Sigma 35mm 1.4 DG v Nikon 35mm 1.4G

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Whilst trying to avoid an unfortunate previous thread....and not alluding to <strong><em>any</em></strong> other lenses by <strong><em>either</em></strong> manufacturer.....just the two lenses in the title.</p>

<p>Are there (m)any<em> </em>reasons to choose the Nikon over the Sigma? </p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>Mike, unless one of us, anyone, has both lenses for an A/B comparison, it is going to be a discussion on paper (or on cyberspace). I have never used either lens myself. Correct or wrong, my impression is that the Nikon 35mm/f1.4 AF-S is not that great a lens, so it is hard to justify the ~$1500 cost.</p>

[bruce_brown]

<p>Mike: No.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>A few things to consider. Nikon lenses typically hold their value better than 3rd party lenses. Although the Nikon lens is available used now in the $1300 - $1400 range. Nikon lenses are generally always forward compatible, meaning if 10 or 20 years from now you buy a new Nikon body, the Nikon lens will likely work perfectly with it - the Sigma may need to be modified. Nikon lenses may be more reliable (although I have had several top quality Nikon lenses need service) - I have owned three Sigma lenses and both worked perfectly although I did not use them heavily prior to selling them and replacing them with Nikon's counterpart). But it appears Sigmas newest offerings are different than previous releases (meaning the newest products are superior).</p>

<p>But considering the price difference, I think the lens is worth a try if you don't want to spend the extra money. $800 can buy another lens or at least pay for part of one.. It seems to be getting excellent reviews. Here are several:<br /> http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-340306-35mm-Nikon-Black/product-reviews/B00A35X8ZG/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1</p>

<p>If you buy from a dealer that accepts returns, you can at least try it out to see if you like it. It appears you will not be disappointed.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>From what I've read so far, you can spend twice the money for the Nikon to get a lens that doesn't perform as well - but it's weather-sealed. And nano-coated. Might play nicer with the Nikon AF too - after all, Sigma needs to reverse-engineer that connection and interaction. Looks to me that Sigma got a real winner here - they "only" need to overcome the stigma of "third-party" as well as their quite dodgy reputation of years past.<br /> <br /> However, with the sample variations that all lenses seem to exhibit (and for which Roger Cicala from lensrentals finally provides some hard data) I am not sure that all those reviews out there that only test one sample allow for any relevant comparisons. I had always expected some sample variation but am quite surprised by the magnitude that is observed. Now I only need to get a better handle on how big a difference in the test results is actually field-relevant (as opposed to be of interest only to the pixel peepers).</p>

<p>To answer your question directly - I currently don't see a reason to not choose the Sigma if I was in the market for a 35/1.4 (which I might be depending on what cameras Nikon releases this year).</p>

 

[kohanmike]

<p>I have Sigma, Tamron and Tokina pro lenses and they are all perfectly fine, no problems.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>I am waiting not so patiently for the Nikon version to become available. I have pre-ordered from B&H and I guess its just a matter of time before they will be in stock. I am looking forward to being able to do some moderatly wide shots with very shallow depth of field. </p>

[rick_chen]

<p>I've never tried the Sigma. Prices aside...<br>

I "feel" better with the $1500 gold ring nano coated nikkor</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

For once in an autofocus lens, the 35/1.4 AF-S has a nice manual focusing ring without slack in it. This is important to me

as sometimes live view manual focus is needed to get the best results at wide apertures at long distances, and the slack

exhibited in many lenses is annoying.

 

The 35/1.4 AF-S produces excellent image quality with nice bokeh for a wide angle. It's pretty slim and handles well. The only thing that I don't like in it is that the autofocus gets imprecise in low light, at least with the D800, but this seems to be a common problem across the Nikon fastwide angle primes, so perhaps it is a problem with the AF technology and fast wides in general rather than the lens itself. Don't know. In daylight it seems to autofocus excellently, but for night photography with weird colors live view is recommended, or at least focus fine tuning to the situation.

 

I have not used the Sigma so I have no useful comments on it.

[jose_angel]

<p>Even for fanatic Nikonistas like me, this Sigma lens could mean a break... after several third party lenses I decided not to spend on them anymore. But given the price and first impressions about the Sigma, I think I could end buying this one.</p>

<p>There are three things that could make me to avoid the Sigma; focusing issues and "accessories" (I`m still to learn about the "programmable" features of this lens (?), bokeh (I know nothing about it), and the classic Sigma "yellow" rendering I used to hate. I`m so skeptic about Sigma (three bad experiences), I have to check the lens myself before buying.</p>

<p>I`d like to comment Elliot`s idea about Nikon lens backwards compatibility; it`s true that I can use my oldest Ai lenses on my latest Nikon, but... in the real life, I don`t find this capability to be useful at all. I have a full set of the best AiS primes and, sincerely, I almost never use them on DSLRs because the current AFS ones work simply better. Consumer AFS lenses and primes use to be more convenient and are not expensive at all. So the higher value of the Nikon lenses it`s true, but I wonder about the usefulness in a long time period, and specially in this digital era. In twenty years, more likely the current DSLRs systems could not exist.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>I wonder when (and if) Nikon are going to make more lenses with E apertures, ie no mechanical linkages? There are still free contacts in/on the camera throat 'pads'.</p>

<p>I think Sigma's lens updateable feature may seem a gimmick now, but that turns mainstream in a few years for all manufacturers....either via the camera body>lens chip or directly as Sigma have chosen.</p>

<p>I think the whole idea of lenses being retrospectively 'usable' (ie backwards compatibility) is getting un-tenable in the light of the D800's 'good-lens lists'. A large percentage of modern AF-S lenses do not do the chip justice.....where does that leave nearly all AIS & AI lenses??</p>

<p>Canon made the change from FD to EF mount in 1987, 26 years ago, where-as Nikon stayed with the F mount. I'm not saying it was the right or wrong marketing decision, but it may prove hard for Nikon to stick with. <em><strong>How</strong></em> they move on is a real interesting question!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I wonder when (and if) Nikon are going to make more lenses with E apertures, ie no mechanical linkages? There are still free contacts in/on the camera throat 'pads'.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The problem is that such lenses are not backward compatible with older cameras. My 24mm/f3.5 PC-E is like that, but if you mount it on anything older than the D3, you cannot control the aperture.</p>

<p>Perhaps you can argue that not that many people use cameras older than the D3. Essentially you are telling everybody who still shoots film that you are ignoring them, and in a couple of years, there will be very few people who still use DSLRs from before 2007.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>I wonder when (and if) Nikon are going to make more lenses with E apertures, ie no mechanical linkages?</em></p>

<p>The electronic aperture control has its own issues; I've read that the Canon 1D X which normally can shoot at 12fps with autofocus, reduces its speed to about 8fps when the lens is stopped down - the aperture slows it down, whereas the D4 can do its 10fps independently of aperture chosen. I have not verified this claim by personal testing but this was the discussed online a while back when the cameras were new. It would actually be nice if someone could time the cameras at different apertures to check the situation.</p>

<p><em>I think the whole idea of lenses being retrospectively 'usable' (ie backwards compatibility) is getting un-tenable in the light of the D800's 'good-lens lists'. A large percentage of modern AF-S lenses do not do the chip justice.....where does that leave nearly all AIS & AI lenses??</em></p>

<p>Yet basically all lenses (with possible exceptions in the corners of superwide angle lenses) produce sharper images on a D800/E than they do on other cameras. So I don't understand what this complaint is about. In any case to get maximum detail from this camera a lot of the time this means using manual focus and live view, and manual focus lenses are easier to focus manually than most autofocus lenses so in some ways they're more future compatible than autofocus lenses. Of course, optically the newer lenses can be better in most cases as they're designed for the new medium, but still there are many people who use Ai-S Nikkors on current cameras. In addition, focusing for/during video is normally done manually as autofocus works poorly in LV/video mode, so again people elect to use manual focus lenses (Zeiss, Nikon and others) for video. Nikon cannot simply drop the mechanical aperture control after all this time without alienating a lot of customers. I have two Ai-S and one Ai-P compatible Zeiss lenses myself, which are modern designs but nevertheless they (and all but the PC-E lenses) rely on the mechanical aperture control to exist in the cameras and to drop this support I think Nikon couldn't do it in less than 20 years and even then it would cause an outcry.</p>

<p>Personally I think the electronic aperture would better suit me (I don't shoot at high fps) but there's no way I would accept a new Nikon DSLR without mechanical aperture control. The incorporation of electronically controlled diaphragm would work out better in mirrorless mounts which gets a fresh start, so to speak. But Nikon has not yet introduced a DX-sized mirrorless camera system, which I think they must eventually do, once the focusing and viewfinder technology has evolved sufficiently. Then gradually we shall have to say good bye to our F mount lenses over time. I think this progression to mirrorless may take 20 years but I've been wrong before, so ... ;-) I actually like, and by far prefer the optical viewfinder e.g. D800/D700/D3X compared to anything in a current mirrorless camera, so I would not be at the forefront of this adaptation wave (obviously). But it will come, whether any of us wants it or not.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>The question was <em><strong>lens</strong></em> specific E apertures, not making SLR's without pusher rods! .....bit like camera bodies and/or lenses <strong>with</strong> focus-motors and <strong>without</strong>. They are backwards/forwards compatable with obvious limitations.</p>

<p>Shun's point about alienating Film Users is an interesting one. I can hint at saying they have reached the quality limit of film a while ago and better lenses won't make better pictures. (coatings might). They are in the serious minority and should not prevent progress....or more simply put, will not act as a tech-millstone!</p>

<p>There are the users that use Non AI, AI and AIS lenses, myself included, but not expect them to work automatically on, well, anything! Focusing, metering etc are all done slowly, these are not Sports and high speed shooters. I'm not saying that they can't be used that way, but almost no-one does or needs to.</p>

<p>The point about 'old' lenses is that they are not good enough for the D800E, their modern versions are (almost) always better and will produce better pictures. I never want to get rid of push rods in cameras, that would infuriate me too, but to prevent progress in lenses by not going to E apertures is Luddite.</p>

<p>_______</p>

<p>Ilkka,</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>So I don't understand what this complaint is about</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>There is no complaint, just a tech question about the future of apertures! </p>

 

[andylynn]

<p>Not that I really expects Nikon to make any decisions based on what a film SLR user would want to buy, but why is it important that apertures be controlled electronically? We've had the mechanical linkage for years, and it's a very reliable system. I buy and sell a lot of used lenses, have handled more than 100 in the last year anyway, mostly from random eBay sellers, and have seen may be one with a failed mechanical aperture linkage. And I'm mostly talking about AI and AIS lenses with an average age of probably 25 years. If Nikon started replacing those with electronic systems and they weren't as reliable I'd be disappointed.</p>

<p>On that subject, while it's certainly true that there are many older lenses that don't really stand up to use on the D800, it's not universally true that older manual focus lenses aren't any good on it. I have several, including the 105mm f/2.5, 100mm Series E, pretty much all the 50mm variants, 55mm f/2.8 micro and even a couple of Vivitars (a 28mm f/2 and one of the 135mm f/2.8 variants) and a 75-150 Series E, that do as well (or nearly as well) as I would expect a modern lens to. Nikon does have some new were technologies, like whatever they've done with the 50 and 85 1.8G lenses, that have clear advantages over the older lenses, but we can still get plenty of use out of the older glass.</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>If I can afford a Nikon lens, I don't see a reason why to buy a Sigma.<br>

2 reason why I rather have a Nikon:<br>

First of all all my Nikon lenses are really good and never had a problem with them and second, here in Japan Nikon offers a great costumer service that I can just compare to Apple.<br>

PS. If the Sigma lenses are so great now, I think that is good news. Not because I want one but I think is good they put pressure to Nikon to come out with even better products. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>If I can afford a Nikon lens, I don't see a reason why to buy a Sigma.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>interesting way of thinking. personally, the reason i have opted for certain sigma lenses isn't necessarily price, but functionality. i dont buy lenses for their resale value -- i'm a photographer, not a lens collector -- i buy them because they do what i need them to do. i bought the sigma 50/1.4 because it has better bokeh than the nikon equivalent. i bought the sigma 85/1.4 because of AF speed (over the 85/1.4 D) and sharpness at open apertures. i'm considering the sigma 35 because of <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-hsm">its reported sharpness advantage</a>, especially at open apertures. for fast primes, sharpness at 1.4-f/2 is important to me, as that's where i normally shoot those lenses. i have nikon 2.8 pro zooms so the primes would be redundant if they didn't give me optimal performance at sub-2.8 apertures.</p>

<p>i'm not trying to start a flame war, nor win a popularity contest. i realize that Nikon shooters have entrenched brand loyalty, but the combination of price/performance is more important to me than prestige. also, i dont consider myself a Nikon shooter so much as a shooter, period. if a 3rd party manufacturer, be it Sigma, Zeiss, Tokina, or SLR Magic, has an innovative design which works with my style, than i would consider their product, period. (Especially if the price they're offering for is around 50% less than the OEM lens.)</p>

<p>from a marketing strategy perspective, sigma appears to be following nikon releases, then putting out their own versions (a change in philosophy from their earlier tendency to "plug the gaps" in the Nikkor lineup) of those same models. that does more than put pressure on nikon, since its doubtful that they will update the 35 G until many years have passed. if you can offer an equivalent or better product at a lower price point, that's simply a winning approach. i'm probably not the only one who has been underwhelmed with nikon's recent lens offerings, btw...</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>Oh-oh!<br>

I was just replying to the question from my own point of view:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Are there (m)any<em> </em>reasons to choose the Nikon over the Sigma?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry! I gave my 2 reasons and didn't mean to offend anyone....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i dont buy lenses for their resale value</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Neither do I..... If I was planning to sell a lens I wouldn't buy it on the first place.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i'm a photographer, not a lens collector -- i buy them because they do what i need them to do.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Me too...... So far I love the bokeh of my 85 1.4G..... Is the bokeh of the Sigma better? I guess that depends on the taste of the photographer. Is the AF from the Sigma faster? Maybe it is but for what I use mine it is fast enough. My 50 1.4 G is also good enough for me and I feel better knowing it is Nikon.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>from a marketing strategy perspective, sigma appears to be following nikon releases, then putting out their own versions (a change in philosophy from their earlier tendency to "plug the gaps" in the Nikkor lineup) of those same models. that does more than put pressure on nikon, since its doubtful that they will update the 35 G until many years have passed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I DO THINK that put pressure on Nikon. Not because they will upgrade the 35 but because next time when they come out with another lens they know they have to do the best they can otherwise Sigma will come out with a similar lens and better.<br>

So let's just say some people are happy with Nikon, others with Canon and some with Sigma. That is the beauty of having choices.</p>

 

[Rene11664880918]

<p>Isn't it sad really? We argue about what toy is better and yet they are so many millions of kids dying of hunger????? Let's think about that for a while.....</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>I am a long way from accepting Sigma as 'quality' lens provider. Maybe things are changing, but a seriously doubt it. We'll see how this plays out over time.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Dan<br>

Do you always have to come into these threads with such a negative attitude? You dont like 3rd party lenses and that's your right. But if you know what the thread is about and have no experience with either lens that is being asked about why do you have to make a negative comment?</p>

<p>I like Michael H shoot equestrian events. It is how I make my living and for the last 5 years the money maker in my lens arsenal is a Sigma 120-300. I have used it in every weather condition you can think of and it has never missed a beat. I also have a 75-300 f/4-5.6 Sigma from the days when I shot with an F3. The lens is probably close to 20 years old now and is still as good as they day I bought it.</p>

<p>I really do not care who makes the lens all I care about is does it do what I need and will it do it at least long enough to pay for itself. Which by the way my Nikon 80-200 f/2.8D did not do. It has that wonderfully designed AF-MF switch that breaks when it is just sitting. 18 months after I bought it the ring failed....I had it fixed and now it is cracked again. But that is not a big deal as the lens was replaced by an 80-200 f/2.8 AFS and that lens is the backup to my Sigma.</p>

<p>Like I have said before Sigma makes some excellent lenses and some dogs. Both Nikon and Canon make some excellent lenses as well as some dogs.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>I have had the 35/1.4G Nikkor for about a year. I know it quite well. A lot of people know the Nikkor.</p>

<p>The 35 Sigma is brand new, with the trickle of a few out there now.</p>

<p>I have purchased pro-grade Sigmas in the past, and all were disappointing.</p>

<p>My reason for posting is to alert others that the wave of Internet-love for the Sigma should be viewed with suspect. I've seen it before.</p>

<p>Time will tell...</p>

[jose_ramirez1]

<p>First of all, happy new year to all.<br>

its been a while since i last posted on the forum, lots of water passed under the bridge during these years,<br>

Also burglars who broke into my house and stole thousands of dollars worth of equipment , dec 23 was not happy since they took all the electronics it was possible.. but Christmas was great since i had a reason to get all that was stolen and replace it for latest technology counterpart.<br>

All but my Nikon's,,,,, all of them... they took 2 cases full of gear. <br>

Now I'm at the point where starting from zero is bout the same, will go Nikon no doubt, but some of the lenses I lost were Sigma and Tamron, the rest Nikkors, I can say one of my favorites was the sigma 35mm second version, after getting 2 bad copies, finally got the right lens. some of my favorite pics for the ambiance light rendering and bokeh come from this lens. rented the nikkor 35 for a month and its a great lens but will never justify the price difference.<br>

Dan brown. all the conspiration theories are entertaining I also like Tom Clancy, do you?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>So far I love the bokeh of my 85 1.4G..... Is the bokeh of the Sigma better?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>er, well, probably not. it's quite good but the 85G is probably better. but that's okay because i need fast AF. we all have different criteria we prioritize.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I DO THINK that put pressure on Nikon. Not because they will upgrade the 35 but because next time when they come out with another lens they know they have to do the best they can otherwise Sigma will come out with a similar lens and better.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Honestly, i'm not sure that matters to Nikon. their marketing department has at least as much say in what gets released as their R&D department. And as a market leader, Nikon has less incentive to be innovative; their main priority seems to be to compete with Canon. But let's just say that you're right. it would be nice to see Nikon's prices come down a bit.</p>

[jose_angel]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I can say one of my favorites was the sigma 35mm second version, after getting 2 bad copies, finally got the right lens... "</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ouch... ! No comment needed... :) Hope the new 35 came out right from the first copy!</p>