matters410 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 <p>I have been researching a few options for a fast 35mm. I need fast, good IQ wide open (good bokeh, contrast/color, lack of CA, flare or other bad characteristics), good autofocus and fairly sharp at large apertures. I will mostly shoot people with it but I would also use it as a walkaroud lens. The obvious choices are the Nikkor 35mm 1.4 G, Nikkor 35 1.8 ED, and Sigma 35 1.4 Art. I'd be open to other suggestions. Here are my impressions of each so far based on my recent research:<br> <strong>Nikkor 1.4 G</strong> - Most expensive, best overall IQ, probably my best bet if I can find a decent used one at a good price. Will not pay 2K for it.<br> <strong>Sigma Art</strong>- Great IQ (maybe not as smooth of bokeh as nikkor?), great sharpness, great build quality. I have read some AF issues and even suspicions that Nikon's firmware confounds AF. This gives me pause because I really need a lens that I shoot wide open to focus accurately. I took back a Sigma 85 1.4 a few years ago (Non ART) and got a Nikon 85 1.8 in favor of it's much more reliable AF.<br> <strong>Nikkor 1.8 ED</strong>- Cheap, extremely sharp (sharpest?), busy bokeh, more likely to have poor characteristics especially wide open. BUT ITS SO CHEAP....and light. I have mixed feelings on the 1.8 line up. Love my 85, don't really love my 50, was impressed (especially by sharpness) by the 20 1.8 while I had it but sold it because I didn't use it enough to justify the price (used the money to buy a used 70-200 F4, which is amazingly good and much more useful to me). <br> So there you have it. If anyone has impressions on these three or alternative suggestions that fit my needs please let me know. Thank you for your time.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 <p>I have the Sigma - and none of the tests I have seen or read puts the Nikon IQ higher. I have the issue that it doesn't AF on my D810 in live view (it does on the D7100 and neither my Sigma 24/1.4 nor the 150/2.8 OS have issues) - something that I could easily remedy but upgrading the lens firmware via Sigma's USB Dock - so any Nikon firmware upgrade that confuses the Sigma lens will soon have Sigma issue a fix that you can download and apply yourself. <br> For cost reasons, I would not have purchased the Nikon f/1.4 - and the Nikon f/1.8 wasn't available then.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 <p>I can only comment on the Sigma 35/1.4 Art, which has - to my surprise - become my most-used lens. I really like the output. I haven't actually tried live view AF (if I'm in Live View, it's usually to shoot video, and that's almost always MF). But I simply can't imagine anything that Nikon's 1.4G could bring to the table that would make it worth more, to say nothing of a LOT more, than the Sigma's price. Haven't tried the 1.8 ED. That more petite size does have an appeal for certain kinds of work, no question. But the images I've seen make be not very happy about those crunchy OoF backgrounds. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Willemse Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 <p>If I'd be shopping today, I'd probably opt for the Sigma, though I feel the 35mm f/1.8G is a bit underrated in the sense that it doesn't get mentioned often, and seems a very good lens. But I've got enough 35mm lenses by now (but I like the ones without AF and with all optical flaws you mentioned, but I won't recommend it to anyone :-), so no first-hand experience.<br> The 35mm f/1.8 for FX is not THAT cheap - maybe you're confusing it with the 35mm f/1.8 DX - the DX lens is cheap and great for DX, but for FX its corner performance is probably not going to be what you hope for. The FX lens is about 3 times more expensive. But for the kind of uses you mention, it wouldn't be my choice, more a landscape lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 <p>the Sigma ART is clearly the reference benchmark for this focal length. it's a little heavy for walkaround use, depending on what camera you use it with, but the IQ is so good, it can serve as a standalone lens. i'd describe the bokeh as decent for the focal length, you dont expect much from 35mm, but the sharpness pops with defocused backgrounds just fine. incidentally, ive never had any AF issues using this (or the Sigma 85/1.4) on a D3s.</p> <p>a recent lens which is probably better suited for walkaround use (due to smaller size) is the tamron 35/1.8. it looks to be pretty sharp but not as good as the Sigma ART, but it has stabilization as well as excellent close-up focusing ability. possibly a better choice if you plan on carrying around a bag of lenses or just want a lighter kit. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 <p>Yes, I would check out the Tamron too. It also has close focusing ability - around 0.4X I think.</p> Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two23 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 <p>Sigma 35mm f1.4A. Sharpest lens I've ever owned.</p> <p>Kent in SD</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 <p>here's a recent shot with the 35ART. i mainly use this lens for environmental portraits and live music/dance shooting, generally at apertures larger than 2.8. which is to say i dont often use it stopped down, i.e. for landscapes. that said, <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/792-sigma3514dgfx?start=1">photozone</a> tested both and found the sigma had better corners at f/4 and 5.6. the Nikon's center performance was a little bit better at 1.4, but the sigma evened out by f/2. in my experience, f/2 is usable and 2.2 is sharp.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I have the Tamron 45mm. It's really excellent. Almost as good as the 50mm Sigma, but I'd rate it better than the Sigma because it's lighter, has VR and focuses consistently. If the Tamron 35 is as good as the 45 it deserves consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_galleries Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 <p>Another vote for the Sigma 35/1.4 ART.<br> <img src="http://www.leonin.net/img/s2/v60/p1503325685-4.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p><img src="http://www.leonin.net/img/s5/v132/p1503325807-4.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p><img src="http://www.leonin.net/img/s12/v172/p1120348177-4.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p><img src="http://www.leonin.net/img/s12/v173/p1120349591-4.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matters410 Posted October 23, 2015 Author Share Posted October 23, 2015 <p>Thanks for the input guys. <br> SIGMA- My only reason for saying he Nikon has slightly better IQ (not just sharpness, where the sigma clearly wins) is that a few reviews rated it's out of focus highlights better. The Sigma was said to have more "onion shaped" bokeh. Perhaps this is not noticeable in practical use. The weight would not bother me as I frequently "walk around" with a 24-70 or 105 (sometimes with a big flash attached) on my D750 and they are pretty hefty. I'm very glad to hear the AF issues are somewhat easily fixed and/or not as big of a problem as I thought. The internet can blow these things up a bit sometimes. I really want the sigma to win out, but the AF stuff frightened me a bit. It's price point, build quality and IQ all seem too good to be true. All my current lenses are Nikon. As far as my third party experience goes: I had the Tokina 11-16 when I shot DX which was great at what it did (again, I'm not a huge wide angle guy). I had the Tamron 70-300 for about 45 minutes before I took it back for the Nikon equivalent. I had a Sigma 85 1.4 (non-art) for a short time but the AF performance was unacceptable so I picked up (and thoroughly enjoy) the Nikkor 85 1.8 G but I usually stop down a bit with that one. I really want a 1.4 lens that I can use at 1.4 (probably because my fastest lenses are 1.8 and usually used at 2.2 or greater).<br> I have seen the Tamron review on this site, but haven't heard much else about it. The VC is a little compelling, but at 35mm I would value the 2/3 stop more than the VC. I figured if I wanted a 1.8 lens, I'd pick the Nikon. I <strong>DO UNDERSTAND</strong> the difference between Nikon 35mm DX and FX versions, BTW (I once owned the 35mm DX). The 1.8 FX ED can be had for under $500 used, which I consider cheap. Some of you have convinced me the Tamron does indeed deserve consideration. I really need to handle it, the Sigma and the Nikon 1.8 in a shop for a little while for comparison. The Nikon 1.4 may be off the table for me at this point.<br> Keith and Eric- Very nice photos. <br> On sharpness...I really think the difference in sharpness between the Nikkor 1.4 and Sigma Art would be negligible for portraits, at least. The Nikkor 1.8 ED is, by all accounts, extremely sharp, but exhibits other characteristics I'm trying to avoid. I'm not a pixel peeper, but I really want nice bokeh and that extra bit of undefinable IQ that really high quality glass provides. I owned the 20 1.8 G for a bit and it was freakishly sharp but still not quite as compelling as I had hoped. <br> I am definitely leaning toward the Sigma now. If I have troubles with AF I can always get the USB dock for another $60 bucks. If I'm using LV, I'm usually using MF so that's not really a bother. It really seems like a stellar lens that could stay in my collection for along time. Is it odd that the lack of VC, VR, IS is a little appealing to me? Maybe that is stupid, but I like the idea of a lens that is more lens than electronics. I do have a nice tripod, after all...<br> Any other examples of any of these lenses used in a low light, wide open, loosely composed environmental portrait fashion would be much appreciated. Maybe that's too specific. I'll take any examples with some shooting details.<br> I really appreciate your input and opinions. This is such a wonderful website. Thanks again.<br> Jon</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilsivan Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 The Nikon 35mm f1.8 is an awesome lens and a great value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 <blockquote> <p> The Sigma was said to have more "onion shaped" bokeh. Perhaps this is not noticeable in practical use.</p> </blockquote> <p>maybe it does, but if so, you really have to be looking for it to notice, or trying to produce bokeh in an obvious fashion. it's not super close focusing so i rarely try to do this, and as i said earlier 35mm isnt really a bokeh-friendly focal length. i dont really expect melty bokeh from this. more often, i'm using large apertures just to separate the background from the subject, which it does in a very natural way, with lots of microcontrasty goodness. </p> <blockquote> <p>I'm very glad to hear the AF issues are somewhat easily fixed and/or not as big of a problem as I thought. </p> </blockquote> <p>well, i dont want to downplay this either, because the AF Issue in Live View is a real one with the 35 ART, but there's a firmware update available through the USB Dock as <a href=" video shows.</p> <blockquote> <p>I really want a 1.4 lens that I can use at 1.4 (probably because my fastest lenses are 1.8 and usually used at 2.2 or greater).<br> Any other examples of any of these lenses used in a low light, wide open, loosely composed environmental portrait fashion would be much appreciated. </p> </blockquote> <p>i've used the 35ART at f/2 and the odd 1.4 shot, but for people shots, 2.2 is where it starts to shine. As far as the AF speed, i use it to capture flamenco a lot, and it's nailed enough shots in tough conditions that i have full confidence that any errors are likely my own.</p> <blockquote> <p> </p> </blockquote><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 <p>and the wide open low-light shot...</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_s. Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 <p>Tamron AF SP 35/1.8 Di VC is another alternative. A prime with image stabilization.<br /> It looks like it has decent bokeh. It's also weather sealed and has close focus ability (1:2.5 magnification)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_s. Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 <p>PS. Have a look at the review on the Tamron lens here: http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/sp35_sp45_review/</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 <p>lol, yeah Pete, i mentioned the Tamron already and the OP said he already read that review. the Tamron looks like a decent option with some nifty features and an affordable price. The question is, how does it perform head to head against the Sigma? Bob Atkins seems to think the MTF charts indicate better performance without testing, but CameraLabs did <a href="http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Tamron_SP_35mm_f1-8_Di_VC_USD/sharpness.shtml">test</a> both and found those results not indicative of actual performance. </p> <blockquote> <p><em>From the charts, the new Tamron should perform quite similar to the Sigma. Both lenses show a clear drop in resolution (gray resp. green line) towards the corners of the APS-C/DX image-circle with another drop towards the corners of the FF/FX sensor where the Sigma looks worse than the Tamron - at least on paper. Remember though that the Tamron is shown here at f1.8 which is 2/3 of a stop darker than the Sigma at f1.4. But let's see how this theoretical performance translates into real life results in the sharpness test based on Siemens-stars.</em><br> <em>Compared to the Sigma 35/1.4 "Art" at f2.0 the Tamron shows the better results in the APS-C/DX-corner but is less well defined in the FX-corner although the Sigma suffers from stronger coma. The Nikon 35/1.8G has a slight advantage in the APS-C/DX-corner over the Tamron but has the lowest overall contrast of the three lenses in the FX-corner.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>So, in a head to head comparison, the two had slightly similar FF performance but the Sigma had better corners. I suspect a more thorough test will find more even performance from the sigma overall and some corners cut with the tamron, as one might expect from that price point.<br> <br> Like i said, ive been very impressed with the Sigma's performance over the past two years, particularly at capturing non-static subjects in low-light conditions. If i was buying now, however, i'd have to really consider the $300 price differential (just $200 with the current sale until 10/26) and whether any purported optical superiority on the Sigma's part would be field-relevant for what i shoot. I really like the idea of the semi-macro MFD on a small/fast prime, and VC is better to have than not have. The Sigma weighs 1/3rd more but is physically larger as well -- not so much of an issue with an FX camera but if you're also planning to use it on a DX body, could be a consideration.<br> <br> That said, corner performance at open apertures is important when your subject is framed off-center, and 1.4 is nice to have when you need it. we've already seen how the 35ART holds up under challenging conditions like shooting in a night club. but how about in good lighting, opened up to near-max aperture? well, i was happy with the results.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 <p>hmm. well, backgrounds arent <em>super</em>-melty, but then, not too distracting, either. again, its a 35 not a 50 or an 85. most of the time, the lens doesnt get in the way, just allows you to frame the shot as you would. one of these days i'll stop it down to 5.6 and see what it can <em>really</em> do.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_s. Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 <p>Sorry Eric, I didn't see that the Tamron was already mentioned :)</p> <p>I do disagree with you on corner performance being important at wide apertures though, for anything with people in it. Corners are really only the top left and right corner as well as the bottom left and right. I'll dare you to show me even one composition where you've placed the focus in these corners.</p> <p>The big thing about the Tamron is of course the stabilization. Looking at how much camera shake you have even at reasonable shutter speeds like 1/30s or 1/60s I think the stabilization will push the actual resolution under handholding conditions very much in favor of the Tamron.</p> <p>I'm not talking about shooting at really slow shutter speeds but rather at normal shutter speeds in low light and having the stabilization keeping it much more steady than what is humanly possible.<br> I've done resolution testing with imatest handheld and it's surprising how much less resolution you get handheld compared to a tripod. The 1/f rule for shutter speed is way too slow. </p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matters410 Posted October 25, 2015 Author Share Posted October 25, 2015 <p>Pete- I have now read a bunch of reviews on the Tamron and it does seem like a very compelling lens indeed. It's advantages over the Sigma (size, price, close focusing ability and VR) seem to outweigh the 2/3 stop loss in speed. After all, you have 3 stops of shutter speed advantage in some cases.</p> <p>I know I said that I like the idea of a prime without VR, but perhaps that is kind of silly. I suspect I'm really missing VR on these newer, higher resolution cameras. I recently posed about how I was worried about my 24-70 losing AF ability over time, but after a weekend of shooting in my house with bounce flash with very sharp results I'm pretty certain the problem is that shutter speeds that worked well on a 12MP D300 aren't adequate on a 24mp D7100 (now sold) or D750. While suspecting this, I have stepped up my shutter speeds significantly but that just results in shooting at higher and higher ISOs when I'm not using flash. While the D750 does high ISO very well lower is still cleaner.</p> <p>As far as Bokeh goes...I don't hang pretty pictures of bokeh without subjects in my house. My 105 has great bokeh, but I'm usually more than willing to stop down to get better DOF. It's not my end goal or anything, but at the same time I don't want OOF characteristics of a lens to be distracting. I just need some background separation and subject isolation.</p> <p>Corner sharpness, too, for what I shoot (people mostly) is not a big deal and If I shoot a landscape at smaller apertures with one of these lenses the corner sharpness would improve significantly. I probably would never notice any supposed lack of corner sharpness even if it was obvious (which certainly isn't with any of these lenses). </p> <p>I mostly photograph kids my own and my patients. I am a nurse in a pediatric cancer and blood disorder clinic. The clinic is not well lit at all. Some of our rooms have large windows but the light coming from them varies greatly depending on the time of day and weather. Backgrounds can be a bit distracting because of medical equipment, etc. so it's nice to be able to throw them a bit out of focus. Here is an example of a recent project I did at work and the kind of shooting I do. Sorry, it's a facebook link. I'm not sure of the legality (HIPPA) or hospital policy compliance of my posting the pictures online myself, but I am sure I can link my employers gallery. Some of the shots are at ISO 4000. Many are lit with off camera flash, bounce flash, umbrella or softbox but I still like to balance with the ambient. I think a fast 35 would lend itself well to this type of work.</p> <p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10153669824302533.1073741916.84478217532&type=3&uploaded=31">https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10153669824302533.1073741916.84478217532&type=3&uploaded=31</a></p> <p>I am just going to have to handle the Tamron and Sigma in a shop for a bit. The both seem like quite excellent options. </p> <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 <blockquote> <p>I do disagree with you on corner performance being important at wide apertures though, for anything with people in it. Corners are really only the top left and right corner as well as the bottom left and right. I'll dare you to show me even one composition where you've placed the focus in these corners.</p> </blockquote> <p>Lol. im just saying its nice to get sharpness from other places on the lens than just the center. i see your point, but you're being a little sneaky there, because no one shoots these kinds of shots in a way which wouldnt make compositional sense. you do realize that i'm shooting live action, right? when you shoot live action, you have less latitude for composition than with static shots because you have to keep the (moving) subject in the frame. Also, i dont use focus and recompose in AF-C; on Nikon FX bodies, you cant put focus points at the actual corners because the AF array doesnt extend as far as with mirrorless cameras. Anyway, for these purposes, im defining corners as "outside of the center," meaning that some lenses which have strong center sharpness but are weaker outside the center could be soft on the middle sides. that seems obvious to me. even if you arent shooting at the extreme corners, there's still going to be a transition as one extends out past the center, where a weaker lens might show some softness. So, in the flamenco pic i posted, it's clear that the focus point is outside of the center axis. in any event, i do agree that out of focus areas dont matter as far as sharpness.</p> <blockquote> <p> Looking at how much camera shake you have even at reasonable shutter speeds like 1/30s or 1/60s I think the stabilization will push the actual resolution under handholding conditions very much in favor of the Tamron.</p> </blockquote> <p>except that 1/30 or 1/60 is way too slow to freeze action, so stabilization is pretty much useless in nightclub situations and also useless in good light. also, in typical static situations, handholding at 1/60 isnt really problematic with good technique -- where you really need IS or VR is at 1/15 or below. So whether stabilization is a tipping point or not depends on if you are shooting in situations when it actually comes into play. i find that with shorter focal lengths like 35mm, stabilization isn't all that critical. what i do like about the tamron is the combination of stabilization with close-focus. 1:2.5 is close enough to where you might need a stabilizer for handheld macros, and that MFD adds a lot of versatility to the tamron, to where you might not need to bring an extra macro lens just for close-ups in travel scenarios or for events, i.e. ring ceremonies. so, as i said earlier, i think the tamron is probably a better walkaround lens and maybe a better all-rounder. but for pure IQ and speed, the 35 ART is the benchmark (this side of Otus). tough choice for the OP, i would probably order both and test them side to side. </p> <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chip_chipowski Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 <p>Eric, I don't think the OP mentioned anything about nightclub photography. It sounds like stabilization might work well in a low lit room, so long as the subjects aren't moving around. Jonathan, I hope you share your final choice and any experience - especially if it is the Tamron, since it is so new.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matters410 Posted October 26, 2015 Author Share Posted October 26, 2015 <p>Chip- I will report back with whatever I purchase and give you my impressions, though it may be a few months. </p> <p>I don't really do the nightclub style, but I did shoot at a charity concert in the last year with similar lighting. I'm more likely to shoot an evenly lit scene in low light at home or at work. I'm plenty steady, but photographing kids I have to engage them (e.i. not have the camera plastered to my face the whole time) which requires me to sometime move the camera up to my eye and acquire focus quickly to get a particular expression. I don't think I would typically try that at 1/15th of a second, but even at 1/100th to 1/200th I could see VC being pretty helpful (even at 35mm). The kids themselves can, of course, move where the VC would not help, but if you get their attention they will usually hold pretty still. The Tamron is looking pretty appealing now. I'm glad I posted here as I excluded it from my candidates prematurely. </p> <p>I would have likes someone who owns the Nikon 1.4 to comment, just out of curiosity, but it seems like not many people actually own it. I did meet a pro who had it and the 24mm 1.4 and he seemed to like them a lot. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 <p>Nikon got their thunder stolen by Sigma - the Sigma lens came out not that long after the Nikon, shows better image quality under many circumstances and costs less. Most people who frequent forums figured this out and stopped paying attention to the Nikon.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 <blockquote> <p>even at 1/100th to 1/200th I could see VC being pretty helpful (even at 35mm).</p> </blockquote> <p>VC helpful for shooting moving subjects with a 35mm at 1/200? lol. only if you have extra-shaky hands or are shooting from a moving platform. realistically, VC helps with video shooters and in low-light, slow shutter situations, as well as at higher magnification close-up shots handheld. shooting in even, predictable lighting doesn't change that, just removes a degree of difficulty. but sure, i get that not everyone shoots in nightclubs all the time and may have different criteria for what they need or want. i was just showing some low-light open aperture shots, as requested. sorry i dont have less-challenging shots to share, other than the f/1.4 pic i posted. in any event, there's no reason those same shots, except for the 1.4, couldnt have been captured with the Tamron, but you'd likely see more <a href="http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/tamron_sp_35mm_f1_8_di_vc_usd_review/conclusion/">green/purple fringing</a> than with the Sigma. in the end, i think it comes down to prioritizing ultimate image quality vs. prioritizing overall versatility. and maybe cost, though the current sigma sale cuts that differential by 1/3rd.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now