Comparison of: Zeiss Otus, Sigma 50 Art, Nikkor 58G, Nikkor 50/1.4G, Nikkor 50/1.8G

Started Aug 10, 2014 | Discussions thread
Bamboojled Contributing Member • Posts: 553
Re: Comparison of: Zeiss Otus, Sigma 50 Art, Nikkor 58G, Nikkor 50/1.4G, Nikkor 50/1.8G

designdog wrote:

Selander wrote:

anotherMike wrote:

What's Nikon truly and really done excellently in the past few years? Not just "very good" or even "really good", but world class good? Other than the exotic 400 and 800, which I hear give the Canon super teles a serious run for the money, not one damned thing. Nothing. Sure, they have produced very good lenses - the 80-400, 70-200/4, 85/1.8G, 28/1.8G, and a pretty good lens (35/1.8G FX) and even a niche lens (the 58), but not much else that is amazing in the way the 14-24 was when it came out. Were you around when that lens came out? My head was blown off - I could not BELIEVE what they accomplished with it. And it, even today, is a lens so good it can hang with primes in the D810 era. What happened?

I basically agree with you Mike (as usual). But I would argue that Nikon is actually in a rather good position when it comes to lenses. I'm not contradicting you, just differing slightly in my feelings. Just look at what has been released the last few years:

- The f/1.8 primes (28, 35, 50, 85) offer great value and good optical quality.

- The f/1.4 primes (24, 85) have even better optical quality and build. The 35 and 50 not so much (that's why we have the Sigmas).

- The f/2.8 trinity (14-24, 24-70, 70-200) is holding up very well.

- The f/4 lenses (16-35, 24-120, 70-200) are all good performers that have VR.

- The superteles are amazing as well (200/2, 300/2,8, 400/2,8, 500/4, 600/4, 800/5.6).

So, what is lacking? Of course, it's easy to complain that the needs of every single photographer are satisfied. Sharper macro lenses could be one thing. Better PC lenses (as well as an ultrawide to combat the Canon 17 mm). More affordable wide angle primes (20/2.8 and 24/2.8). But those are (at least in my view) minor problems.

The bottom line is that amazing lenses that blow you away don't come around too often... but the last few years have seen some pretty good lenses come about.

Good summary, with two exceptions:

- in my view the Nikon 35 1.4G is better than any other 35 available to Nikon. Had the Sigma, and the Zeiss 35/2 and 35/1.4. The Nikon, to me, offers the best combination of sharpness, color, and bokeh. Unless you are shooting test charts, it is a great all around performer.

- what is lacking? a pro level 20mm, and a 135. A refresh on the 24-70 to include VR. In addition, I think Nikon should/will piggy back on the Sigma and Zeiss marketing strategy of up segmenting, with a few super quality niche lenses, made in Japan. A super high resolution 50mm for example.

Wow, that is how I feel about this lens as well…I had the Sigma, great lens, but after renting the Nikon i sold the Sigma, why? Because I make prints, I don't shoot to just view at 100% on my computer.

The Prints that the 35 1.4g renders are fantastic and have a magical look (hate using such an ambiguous term), which i could not get with the Sigma.

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