Nikon 35mm f1.8G vs Sigma 30mm f1.4 ...

Can anyone offer any comparisons/opinions/pics/etc. - between the Nikon new 35mm f1.8G - & Sigma's 30mm f1.4?

Any assistance would be much appreciated.

Thank you.

--
Vaya con Dios
imo
(c) fastglass

fastglass said:

Can anyone offer any comparisons/opinions/pics/etc. - between the
Nikon new 35mm f1.8G - & Sigma's 30mm f1.4?

Any assistance would be much appreciated.

Thank you.

--
Vaya con Dios
imo
(c) fastglass

Click to expand...

From photozone's website: (I hope they don't mind I hotlinked the images below)
http://www.photozone.de

Vignetting:
Sigma 30/1.4



Nikon 35/1.8



MTF: (it's the differences between center and border resolution I'd care about.)
Sigma 30/1.4



Nikon 35/1.8



CAs:
Sigma 30/1.4



Nikon 35/1.8



Verdict:

Sigma 30mm f1.4 (Excerpt)

"The center performance is exceptionally high but the borders are not all that impressive. The other image parameters such as distortions, vignetting and CAs are Okay but nothing to rave about."

Nikon 35mm f/1.8 (Excerpt)

"The Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8 G ist able to deliver very sharp pictures wide open already. There are some drawbacks, though, especially rather high distortions and CAs, both lateral and longitudinal. Nonetheless, given its affordable price, the lens performs on a very high level and is a welcome addition..."

Others comparisons
Weight and Price:
Sigma : 400g and $409
Nikon : 200g and $200

hmmm, great image quality, good build, 'only' 2/3 stops slower... and half the weight and cost.... sold, give me one!

-- NHT
while ( ! ( succeed = try() ) );

NowHearThis said:

Others comparisons
Weight and Price:
Sigma : 400g and $409
Nikon : 200g and $200

hmmm, great image quality, good build, 'only' 2/3 stops slower... and
half the weight and cost.... sold, give me one!

Click to expand...

Absolutly.

And this dosn't take into account the various focussing issues that the Sigma has as well.

My 2 cents...Unless you need the extra speed the nikon is as good/better at half the price.

Darin

The general consensus (from what I have read) is that bokeh from the sigma is a little better. I have the Nikon and like the bokeh just fine, just thought it should be mentioned.
--
http://www.pbase.com/wfournier/

I had the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and ended up selling it when I had the chance to buy a Sigma 28mm f/1.8. The Sigma 28mm seems to have less distortion and better real world sharpness at all available apertures compared to the 30mm 1.4 (at least my copies of those lenses).

I had to stop down the Sigma 30mm to f2 or more to get an acceptably sharp image most of the time. I usually end up doing that with the Sigma 28mm as well, but it seems sharper wide open at f1.8 than the 30mm was wide open at f1.4 or stoped down to f1.8.

I just picked up the new Nikon 35mm 1.8G and it's a great lens. Tack sharp from wide open and virtually silent thanks to AF-S. Yes, sometimes the CA is annoying when you shoot wide open, but that's a problem with most fast lenses when you shoot wide open. Thankfully, the worst color fringing is usually easy to correct in CS3/CS4 or PSP X2.

--
http://www.jjjphotography.com
See 'The Big Picture' at http://jjjphotography.blogspot.com/

The photozone test for the Sigma is for a Canon mount. So you can't compare the sharpness of the two lenses from the graphs.

However, the difference in centre and border sharpness is unlikely to be different on the Nikon mount.

fastglass said:

Any assistance would be much appreciated.

Click to expand...

If you can afford it buy Sigma, if you cannot buy Nikkor and you still end up with superb (for money) lens in a bag
If you have D40/X/60 don't buy Sigma, it's simply too big, front balanced.
AF speed (real life) - the same
Bokeh - very, very good on Nikkor, noticably better on Sigma
Sigma/Nikkor - sharp! wide open
Flare - did not check it due to weather
Nikkor CA - green behind focus point, magenta in front of focus point
Sigma - I wouldn't use it with flash with Af-assist (red beam) set to on.

Low light - Sigma all the way, but I'm glad I still have some money left in my pocket
Size - Sigma IS BIGGER, Nikkor is a pocket lens

Best,
d

--When I bought the Nikkor, I intended to sell the Sigma. After some testing I now decided to keep both ......

For normal use the Nikkor ist a great lens! So light and a joy to use! The Sigma is a massive lens to lug around. But moving indoors and/or in low light, the Sigma is the way to go. 30mm instead of 35mm means a lot indoors , and 1.4 instead of 1.8 also means 2/3EV advantage. Focusing on the Sigma is significantly faster (but the Nikkor is not slow), especially in low light. And the bokeh of the Sigma is better as well, as is the CA.

I now stopped comparing them, because they are too much different. I simply use them for what they were build ......

FuzzTheKingOfTrees said:

The photozone test for the Sigma is for a Canon mount. So you can't
compare the sharpness of the two lenses from the graphs.

Click to expand...

I'm not doing a 8mp vs 10mp comparison... I was only looking at the differences like you mention below...(and that I mentioned in my previous post.)

FuzzTheKingOfTrees said:

However, the difference in centre and border sharpness is unlikely to
be different on the Nikon mount.

Click to expand...

That's all I cared about with those 2 charts.

-- NHT
while ( ! ( succeed = try() ) );

grapher, could you post reasonable size pictures of the same subject taken with both lenses with comparable apertures (perhaps f/1.8, f/2.8, f/4 and f8) ? I'd really like to see a comparison of wide open bokeh especially. From the pictures I have seen so far of the Nikon at f/1.8, the bokeh is plain ugly on complex backgrounds (trees, grass, fences, etc.). I'm holding off the purchase of the Nikon for now.

I think it would be great to see the differences in color rendition and contrast at different apertures with both lenses.

--
http://www.pbase.com/michelfleury

grapher said:

And the bokeh of the
Sigma is better as well, as is the CA.

Click to expand...

Have you noticed if the bokeh on the Sigma is better at the same aperture (e.g. at f/2)? Or were you mostly comparing bokeh with the Sigma at f/1.4?

Just curious. Thanks for the comparisons, there's nothing like info from someone who actually has both.

I used the 30mm 1.4 from sigma for over a year as my only prime, and I must say that the bokeh all the way up to 2.8 is good. of course i loved the bokeh at 1.4.

I am still waiting for my 35G 1.8 to come so I can compare for myself.

Thanks everyone!

Feel free to post more on this topic.

Comparo pics if you have um.'

I wanted the Nikon when it started shipping - but my dealer still hasn't had any in yet, so lately I've been going through 148 pages @ 30 images per page, of 30mm f1.4 images on pixel-peeper (got to be some kind of a record # of images there).

I think I prefer the physical size, weight, price & brand of the Nikon 35mm f1.8 ...

... but the speed & focal length of the Sigma 30mm f1.4.

Ken Rockwell makes a good point in his Nikon 28mm f1.4 review:

"This extraordinary lens allows handheld photography in conditions twice as dim as a 50mm f/1.4. Why? Simple: it's half the focal length of a normal lens, so you can shoot at one stop slower shutter speed. I get great results at 1/8 second. I usually shoot a few frames, and at least one will be super sharp. Many of the night photos you see on this site were shot, hand held, with this 28mm at f/1.4 and 1/8 second exposure, on 50 speed Velvia on the street at night.

The 28mm has much more depth-of-field than a 50mm lens. Therefore scenes shot at f/1.4 will usually have plenty in focus so you really can shoot at f/1.4, unlike with a 50mm lens that has just about zero depth-of-field at f/1.4.

This lens effectively turns night into day." -- KR

Seems like the analysis could be loosely applied to the 30mm f1.4 Sigma as well? Not to mention ISO's far higher than Ken's ISO 50 Velvia. (I know Ken does not like Sigma)

This will be my new, low light, walk-about lens, & I'm getting impatient ...

Thanks again.

btw - C of O is Japan on the Sigma, China on the Nikon, correct?

--
Vaya con Dios
imo
(c) fastglass

I'd just like to take the time to thank everyone who responded!

Both lenses are appealing - thanks for your insight.

I always wonder what happened (if anything) when I read threads like this, & the people who started them either disappear or ignore the subject they started like the plague (just talking?).

This thread may have seemed that way , but I've been following all the info I could on both lenses since starting it.

Anyway, I finally found a 35mm f1.8 that I could actually buy. No gouging either. Got it today (I tried one a month ago - looked good, was ready - but nfs).

I never got a chance to try a Sigma (none locally), & that's too bad, because though I'm THRILLED to have the Nikon - it all might have been different with a Sigma test drive, I don't know ...

Anyway, thanks again ...

Best.
--
Vaya con Dios
imo
(c) fastglass

I owned the Sigma and compared it to a friend's 35mm f2.0 Nikon. The Nikon clobbered the Sigma, in every way except speed. The 1.8 should kill it.

but my Sigma 30mm is on loan to a friend, so I can't run any side-by-sides. The reviews say the Sigma has less distortion, and for the price, it should. I love the 35mm for its light weight and size -- the Sigma is bulkier and heavier. Both give me great shots. Here is one from each:

D80 & Sigma 30mm



D80 & AF-S 35mm



If you're big into bokeh, I think the 30mm produces creamier OOF backgrounds, but I'm going from memory here on shots I long ago tossed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Rule of Thirds is meant to be broken, but only 1/3 of the time.



D80/D90 photos: http://esfotoclix.com