Nikon 1.8g's vs Sigma 1.4 Art Series

Started 1 month ago | Discussions thread
anotherMike
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,950
Like?
Re: Nikon 1.8g's vs Sigma 1.4 Art Series
In reply to draculr, 1 month ago

I own the 28/1.8G and the two Sigma arts (35,50) and recently sold the 35/1.8G FX and 50/1.8G lenses. I also own the Nikon 85/1.8G

Like many things, it comes down to what your highest priority is. Personally, since image quality trumps all and I don't consider either Sigma art a "heavy" lens (I can shot a 4 hour studio session with one as easily as I can type on this keyboard and it doesn't even register - a heavy lens to me is the 200/2 for example), the 28/1.8G is the only one that stayed of those three for image quality reasons. But, at the same time, while many people in forums, including myself at times, get caught up in a binary view of "awesome" or "garbage", the reality of course is that image quality has vastly more gradients between those two opposite poles. The 35/1.8G FX is definitely a lens to consider if you're wanting to keep it lighter. It is pretty sharp, incredibly flare resistant (although I think the 28/1.8G is every bit as flare resistant), and is a very nice lens. Yes, after extensive, involved testing I preferred the Sigma art, but it's not by miles and miles either. If I needed to carry a light/small kit it would absolutely be a contender. The 50/1.8G is nothing more than a fairly sharp, but very clinical and kind of subjectively 'dull' 50mm lens with average bokeh at best. It's cheap, it's sharp, but there is not a shred of that proverbial "magic" with it. The Sigma 50 art here is quite a bit more superior in image quality than the Sigma art 35 is over the Nikon 35/1.8G FX if that helps - different amounts of magnitude of difference for sure.

The 28 is a tweener focal length for me - I do find myself reaching for the 24 or the 35 more often, but it's a very nice lens. It's *almost* a great lens - but not quite - mostly due to heavy and at times funky field curvature that can trip you up. However, once dialed in, it's sharp, flare resistant, nice colors, decent microcontrast. It's a better lens IMO than any of Nikons 35mm offerings (I've owned both) for sure, so it's an easy recommendation although it's a touch heavier than the 35/1.8G (but not as heavy as the Sigma 35 or 50 art).

I think in your case the 28 might be seriously worth the look. I might advise to keep the Sigma 50 art around as a tool that you might need even if rarely, and if weight is an issue, change out the 35 art for the little 35/1.8G FX if feel that the weight is the priority for you. I'd skip the 50G's (any of them) honestly, but that's just me.

-m

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow