Nikon 1.8g's vs Sigma 1.4 Art Series

Started Aug 16, 2014 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Contributing MemberPosts: 737Gear list
Re: Nikon 1.8g's vs Sigma 1.4 Art Series
In reply to pgeorges, Aug 16, 2014

draculr wrote:

anotherMike wrote:

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.


Thanks for the write up Mike and that's an interesting suggestion. It seems the Nikon 28 1.8g over the Sigma 35 will be a fairly easy choice at the very least. Funnily enough. this thread is making me rethink my need for a 50mm at all. 28/85 sounds like a combo that can handle just about anything with lightness and great image quality to boot.

-- hide signature --

I have the 28, 50 and 85mm f/1.8 combo. I use the 50 the least of the 3, but since it a very cheap little lens I can't get myself to sell it. It's very small and light. For me the size, weight and price of the 50 f/1.8 (and it's not a bad lens) is it's force.

-- hide signature --

Regards 9ck

 9ck's gear list:9ck's gear list
Nikon 1 AW1 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow