Nikon 1.8g's vs Sigma 1.4 Art Series

Started Aug 16, 2014 | Discussions thread
clarnibass Senior Member • Posts: 1,966
Re: Nikon 1.8g's vs Sigma 1.4 Art Series

Stacey_K wrote:

Do you have samples?

Probably, but not ones I can post (I prefer not to post photos of the people on random forums). Anyway, like you, I commented on how the lens works for me. I definitely can't be sure that you would think the bokeh was fine too.

I used the violin player shot because it's a good example of smooth transition zone of focus, not for comparing the 80-200 f2.8 to the 50mm f1.8g. I could just as easily posted some shots from the 58g for this purpose.

Yes, I realized that. I just meant that the background would look very different, less blurry, with any ~50mm lens instead of the 80-200mm f/2.8.

I know some people like the 50 1.8g lens, but I've just never seen sample images (of my own or from others) of anything but nervous bokeh if the background is busy. Many times it simply ruins the images for me. Plus the transition zone shares this same nervous nature (even if the background is smooth), which is just a deal killer for my style of photography.

I believe you and I'm not arguing. I just posted a similar idea, that to me, this lens s fine, doesn't ruin photos, the bokeh is not (too) nervous, the transitions are ok.

Yes this lens is sharp, light and cheap, but all of this still will not win it a place in my bag unless I plan to be shooting at f5.6-f8. And in that case, I might as well leave the bag at home and just carry my 35-70 f2.8 (FX) or sigma 17-70 (DX), both of which have nicer bokeh wide open.

That's fine. If you noticed, I never mentioned sharpness and never suggested the 50mm f/1.8G instead of the 58mm f/1.4G because it is sharper. Actually, I didn't suggest the 50mm instead of the 58mm at all.

It's a shame all these internet test sites have created an environment when lens makers have to focus all their energy into focus plane sharpness at the expense of other optical qualities. And if someone does step outside of this paradigm, like Nikon did with their 58, the lens is considered "a joke".

Maybe, I don't know. Anyway see just above. It is simply that the 50mm f/1.8G works great for me and I wanted to add that. By the way it's not that I don't see the difference. I absolutely agree that the 58mm has smoother blur (especially wide open) and transitions. It's just a matter of whether this makes a difference that you would be interested in the lens.

For me, after seeing many photos, including side by side, it wasn't. In some situations it was barely better, with both photos having "bad" blur because of the photo. The 58mm didn't "save" anything. In some cases both lenses were fine. In some cases the 58mm made the photos "better" (better in the way that you meant, not necessarily better for everyone).

The main issue with the 58mm is obviously the price. IMO there is no problem buying this lens you you like it. If I would buy it I would simply accept that it is signfiicantly over priced, I would simply justify paying this too high price for it because I wanted or felt that I needed it. It could even be a completely justified business expense. No issue with that. I don't think there is necessarily a problem with people buying things that are over priced, accpeting that they are. I wouldn't need to fool myself with a bunch of psychobabble that the lens is not over priced. Some people (not you) feel like they have to do that for some reason. I thought my D600 was over priced and I bought it. I still think it was over priced and I am still glad I bought it.

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