Sigma 50mm 1.4 vs Nikon

[eric_arnold]

<p>@andrew: ok, fair enough. thanks for sharing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>While the quotes you extracted from the review I linked to favor the Sigma, there are numerous others in that article that favor the Nikon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not concerning bokeh and center sharpness, which was my original point. also, i didn't just cut and paste Hogan's pro-Sigma comments, i also included his caveats, so if you're implying that i used selective editing to make Thom seem more in favor of the Sigma than he actually was, that's simply untrue. and thanks for linking to those reviews, but i read all of them a while back before i bought the sigma. i always research a lens thoroughly before purchasing, and always look at multiple review sources. i still havent seen a single source which claims that the nikon has better bokeh than the sigma, so it's possible that such a claim has not been made.</p>

<p>in any event, the sigma 50 was a watershed moment for that company, who took a progressive approach to a traditional design, and came up with a winner which actually justifies its price tag (IMO). again, not saying the nikon is a bad lens, it's just that the sigma was more in line with how i shoot fast primes--street photography or live music in low-light conditions, where center sharpness at wide apertures is more important than corner performance-- so for me it was a no-brainer. for a traditionalist or landscape shooter, the criteria might be different. and, yeah, i'd probably be just as happy for the most part with the nikon, except i would always wonder if the sigma's bokeh was better. i realize this may not matter for everybody, but it does for me.</p>

<p> </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>in any event, the sigma 50 was a watershed moment for that company, who took a progressive approach to a traditional design, and came up with a winner which actually justifies its price tag (IMO).</blockquote>

 

<p>For all my disagreement with Eric, I do agree with this statement. Canon's f/1.2 lenses are more exotic (and possibly better, for a price - though I'm not prepared to switch back to Canon to get them); Leica have some advanced tech in their f/1.4 50mm too. Nikon, to be fair, <i>did</i> redesign their 50mm f/1.4, and it's much sharper than the historical version, but the Sigma does give the impression of trying to push the envelope further. It's also unusual for Sigma to come up with a lens that's actually designed to be more expensive than the on-brand version.</p>

 

<blockquote>again, not saying the nikon is a bad lens, it's just that the sigma was more in line with how i shoot fast primes--street photography or live music in low-light conditions, where center sharpness at wide apertures is more important than corner performance-- so for me it was a no-brainer.</blockquote>

 

<p>Again, I have to agree - I think Nikon may have made a mistake by not giving more priority to the bokeh in their design. To my mind, the new 50mm f/1.4 is like the 85mm f/1.8 - sharp, but at the cost of bokeh, and you really need both in a lens this fast. Maybe they figured that the AF-D version is a better-bokeh alternative, but - especially for DX shooters - the Sigma seems to have the edge over that lens.</p>

 

<blockquote>for a traditionalist or landscape shooter, the criteria might be different. and, yeah, i'd probably be just as happy for the most part with the nikon, except i would always wonder if the sigma's bokeh was better. i realize this may not matter for everybody, but it does for me.</blockquote>

 

<p>It matters to me, too. For landscapes, I'd go with one of the f/1.8 lenses (the AF-S for bokeh, the AF-D for distortion if I was stopped down). Otherwise, I'm vaguely hoping that Nikon will update their f/1.2 50mm to a spec competitive with Canon's - especially if they can do it more afforably. Unfortunately, since I seem to remember the inability to select f/1.2 on some Nikon menus (flashes, possibly? I forget) I'm not holding my breath.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I think Nikon may have made a mistake by not giving more priority to the bokeh in their design. To my mind, the new 50mm f/1.4 is like the 85mm f/1.8 - sharp, but at the cost of bokeh, and you really need both in a lens this fast.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this is an interesting comment. i'm not sure nikon made a mistake, but i think that in retrospect, sigma <em>did</em> push the 50mm envelope, impressive considering this was their first fast normal. one of the ways they did this was by making the glass physically larger, requiring a 77mm filter. that has both pros and cons: the pro is that it allows for bokeh-prioritizing and makes things easy if you have a bunch of 77 filters already. the con is that it might be more prone to overexposure. so, as with most lenses, it's a mixed bag. the question really comes down to, can you live with it? for me the answer was yes.</p>

<p>anyway, good discussion. appreciate the different perspectives, which did make me think about my standpoint a bit. i stuck to my guns, but Elliot and Andrew did make me weigh alternative viewpoints.</p>

<p>as always, photo.net is the best.</p>

<p>ps: this makes me want to get the sigma 85/1.4 just to see what the forum's views are on that, compared tot he 85d and G.</p>

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

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Eric - a pleasure chatting. I look forward to your 85mm review!</p>

[alex_zepeda]

<p>Figured I might as well chime in here. I agree with the conclusion that Nikon and Sigma simply had different priorities with their fast primes. With some exceptions (DC lenses, micro, and the 85) Nikon went after a more general purpose market. The bokeh might not be great, but the focus is errs on the side of accuracy over speed and sharpness is prioritized (both stopped down and in the corners). You get a sharp, predictable, well built lens. Some people really value wide-open AF accuracy. Look at the people who bemoan how imprecise the Canon 85/1.2 AF is.</p>

<p>Sigma went after people looking for creamy bokeh and nice portrait lenses (their AF has always sucked, so there's that). The sorts of people that don't care too much about vignetting or corner sharpness. I've nothing nice to say about Sigma's build quality, AF, or support... so I'll leave it at this: I was pleasantly surprised by how many shots actually came out focused last night... once I took the camera out of M mode. >_<</p>

<p>Hands down Sigma's got the OOF blur advantage with their 30/35 and 50s. In fact I'd go so far as to say that while I typically don't like the look of Nikon's f/1.8 primes (the 85/1.8 being particularly garish), I really don't like /any/ of their 50s. Even Canon's 50/1.8 does the bokeh thing nicer by a fairly wide margin. And I'm definitely in the camp that doesn't care at all about corner sharpness wide open. There's enough distortion with any fast lens that, really, who's going to be eyeing the corners?</p>

<p>With f/1.2 lenses, I seem to recall that the placement of the AF contacts was problematic in the development of super fast F-mount lenses. And as for a short portrait lens on a DX camera, you get the Voigtlander 58/1.4 and call it day. IMO a 50mm lens on a DX camera is just awkward.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6206/6048605822_6b81a7e4d3_z.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Pardon the Flickr oversharpening. Optically I love the Sigma 30, and I expect that the Sigma 50 would outdo the Nikkors if you're looking for the nice bokeh. Just make sure you're aiming at slow moving, high contrast subjects.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>The bokeh from sample shots here (with perhaps the exception of perhaps Eric's guitar shot) look like results you would expect from any f1.4 lens, Nikon, Sigma or any other brand. I certainly got those type of results with my lens. To me, the true test of great bokeh is when you have a harsh background. Some lenses definitely work better than others. This reviewer (link below) posted sample shots with such a background. His claim about the Sigma bokeh is contrary to the comments here.</p>

<p><a href="http://mansurovs.com/nikon-50mm-f1-8g-review">http://mansurovs.com/nikon-50mm-f1-8g-review</a></p>

<p>So, show me the side-by-side comparison shots. I need to see it in order to believe it!</p>

<p><em>"Sigma... (their AF has always sucked, so there's that)" </em> Not the first (or second) time I have read this. I think I will stick to my Nikkor lenses, even if the bokeh turns out to really be so much better with the Sigma.</p>