Nikon 1.8g's vs Sigma 1.4 Art Series

Started Aug 16, 2014 | Discussions thread
HSway Veteran Member • Posts: 3,129
Re: Am I the only one who feels this way?

anotherMike wrote:

Hey Hynek:

A quick word on the Sigma 35 and the highlights. You don't live in the USA so I don't know if you've ever been to Bryce Canyon National Park here, in Utah. This is where I spent the most time with the Sigma and Nikon 35's last spring - 10 days, 10 scenes, lots of parallel shooting as I tried to sort out the differences. The reason I bring up the location is that the color, texture, tonality, and hue of the sand layers in Bryce is very specific. I've been to Bryce a lot, and know the park pretty well. The Sigma was only lens I had with me that *accurately* reproduced the tonality and color subtleties of the sand, which lies in the lighter tones. The Nikon bunched up the tones and put a slight cast on it. The Zeiss 21 also gets the tones right. The 24/1.4G gets the tones pretty much right. The 200/2 and the Zeiss 135/2 certainly do as well. The 28/1.8G doesn't quite nail them, but it does better than the 35/1.8G. This rendition of finely spaced hues and tones in the sand was the primary difference maker for me in determining which lens I preferred - I knew what the real stuff looked like and I knew which lens did a better job of reproducing that. Doesn't of course mean you have to agree - but for me it was actually a very easy decision once I started looking at things on my good monitor back home (forget trying to evaluate anything on the garbage cheap laptop screens, right?).

I'll be curious what you think of the Sigma 50 art. It will be a few weeks before I get a chance to put that lens through the paces as right now I'm working on finishing up some printing jobs before the next phase of my season starts and things get busy again.

Hope you are well...


Hi Mike,

I read you well and saw the same thing, more or less. My work with contrast is what I need to consider. And I have some experience built on this which applies to my way of processing raws and the image as a whole. That makes me look at it my way. Ultimately, I’d have to do some more processing with the 35A to see exactly about the subtleties. I reckon it wouldn’t matter either way - both (the Art and 35G) would be processed slightly differently.

There will be more discussions on 50A I am sure, I mean those less confrontational. Let’s just say that I thought I’d sure keep the little 50/1.8G but saw I wouldn’t use it and have sold it. The Sigma is not just about the resolution I don’t need to tell you. it comes all together there and that term is not the first thing that crosses your mind. At least not as something separate. This FL is pretty special to me so I may focus on this prime a bit more than I would usually do maybe. That said we are all spoilt for choice. But Nikon should produce some mighty nice prime, and that for more reasons. Although releasing a lens sure is not the same as baking the cakes and takes some responsibility. The most respected primes from Nikon as a lens (usual range up to 100) for me are 35/1.4 and 1.8G (each for different use), 85/1.4G, 24G, the 58G is interesting but have seen too little from it obviously. If I had to narrow it more personally it would be both 35s and 24G.

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