Nikon 50mm f/1.4 vs 35mm f/2

[mikepalo]

<p>Its nice to talk to someone who can make heads or tails of all the ranting and raving on all these reviews. I tend to use the negative reviews about a product more then the pos just because I feel its the issues people have with a product that really determines the quality of the product itself. I read the good reviews as well because some people putting up negs are just clueless, but looking into the Nikon 50/1.4 for instance i see many less reviews about this focus and/or overexposing issue and if what your saying is completely true that it is <strong>all </strong> user error wouldn't there be an = number of negatives coming from the nikon lens as well?<br>

<br /> Soo, I understand what you are saying and it all makes sence but I am still slightly skeptical about this lens just cause some people are saying that there are good/bad copies out there so its kinda hit or miss as to whether u get a good copy or bad, maybe you just have a good copy... :P .... I am still leaning towards the Sigma 30/1.4 honestly because of a lack of options at this focal length ...im also thinking that if i go for this 30/1.4 im gonna grab up the nikon 50/1.8 just because its so cheap and having both would probally be beneficial at some pt...</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Two things: the AF-S Nikon 50/1.4 has only just started shipping. Very few people have them. The Sigma 30/1.4 has been out for quite a while now. There seems to be no question that when they first started shipping them, a few years back, there were some random quality issues (though Sigma has always been good about tuning up the lens for you - not that you should have to go through that). I suspect that many of the tales you hear are from quite a long time ago.<br /><br />But here's the main thing: it's the only AF-S (again, HSM, really) 30mm you can buy. That means that it's the only AF lens in that range that will work on Nikon's D40 and D60 entry-level bodies. MANY of those bodies are used by people who are new to SLR photography, or who have never even contemplated issues like depth of field (or who never worried to much about it because their tiny-sensor point-and-shoot digicam, due to the laws of physics, produces deeper DoF - not that they even knew it did).<br /><br />So I'm convinced that a lot of the feedback on the Sigma is tainted by the demographic that happens to have done a lot of the buying over the years. Just check the threads on this site that include so many people saying that their new D60's "kit" lens is producing fuzzy pictures. It's almost always technique-related, or due to a misunderstanding of what the lens is designed to do. Which isn't to say that a more expensive pro zoom or prime won't do a better job, but that the very same people using a pro zoom would probably <em>still</em> be getting unsatisfactory results - again, because of technique/understanding.<br /><br />It's difficult to perfectly nail focus when you're shooting wide open at f/1.4 or f/1.8 - on any lens. Introduce even a little bit of bad technique or confusion over DoF, and you'll get some pretty ugly results. And the same user goes back to the their f/4-at-its-widest kit lens, and miraculously they're back in focus... but only because they're being forced to shoot stopped down. You get the idea.<br /><br />I think you'll find that the 30/1.4 and the Nikon 50/1.8 are pretty great tools to have around. But honestly... since you have a 60mm, I'd consider holding off for a bit on the 501/8, and just see how you do for a little while at 30mm. There's not much of a difference between 50 and 60, portrait-wise.</p>

[phineas_tarbolde1]

<p>I think this really is comparing apples and oranges.<br>

Also, Im not sure what you mean by "informal portraiture"..is it informal because you are just using natural light (no studio set up) OR do you mean that you want to take candid snap shots (i.e. no "posed" shots)</p>

<p>If it is the first one, I would suggest the 50mm 1.4 -- however since it is used on a DX camera it will function more like an 85mm short telephoto--- good for one (or two subjects close proximity) subject head/partial body shot -- unless as someone points out you are living in an 8000 sf space.</p>

<p>If it is more the second condition, I'd chose the 35mm f2 to capture more environment, Since it is a slower lens you can compensate by boosing the ISO in the camera itself.</p>

<p>Ideally it sounds like you need a 35 mm 1.4 lens which Nikon has discontinued a while ago -- but it would have cost more than the 50mm1.4 and the 35mm F2 combined (with a few other lenses thrown in).</p>

 

[phineas_tarbolde1]

<p>Sorry above:<br>

I"deally it sounds like you need a 35 mm 1.4 lens which Nikon has discontinued a while ago -- but it would have cost more than the 50mm1.4 and the 35mm F2 combined (with a few other lenses thrown in)."</p>

<p>I meant to say the legendary Nikkor 28mm F1.4</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>And hence, Phineas, my mentioning of the Sigma 30/1.4 in question. It's ideal for that sort of work on a DX body, and the price is quite tolerable for all that it delivers. </p>

[mikepalo]

<p>I jsut wish Nikon would put out another lens in the 28-35mm range it would solve this whole issue.. but then again knowing Nikon it will be similar to the discontinued 28/1.4 and it will be $2000..but at least there is no guess work with any of Nikon's "pro" lenses lol</p>

<p>And i do understand that 60-50mm is not a far difference, the 2.8-1.8 would be the main difference between those lenses, well and also because of the crop factor yes the 50mm is a 75mm equivalent but the 60mm is a 90mm equivalent, so it is a bit more, and i know from experience with the 60mm, i definitely always end up in a corner or on a wall.</p>

<p><strong>Phineas:</strong><br>

by informal portraiture i mean a lil bit of both of what u mentioned. The fact that I do not have a studio set up or lighting, and also just shooting candid, which i do tend to prefer over posed shots.</p>

 

[Matt Laur]

<p>Michael: Actually, there <em>can</em> be some guesswork with Nikon's lenses. Don't get me wrong - I love the ones I choose to use. But comparing their just-released 50/1.4G to Sigmas new 50/1.4, the Sigma is hands down the nicer looking lens. I'm speaking primarily in terms of bokeh artifacts - something that's often very high on the list of people shooting environmental portraits.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Joining the discussion late! I have been shooting just the type of shots you are talking about: casual portraits/family events, with natural light for 40 years. D70/80 the last few years. Needless to say I have a few Nikon lenses. I just documented out 34th family christmas party with the D80. I used iso 1600 all the time in a typical house type evening lighting. Since I have a variety of lenses I used my 24mm f2.8 for wide angle group shots, the 35mm f2.0 for smaller groupings or portrait of one or two people, and the 50mm 1.4 for similar shots but more head and shoulders. All lenses worked well for what they were used for. If I were to concentrate on individual portraits, I would favor the 50mm lenses, both 1.8 and 1.4. Over the years I have done environmental portraits successfully with wide angle lenses because you are back far enough so the face doesn't appear distorted. With a 35mm lens on DX, you can get close enough without distortion to get a head an shouders shot. I'll post one. For a mixed bag of types of shots in available light, I might favor the Sigma 30mm 1.4, but I'd probably have a Nikkor 50mm 1.8 handy as well.</p><div></div>

[mikepalo]

<p><strong>Steve:</strong><br>

That shot above appears to be cropped since its perfectly square...can i see the full frame shot? and how far were u from her? and it looks like the sky was overcast, yes, no?</p>

<p>---------------------------------------------------</p>

<p>OK well since we have kind of ruled out the 50mm in a round-a-bout way, due to the fact that I have a 60mm f/2.8 lens already, I guess this brings the discussion to the:<br /> Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM<br /> Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2 D</p>

<p>Never having owned a low-light lens such as these i need to ask ... f/1.4 - f/2 ....is it THAT big of a difference?...I mean granted I know f/2.8-f/3.5 I saw a tremendous difference. But does that difference continue or does it kind of level off?</p>

<p>I know the 35mm is a older lens and its not an HSM or or ED ...so its no special glass or anything....but how does the lens hold up at f/2? strong lens? weak lens? Pros? Cons?<br /> _______________________________________________<br /> And dont think im just kinda going in circles folks I am slowly emliminating things and simply examining all my (limited) options from every possible angle :P So thank you for your patiencience and time.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Michael: It's a full stop. As a simple test, I just set my D200 to ISO 100, and mounted the 30/1.4 to take a look at an object on a table top in a dim room. I was able to get 1/30th of second for a shutter speed at f/2... but of course I was able to get 1/60th of a second at f/1.4.<br /><br />I have up a touch more depth of field, of course. But I bought the difference between 1/30th and 1/60th - which can be the difference between a steady handheld shot, and a shaky handheld shot.<br /><br />And then you've got the quieter focusing (nice in a social setting), and better OoF behavior on the Sigma. Whether the extra speed and the other aspects of the lens are enough to make up for the social pressure you'll fee for not having "Nikkor" printed on the lens... only <em>you</em> can say! I just like <strong><a href="../photo/7812273">what the lens <em>does</em></a></strong>.</p>

[mikepalo]

<p>LOL i think that is the most well put argument i have ever seen on a lens.... that picture is great..... I think u may have jsut sold me :P .... Thank u for all your assistance in these past few days Matt... lol well actually and not even jsut these few days i was looking back thro my previous posts and questions and I think u have answered in question and post ive ever posted lol. So thank you very much for your time and patience.</p>

<p>And thank you to everyone else who contributed to this discussion/argument/teeth pulling session.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Michael, here's the full frame. I don't know how close I was to her. Pretty close.</p><div></div>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Hey, Michael, I'm glad this has been helpful. Here's one more, using the Sigma 30/1.4, to help push you over the edge!</p><div></div>

[walterh]

<p>Related to the above comments on user MF capabilities: Actually the screen of your camera is an important part of the focusing accuracy. On the D200 with the original and with the installed Katz eye screen I found manual focusing never optimal. At the time I sold my Sigma 30mm f1.4 lens. I also think the bokeh is first class but because of the D200 screen and because I knew I would change to FX format sooner or later I sold the lens again.</p>

<p>Today I use the D3 and manual focus is "almost" perfect. Even if I am not 100% convinced I got MF right while shooting the final image surprises me and focus looks perfect. I do not know the reason, perhaps I am still affected by D200 trauma ^^. If I run into a good deal for the Sigma 50mm I will get one just because of its "signature" , hoping it will be as good as the 30mm in that respect.</p>

<p>BTW: A slow lens with excellent bokeh is the latest version of the 60mm micro Nikkor.</p>

[andre_bosmans]

<p>I am perfectly happy with my 1.4/50.</p>

<div></div>