Nikon 35mm 1.4 versus Sigma Art 35mm 1.4

[ilmilco]

<p>Fellow photographers, i hope you all had a wonderful Christmas.</p>

<p>During Christmas i was wondering long time if i use live view for focussing, would there be a visible difference between the 35mm 1.4 from nikon when compared with the allover praised Sigma Art 35mm 1.4 in the end image ???<br>

I am very curious in what details the difference would be visible.<br>

I would use the lens for niteriors and for landscapes ....<br>

The target camera is nikon D800E, pictures are taken in RAW format.<br>

Looking forward to your advises, and wishing you all a prosperous 2015.</p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I haven't used the Sigma myself but I know several other photographers who are using it and are happy with it. I have the Nikon lens since it came out earlier, and I am very satisfied with it as well. Photozone, which I regard a good lens review site, rate the Sigma slightly better optically than the Nikkor (tested on 24MP FX), whereas they gave the Nikkor slightly better marks for mechanical quality (perhaps this is because of weather sealing?). I find the 35/1.4 AF-S Nikkor to have very good manual focus control with no "play" in the ring. In balance the Sigma seems like a very good deal considering its highly rated optical quality and price.</p>

<p>I'm wondering why you need an f/1.4 lens for landscape and interiors? I would think a slower lens would work just as well, unless there are people moving across the frame.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I have tried both. Keep in mind I have owned dozens of lenses and collect them--I have five that were made from 1845 to 1862 alone. The Sigma ART lenses just might be the sharpest lenses you can possibly put on a Nikon! They are as good as the best Leica 35mm. They are as good as any of the Zeiss lenses made since 1890. I now have a Nikon D800E and the resolution I get from the Sigma is just stunning--it's close to what I get from drum scans made from my 4x5 using modern Rodenstock lenses. The Sigma 35mm & 50mm are the sharpest lenses I've ever owned. However, my very favorite lens for landscape and architecture is hands down the Nikon 24mm PC-E. No, not as sharp as the Sigma, but those movements are just irreplaceable and make up the difference. I am constantly astonished at how few people seem to understand what a tilt/shift lens does for you, but then again not so many have experience shooting LF any more. (A pity.) If you are being paid for your interior shots, the 24mm PC-E is the first lens you should buy. I bought the lens, then bought a camera to use it on--the PC-E lens was my first priority! The Sigma 35mm is a great candidate for second though.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

[john_curlett]

<p>I recently had the same decision to make and ended up with the Sigma and am very pleased. It is razor sharp and the build quality is excellent. This is my first Sigma lens and was concerned about the problems folks have had with autofocus in the past. I debated about buying the USB cap to program the lens at the same time. That would have been a waste since the focus is dead on with both of my cameras. I think it is hard to justify the additional cost of the Nikon considering the reviews of the lenses and the marginal service I have received from Nikon in the past.</p>

[paul_droluk]

<p>35mm is my favorite FL, and I am currently using the Sigma. Yes, it is a stunning performer, but man is it big and heavy! Especially for landscape and architectural work. What I want is a high performance 35mm (f2 would be fine) lens that is small and light... like almost every 35mm lens used to be. I remember the very first Nikkor 35mm f2.8 that I bought, back in 1970. Now that was small and light! It matched my Nikkormat beautifully, and believe it or not, it looked large compared to the Leica offering of that time. I still have a Nikon 35mm f2, but I can't focus it on a modern AF focus screen, or it would be my primary 35mm lens.<br /><br />I'm waiting for Photozone's testing of the new Nikon FX 35mm f1.8... while not small, it is much lighter than any of the f1.4 lenses. If the optical quality is close, I'll swap out the Sigma straight away.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the sigma is quite svelte compared to the nikon 24-70, and i dont think i would trade mine for anything. but to answer the OP's question, i dont see how Live View would have any impact on lens sharpness. it might affect manual focusing ability, but a sharper lens will still be a sharper lens. you wont see resolution in LV that is invisible elsewhere. if the real question is, which one should i get, i dont think the Nikon can justify its price considering the Sigma's IQ. </p>

[john_curlett]

<p>The OP's comment had to do with using live view contrast detection focusing as opposed to phase detection focusing. Comparing between the two is a good way to determine if you need to do make any micro focus adjustments. Like I said above, my 35mm Sigma didn't require any.</p>

[ilmilco]

<p>Gentlemen, although i highly appreciate all your responses, i maybe should add some words :<br>

I would like to use live view to have the best sharpness on the area in the picture where I want it to be, not to use auto focus with a chance to have the focus maybe somewhere close to the area where i want to focus. I want to be in control using manual focus sometimes. But after having done this, what difference would i see in the images when using the above mentioned lenses, say on a print of 40x60 centimeters........... So camera on tripod, focus with live view, same settings for F-stop and shutter time and ISO. Why 1.4 ? I very much like the brightness in the viewfinder and the unsharpness in pictures can be very beautiful.<br>

What difference should i be able to see ??? Is it bouqet, overal sharpness, or ???? I am tempted to buy the lens that i do not have to be able to do a very expensive experiment .... maybe someone knows a website with two pictures made with these lenses that can show difference.</p>

 

[ilmilco]

<p>Maybe is better to try to find a fellow photographer with the other 35mm 1.4, so we can do a test without spending so much money for a test ....</p>

 

[rodeo_joe1]

<blockquote>

<p>"Why 1.4 ? I very much like the brightness in the viewfinder and the unsharpness in pictures can be very beautiful."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mike, there's actually no discernible difference in viewfinder brightness between an f/1.4 lens and an f/2 lens. The reason is to do with mirror vignetting and Fresnel focus in the camera, and can easily be verified by fitting an f/1.4 lens and using the preview/stop-down button to close the lens to f/2. The viewfinder brightness doesn't alter significantly until a lens is stopped down past f/2.2. This has previously been covered in a few other threads on the forum.</p>

<p>So just on the merit of viewfinder brightness, you'll see no difference between the f/1.4 and f/1.8 Nikkor. The LiveView image obviously doesn't have the same drawback as the optical viewfinder however.</p>

<p>Edit: You were asking for a comparison on the web. Well Photozone.de is one of the few sites that's reviewed both lenses. On their technical measurements alone, the Sigma is the lens that I'd go for - if I was in the market for such a lens. As it is I'm quite happy with my MF Samyang 35mm f/1.4. What sways me to the Sigma is its lack of focus shift on stopping down.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the Sigma is going to be sharper because it has better optical quality and resolves better than the Nikon, as has been documented. It doesn't matter how you are focusing. Manual focus, auto focus, live view contrast detect focus, none of those will increase the native resolving power of the lens. ive shot probably upwards of 5000 frames with the Sigma this year and its a keeper. i cant imagine why anyone would choose the nikon at this point, other than reputation based on the ever-distancing past.</p>

[polizonte]

<p>After trying a Sigma 50mm f1.4 ART, the next day I bought it and traded my 35mm f1.4 G for a 35mm Sigma ART for my D800e's. I have always purchased Nikon cameras since the mid 1970's until now to use exclusively with Nikkor optics; this was a first for me. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>After trying a Sigma 50mm f1.4 ART, the next day I bought it and traded my 35mm f1.4 G for a 35mm Sigma ART for my D800e's.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tom, since you have owned both, could you elaborate how the two 35mm/f1.4 lenses, Sigma and Nikon, compare?</p>

<p>I have never used the Nikon 35mm/f1.4 AF-S other than playing around with one inside a camera store. The Sigma 35mm/f1.4 is optically among the very best lenses I have ever used: http://www.photo.net/equipment/sigma/35mm-f14/</p>

<p>Similar to Tom, the Sigma 35mm/f1.4 is the only non-Nikon F-mount lens I own. It clearly has a lot of metal inside; it feels extremely solid and very heavy, which has its pluses and minuses.</p>

[polizonte]

<p>Shun, this posting disappeared from my computer - I just came across your question today. I am quite happy with the my 50mm & 35mm Sigma ART lenses. The Sigma seems to have lower distortion than the Nikon, nice color & sharpness. </p>