35 mm 1.4 which would you get?

Started Sep 22, 2013 | Discussions
Organicmamaof2
New MemberPosts: 4
Like?
35 mm 1.4 which would you get?
Sep 22, 2013

Would you get the Nikkor 35mm 1.4 for $1,600 or the Sigma 35 1.4 for $800.

Clearly the price is a huge gap but what I am wondering is why? Their are amazing reviews on the sigma and many claim that the sigma is even better than the cannon version of this lens when tested side by side.

What would you get?

John Motts
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,005
Like?
Re: 35 mm 1.4 which would you get?
In reply to Organicmamaof2, Sep 22, 2013

Organicmamaof2 wrote:

Would you get the Nikkor 35mm 1.4 for $1,600 or the Sigma 35 1.4 for $800.

Clearly the price is a huge gap but what I am wondering is why? Their are amazing reviews on the sigma and many claim that the sigma is even better than the cannon version of this lens when tested side by side.

What would you get?

You've already posted this!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
anotherMike
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,099
Like?
Re: 35 mm 1.4 which would you get?
In reply to Organicmamaof2, Sep 22, 2013

Generally an easy answer although it may depend on what you shoot: The Sigma 35/1.4

A little history: I've shot Nikon since the mid 70's, have shot more than 40 Nikon lenses in that time, and I like Nikon glass. Prior to the Sigma 35/1.4, there was no way I would have owned a Sigma - didn't like their earlier lenses, don't like their 50, don't like their 85. But since the son has taken over the reigns at Sigma and concentrated on doing some world class lenses, things have apparently have changed. I had a Nikon 35/1.4G which I loved on my D700 but it wasn't quite performing as well as I had hoped in terms of edge/corner sharpness on my D800E, so I was looking for an improvement. I evaluated both the Zeiss 35/2 (very nice, a bit "fringy" though), and then right when I was about to seriously consider the Zeiss, I got to try out one of the first Sigma 35/1.4 in the US and I was impressed. Ended up buying the sample and after comparing, sold the Nikon. The Sigma is definitely and obviously sharper in the close to moderate distance ranges, where I feel it has been optimized (which is why you're not seeing it "beat" the Zeiss 35/1.4 in a comparison in another post - remember that lens performance often varies by distance range, so this has to be considered in your analysis).  The sigma is still very very good at infinity and long subject distances, but the *magnitude* of difference between it and the competitors is much less at distance than it is in the closer ranges. The Nikon simply got beat, particularly in the corners and edges at distance, and all over the place at what I'd call the studio distances. The Sigma is also considerably sharper at those first couple of apertures (1.4, 2).

HOWEVER - I shoot landscape and studio. I do NOT shoot street or near wide open event work. The Nikon 35/1.4G *does* have an advantage in terms of bokeh and OOF rendering and it's more flare resistant with better coatings than the Sigma. So this is where I might argue my own opinion - IF I were primarily a street shooter where I was more concerned with rendering and bokeh and tonal transition and because of this type of work (which is generally NOT all about sharpness), I would say I would actually prefer the Nikon 35/1.4G - one has to understand that in some forms of photography, "the best" in sharpness may not matter - hand held wide aperture work at lower shutter speeds where blur and focus would impede the maximum sharpness possible of the situation, but bokeh and flare resistance and rendering would be more important. So while I have personally made the choice for the Sigma because in the things I shoot (studio and landscape, never event, never street), its advantages are important, for someone who shoots wide or near wide open street, well, they may prefer the rendering and bokeh of the Nikon since in this type of work, absolute sharpness is not perhaps the primary goal.

As a note, when I had the 35/1.4G Nikon, I never had ANY AF issues at any distance; it was my "money" lens in terms of "get the shot without questioning it" on my D700 and even on the tweakier D800E AF system, it still did very well. Much better AF accuracy than my 24/1.4G; a lens I love but one whose AF issues wide open and near it can be frustrating.

-m

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: 35 mm 1.4 which would you get?
In reply to Organicmamaof2, Sep 23, 2013

The answer is to ask a question. As it happens, I often have reflective surfaces and light sources within my images and the flare resistance of the Nikon 35mm 1.4G is basically spectacular. That alone makes this unit a pleasure with which to work. I also tend to shoot a lot of street and in my experience, this is a great lens for nailing focus. Your own priorities and perspectives may vary.

I have heard good things about the Sigma but remember, test scores in perfect conditions need t be interpreted relative to your  workflow and needs.

The Nikkor 35 1.4G

-- hide signature --

I only use imported bokeh

 The Andy G's gear list:The Andy G's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Carsten Pauer 2
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,374
Like?
Re: 35 mm 1.4 which would you get?
In reply to Organicmamaof2, Sep 23, 2013

What would you get?

I would get this Lens.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jim Keye
Senior MemberPosts: 1,590
Like?
great post, thanks (nt)
In reply to anotherMike, Sep 23, 2013

anotherMike wrote:

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Kali108
Regular MemberPosts: 267
Like?
Re: 35 mm 1.4 which would you get?
In reply to Organicmamaof2, Sep 23, 2013

Organicmamaof2 wrote:

Would you get the Nikkor 35mm 1.4 for $1,600 or the Sigma 35 1.4 for $800.

Clearly the price is a huge gap but what I am wondering is why? Their are amazing reviews on the sigma and many claim that the sigma is even better than the cannon version of this lens when tested side by side.

What would you get?

Having owned both..easy...the Sigma. Priced the same? Again, the Sigma. What advantages the Nikon may have, flare for example, are quite subtle compared to the advantages of the Sigma imo. Factor in price...it's a no-brainer. Then again, due to the Sigma, you can pick up a mint condition, used Nikon 35G for about $1100. now....and price still falling.

It's clear to *me* that Sigma, with their "Art" series of lenses, intends to shake up the market. I wish them success

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rexgig0
Senior MemberPosts: 1,874Gear list
Like?
Re: You posted this SAME question TWICE in one day!
In reply to Organicmamaof2, Sep 23, 2013

Two threads are running on this topic in this same section of the forum. See my reply attached to the other thread.

-- hide signature --

I wear a badge and pistol, and, primarily with 7D cameras, with 10-22mm and 100mm Macro L lenses, shoot evidentiary images at night, which incorporates elements of portrait, macro, still life, landscape, architecture, PJ, and occasional action.

 Rexgig0's gear list:Rexgig0's gear list
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED +26 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: 35 mm 1.4 which would you get?
In reply to anotherMike, Sep 24, 2013

Apart from the wise words mentioned above, you should also consider what probably isn't looked at when shooting single-distance, perfectly-lit test cards: build quality and longevity.

The G series lenses are made from the same stuff as the bodies: silicon-coated magnesium alloy; the Sigma appears to be a bit lest robust. I am sure that you take care of your gear but the build quality is something to consider. Most manufacturers these days have pretty good "on paper" warranties but how those warranties are backed up in real life counts.

Secondly, this may be FUD, but Nikon lenses are pretty much guaranteed to work with future bodies. How well, future integrations, firmware updates and the like will work from off-brand manufactures is anyone's guess. In this respect, Zeiss could be a safer bet since they've decided not to bother with AF.

Finally, eyes should be peeled away from the test scores to remember the lenses in operation.

  • Nikkor - 600g and 89 mm
  • Sigma - 660g and 94 mm
  • Zeiss - 830g and 78 mm
-- hide signature --

I only use imported bokeh

 The Andy G's gear list:The Andy G's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
larrywilson
Senior MemberPosts: 3,411Gear list
Like?
Re: You posted this SAME question TWICE in one day!
In reply to Rexgig0, Sep 24, 2013

Duplicate thread?????  See other thread.

Larry

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
anotherMike
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,099
Like?
Re: 35 mm 1.4 which would you get?
In reply to The Andy G, Sep 24, 2013

Yea, at this point in the Sigmas game, we don't know how it will hold up over time; too early to tell. But from an apparent build quality point of view, the Sigma 35/1.4 is very robust - it's a LONG way from the plastic POS and cruddy build of most earlier 3rd party lenses from Tamron, Sigma etc. So I think there is hope...

Personally I think the Sigma is every bit as well built as the Nikon 35/1.4G, but again, only time will tell how it holds up.

-m

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
StillLearning
Senior MemberPosts: 2,389
Like?
Re: 35 mm 1.4 which would you get?
In reply to The Andy G, Sep 24, 2013

The Andy G wrote:

Secondly, this may be FUD, but Nikon lenses are pretty much guaranteed to work with future bodies. How well, future integrations, firmware updates and the like will work from off-brand manufactures is anyone's guess. I only use imported bokeh

I think Sigma is addressing this with their USB Dock.  Works pretty good.  Updated to newest release and the 35 F1.4 need 0 adjustments across the board on my D700.  Now how quickly will they keep up with Nikon's firmware updates remains to be seen.  But at least they are putting forth the effort in their customer relations.  Wish Nikon would do half as much.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
InTheMist
Senior MemberPosts: 2,659Gear list
Like?
Re: 35 mm 1.4 which would you get?
In reply to Organicmamaof2, Sep 25, 2013

I chose the Sigma. most reviews put them equivalent or the Sigma ahead. Nikon has the gasket.

-- hide signature --

Ridicule is not C&C nor is it being helpful nor "stating your opinion"
www.flickr.com/InTheMist

 InTheMist's gear list:InTheMist's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon 1 AW1 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
low3llSD
Regular MemberPosts: 185Gear list
Like?
Re: 35 mm 1.4 which would you get?
In reply to Organicmamaof2, Oct 14, 2013

Big difference when a lens is tack sharp. I thought my 24G was sharp till I put the sigma on my d800 and it wasn't even a contest. Yes different focal lengths but good grief the 24G is nikon's show piece in the wide prime realm.

I also like the rendering and microcontrast from the sigma. If you ever shot a zeiss lens then you know what I'm talking about. I also wanted to stick to nikon for transitioning zooms to primes. But sigma just made it so affordable to achieve the look that I had in my mind when shooting a 35.

Like I said, this sigma really put all my nikon lenses to shame in terms of sharpness. I have the holy trinity, 24G and 85D for what its worth.

 low3llSD's gear list:low3llSD's gear list
Nikon Df Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G ED +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads