sigma 35 1.4 vs Nikon 35mm 1.8

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon doesn't want to make many high end DX lenses that would lock users to a DX only future.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>because... why? they'd rather leak those potential buyers to Fuji?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In the series of common 50mm 'standard' lenses with apertures 1.2 - 1.4 - 1.8 and <strong><em>maybe</em></strong> 2.... it certainly isn't fast!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i consider anything under 2.8 fast, actually. calling a 1.8 'slow' seems like taking excessive liberties IMO. i usually shoot fast primes at f/2-2.2 anyway, with wider apertures reserved for bokeh shots or special circumstances. sometimes i might actually stop down to (gasp) 2.8! on a prime which can shoot at a much lower aperture number! </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

Fuji makes a mirrorless camera system where the flange distance and lack of mirror make it possible to design compact and fast short

focal length lenses without as much compromise for the smaller sensor. Nikon's F mount is designed for 24m x36mm and thus it makes

sense to make most F mount lenses to cover this format. The size and weight of fast wide angle primes for Nikon DX would not be that

much smaller or lighter than their FX cousins if they are to have good image quality. The 20/1.8 and 28/1.8 are very light weight lenses for

the angle of view and absolute aperture (to make equivalent lenses for Fuji, you'd need 13/1.2 and 18/1.2 roughly speaking, to get the

same amount of light, angle of view and depth of field. Even though Fuji system is mirrorless even their fastest wide primes aren't quite

that fast, and we're talking about what Mike calls slow lenses here ...For DX to compete with FX in this area the lenses would need to be

f/1.0 to f/1.2 which are not very practical to make nor would they likely produce all that great image quality wide open on the small sensor.

It makes more sense to get an FX camera to use with f/1.8 or f/1.4 primes than a DX camera with imagined f/1.2 or f/1.0 primes that

would likely make the DX kit more expensive yet of lower quality. Thus it is sensible to use FX for what FX does best, and not lock users

to solutions that are less than ideal. DX does well a lot of things but fast wide is not among its strengths. Fuji makes a nice system of

lenses but I find the nonstandard sensor they use problematic (compared to D7100's sensor) and the autofocus does not work all that

great in low light. I think they have potential to grow but their products are in a different market from Nikon's. Nikon could never do DX

lenses for F mount that would be as compact for the specifications as the Fuji wide angles are. A separate system might be possible if the

technological problems related to viewfinders and autofocus tracking in low light are solved without compromising compatibility with

existing lenses and accessories for the F mount. But I think the market for small sensor only systems is saturated as it is and I doubt

Nikon could enter this market successfully. Of the mirrorless manufacturers only Sony seems to be doing par from this segment of

products and ... curiously enough they are now making 24x36mm mirrorless. I think that's what drives people to Sony. Nikon seems to be

taking the approach of making FX DSLRs and lenses better and yet less heavy, which to me at least is a sensible approach, given the

market's desire for light weight but good performance and image quality. Personally I find the D750 already a bit too small but my hands

are relatively large. I very much enjoy light weight in prime lenses even though many of my current lenses are on the heavy side.

However I'm not willing to sacrifice the optical viewfinder to gain further compacness or weight reductions; it is an essential feature to me.

 

Anyway, this can be debated on and on, it won't change what Nikon decide to do. They cannot do everything all at once, but must

concentrate resources on areas where they can do well. Other manufacturers such as Fuji and Sony have different focus areas and so

users can make choices based on what fits their needs best. In the first years of the digital interchangeable lens camera boom Nikon and

Canon seemed to be the only ones that did really well commercially, so people made choices based on that. However today there are

many more manufacturers that are competing for market share in the DX size system market. It cannot be expected that Nikon can cater every type of user's needs optimally with so many competitors. What they can try to do is make the best out of their strengths.

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Personally I would have liked to see at least one DX wide angle prime such as a 18/2 or 23/2, but in the time frame where it would have made the most sense (2000-2006) it didn't happen, and today we have the reasonably priced and lightweight 20/1.8 which according to early reports works well on both formats so that's the end of that basically; a good solution was found without breaking compatibility. Also, used prices of FX cameras are getting quite close to new DX camera prices. While many users may never buy an FX camera, the majority of those who are interested in a prime lens lineup probably should go FX to get the most out of the lenses (or get a Fuji or another compact mirrorless system, if the desire of compactness overrides the need for optical viewfinder, FX image quality, autofocus tracking ability in low light, and the need for fast long glass - quite a long list actually). If one ever wants to photograph a candle lit precession in a church or outdoor wedding at night by a fire in India, or use fast long lenses for sports while blurring the advertisements in the background, then those options remain open to a Nikon or Canon user while a compact system user may end up having to switch up to N/C if they want to work on such subjects. In light of this I don't see either N or C stumbling much as long as there are people interested in photography and breaking ground with new subjects in difficult conditions. It is very human to always want to try something that wasn't previously possible. And that's where the real forefront of photographic technology is, as far as I'm concerned.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Personally I would have liked to see at least one DX wide angle prime such as a 18/2 or 23/2,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just recently found my way around that missing DX wide angle prime - in form of a Ricoh GR with a 18.3/2.8 lens. Also gives me a very light and compact camera to take along in situations where a DSLR is just too cumbersome. Reasonably priced too - unlike Nikon's Coolpix A (before the recent price decrease).</p>

<p>Any discussion about the missing Nikon DX primes are moot now anyway - with the Sigma 18-35/1.8 there is an - albeit heavy and bulky - fast-aperture alternative. Would even be more attractive had Sigma managed to make it a 16-35. But it still is an attractive alternative - though heavier - to using a 20/1.8 on DX.</p>

<p> </p>

[david_debalko1]

<p>The 2nd photo in on my homepage is shot backstage with the Nikon 35mm 1.8, very dim FLUORESCENT lighting.<br>

www.debalkophoto.com</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<blockquote>

<p>Fuji makes a mirrorless camera system where the flange distance and lack of mirror make it possible to design compact and fast short focal length lenses without as much compromise for the smaller sensor. Nikon's F mount is designed for 24m x36mm and thus it makes sense to make most F mount lenses to cover this format. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think this is a compelling explanation for Nikon's apparent focus on FX. Technical virtues of each format aside, it just makes sense - Nikon F mount was developed for the 135 format. Why should Nikon throw its weight behind competing in the APS-C format with one hand tied behind its back? It's not black and white though. Obviously Nikon makes a lot of great DX cameras and lenses. But if you are Nikon, are you going to commit resources to making niche performance lenses for DX users? It would be nice if they did (I am a DX user) but I am not surprised by the absence of those lenses. Sorry, this is way off topic.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Sigma and Tamron make some very good lenses, but so does Nikon. I occasionally have Canon envy (for lenses like the T/S 17mm and possibly the new 200-400), and I'm certainly happy with my Sigma 35 f/1.4 - and I'd love a Sigma 50mm "A". But I've no objections to my 200 f/2, and, while the 120-300mm f/2.8 Sigma seems like an impressive optic, I'm still looking longingly at a 400 f/2.8, thanks.<br />

<br />

Incidentally, I've always thought of "fast" as a relative term. I generally think of f/2.8 as "fast" in a zoom, though the 18-35 certainly raises eyebrows about that. f/5.6 is a fast lens on large format, and f/2.8 primes are "fast" on medium format. A 600mm f/4 is "fast" by the standards of other ways to get to 600mm, and I think of the 200-400 f/4 as "fast" - for a zoom - too. I don't tend to think of 50mm f/2.8 as "fast" because f/1.2 lenses are available - everything in between is a gradient. At 300mm, the rare Nikkor 300 f/2 notwithstanding, f/2.8 is still "fast" - a 70-300 f/5.6 is <i>not</i> fast, and a 300 f/4 is in between.<br />

<br />

Pedantically, Fuji <i>do</i> make a couple of 56mm f/1.2 lenses, which are a bit more convincing than trying to persuade a DX shooter that one of the f/1.2 Nikkors is useful. I have mild lust for the APD version, since I've always thought fondly of the Minolta/Sony STF lenses (which seem to be "DC" but done right). Sadly, the going rate is a bit much, even with recent bundles on the X-Pro1...<br />

<br />

I buy the argument that Nikon feel they can differentiate with FX, having a complete full-frame lens set and a mount that's compromised in DX by being designed for an FX frame area. Body size is also less relevant if you're shooting FX, though I'm not going to argue that the 35mm lens on my Bessa R doesn't look a lot smaller than my 14-24. I'm sure they'll keep selling DX while they can - but the DX market has a lot of squeeze from cell phones and competent compacts and by the budget end of FX. And by its own back-catalogue, of course.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I bought the Canon ART version recently to replace the 35L which I had been shooting full time with for about 7 years and probably had 250,000 shots on it. (Rebuilt a couple of times.)<br /> The Sigma is an awesome replacement. Just as sharp, nice contrast and I think the corners are a bit better. Would expect roughly the same for the Nikon.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>When I was being taught photography back in the days when 35mm was a small format. Fast was between f/5.6 on the high end and f/2.8 on the low. Lenses that where faster then f/2.8 where called super speed lenses.</p>

<p>And yes I am very happy with my Sigma lenses the 35mm f/1.4 is a superior lens in every way and the 120-300 f/2.8 is the lens I make most of my money with. It has lasted through 7 years of horse show photography and has never let me down.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Personally I would have liked to see at least one DX wide angle prime such as a 18/2 or 23/2</p>

</blockquote>

<p>not incoincidentally, fuji makes an 18/2 and a 23/1.4 for their x-system...</p>