spending such a premium on glass, if it

comes in such an outdated package. (I may still consider a used one,

if I find a good deal.)

 

My only other wide angle option seems to be from Sigma. They have

primes that go down to f/1.8, in 28mm, 24mm, and 20mm. They cost

$230, $300, and $370, respectively. That 20mm is sure tempting,

considering my preference for wide angle. With such a great price

differential though, I'm sure these can't compare with the Nikkor...

But just how big a difference is there, really? I'm not shooting for

National Geographic over here, I'm a high end hobbyist. $1200 for one

extra half stop is kind of a lot for me to justify. What else would I

be gaining? How does the autofocus mechanism on the Sigma's compare

to the modern Nikkors I'm used to? They have something analogous to

M/A mode, yes?

 

Thanks for your feedback guys!

[wilfred_wong]

sigma HSM=Nikon AFS

 

those 3 sigma you mentioned ain't HSM lens, so their AF just like the "annoying?" 28 1.4

not being a HSM lens, there ain't a M/A mode

you probably 've to switch in the body.

[wen_lin]

The sigma 20mm f/1.8 has front element of 82mm

 

kindda makes it expensive to get filters. likely to have problem with vignetting on full frame, but could be alright with APS sized sensors

[roland_vink]

For what it's worth, the Sigma 24/1.8 and 28/1.8 accept 77mm filters so they are standard with the 12-24 DX. I don't have any experience with these lenses. Most reports I have read suggest they are all a bit soft at wide apertures but good stopped down. Perhaps they are better for digital since they only record the central sweet spot. The best thing would be to try them out and see if they work for you.

 

An alternative would be to get an AiS 28/2 lens and have a CPU chip inserted by Rolland Elliot. This will allow you to meter with the D100. Manual focus only, so no complaints about awkward AF/MF switches! This is a highly regarded lens and Much more compact than the Sigmas - 52mm filter size, even though it's only 1/3 stop slower.

 

Another option is the AF 35/2, if that's wide enough for you. It has No AF/MF switch on the lens at all, you need to use the one on the camera. The manual feel is light but useable.

 

If you want a faster wide angle AFS lens, the only options are the 17-55/2.8 DX and 17-35/2.8. Rather expensive lenses, and is the one stop gain enough? Hope this helps.

[paulr]

Hello Darren,

 

 

I have owned the 28mm F/1.4 for about three years. IMHO you will not find a better lens to use wide open in low light. Well maybe the Nikon 50mm F/1.8 for about $100 is just as good. I use the 28mm a great deal on the D100 and highly recommend it. I owned Sigma lenses years ago and they simply do not compare when wide open.

 

Maybe focusing manually in low light is not such a bad thing.

[NetR]

Hi. Please note that Roland Vink is a little out of date - Rolland Elliott has reduced the range of lenses he will work on and does not do the 28mm lenses any more - see

 

http://home.carolina.rr.com/headshots/NikonFAQ.htm.

 

Can't you push up the ISO - it would avoid lens changes and the possibility of dust on the sensor, and although you would have to do a little more work in Photoshop, may be a simpler answer. Or else a flash with something like a sto-fen diffuser on it.

 

Regards, Ross

[yeux tortu]

Have/Currently own(ed)following primes: Nikkor 20 2.8, 24 2.8, 35 2.0, 50 1.4, 85 1.8. I also own the Sigma 20 1.8.

 

Sigma 20 1.8 has sharp optics above 2.0, and acceptable at 1.8. Great for indoor handheld candids. Not sure why you would need fast swm af at this focal length.

 

I sold my Nikkor 20, 24, and 35 primes and kept the Sigma 1.8. Thus all my primes are 1.8 or faster. I have never regretted it.

 

As far as the big filter, use part of your 1200 savings to buy one.

 

Disadvantage is the size of the lens vs. Nikkor 20, but the extra speed is worth it in my opinion. The Sigma is as sharp from 2.8 to 8.0.

[harvey_edelstein1]

Ron I am assumming that you are using a film camera, Darren is not and so he is a victim of the crap factor. I would get the 24mm Sigma which may be soft in the corners on a film camera but as Roland pointed out the small dx sensor will never see that area anyway. A 24mm is equal to 36mm on a dx sensor. I find that 35mm very good for group shots indoors and F 1.8 is less than an f stop slower than f1.4

usually not that critical with the iso set to 400.

[james_ogara1]

The 28 1.4 is spectacular but it is *heavy*.

 

Re price, I got mine like new from some outfit in kansas -- $950 or so.

[john_morris4]

Roland wrote, "the Sigma 24/1.8 and 28/1.8 accept 77mm filters so they are standard with the 12-24 DX."

 

Wow! My Nikon stuff is mostly old enough that 52mm filters work on a several of my lenses. That also makes me appreciate my 21mm f/4 (39mm filter) and 35mm f/1.7 (39mm filter) even more.

[eric friedemann]

Hey, for $230, try the Sigma 28mm f/1.8. If it doesn't satisfy you, you could sell the lens on ebay, get back much of what you paid for it and move on to the 28mm f/1.4 AFD Nikkor.

 

 

The worst problems you'll probably see in the Sigma lens towards maximum aperture are uneven center-to-corner illumination and a lack of edge sharpness. On a Nikon DLSR, with the crop factor, neither problem will be as pronounced as on a full frame camera.

 

 

As has been noted, the Sigma lens will have the same whiny AF on a Nikon DSLR as the 28mm f/1.4 AFD Nikkor. I feel for you on that, as I too am spoiled by the speed and almost imperceptable sound the Silent Wave Motors.

 

 

As to the lens being an "OLD design," the 28mm f/1.4 AFD Nikkor has only been out since 1993. Since it is the best 28mm Nikkor I've ever owned, I wouldn't want Nikon to change a thing on the lens, besides adding AFS. The 28mm f/1.4 AFD is annoyingly expensive, but from f/1.4 to f/4.0 on a Nikon DSLR, it is an exquisite lens.<div></div>

[lorenzo_ward1]

The 28/1.4 is an outstanding lens for me but I shoot films. For digital it comes out as a 45mm lens and I think an expensive choice for whst is then a normal lens. I use it wide open, at around 2.8, and it is superb. Not able to comment on the other stuff.

[antoine_morin]

I own the Nikkor 20/2.8 and 35/2, and the Sigma 24/1.8.

 

My copy of the Sigma, even wide opened, is the sharpest of the three (on S1, S2, and D70). (I must say that my copy of the 20/2.8 is the worst of my Nikkor primes). The Sigma 24/1.8 is twice as big as the two others, so I think twice before putting it in the bag. It is considerably more prone to flare than the two Nikkors, has very nice bokeh and short minimum focus distance that allows for some interesting compositions. AF on the Sigma is relatively slow (of no real consequence to me) but sometimes hunt for a long time on Fuji bodies (that bugs me a lot).