New Sigma 35mm 1.4 bokeh

Lance B wrote:

I meant slightly better with regards to bokeh. Overall, I think the Sigma is a better lens.

Unfortunately, you have taken a small excerpt from my 2nd paragraph which was discussing the bokeh aspect of the lens.

"As far as bokeh is concerned, it depends on the scene, the background, how close you are to the main subject, where you are focusing and what aperture you are using. Overall, I think the Nikon is slightly better, but the Sigma is still excellent and in certain conditions I think the Sigma has a slight edge and in other conditions the Nikon is better. I still haven't evaluated what those conditions are, just that sometimes the Sigma has a slight edge and in others the Nikon has the slight edge."

Maybe I should have said in the second sentence, "Overall for bokeh, think the Nikon is slightly better, but the Sigma is still excellent and in certain conditions I think the Sigma has a slight edge and in other conditions the Nikon is better. I still haven't evaluated what those conditions are, just that sometimes the Sigma has a slight edge and in others the Nikon has the slight edge."

However, in my defence, as this paragraph was dealing with bokeh, I didn't think I needed to keep saying bokeh in each sentence. My schooling always told me that you start a new paragraph when dealing with a new subject matter and as I was still on about bokeh, I stayed in the same paragraph.

The first paragraph dealt with sharpness:

"I have both the Sigma 35 f1.4 DG HSM and the Nikon 35mm f1.4G, both are superb lenses. However, the Sigma is sharper, especially at the wide open apertures, but by f2.8 to f4 they are close and both are excellent."

Sorry for any confusion.

--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
http://i.pbase.com/o4/21/489821/1/53232844.SydneyPanoVertSmall.jpg