Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Vs. Nikon 50mm f/1.4G SIC SW - D40

[Burninh2o]

Hello guys, I am planning on getting a 50mm lens for portraits and some street photography (something focused in foreground and background would be all blurred). I am looking for a solid IQ, nice difference b/w foreground and background, and nice bokeh effect. Price wise, they are almost the same. I was wondering which one should I go with.

I don't have much photography experience...I have nikon D40. I just want to get 35mm and 50mm lens. I think once I get 50mm, I will wait for a long time before I buy 35mm (by then, there will be 35mm F1.4 )

Thank you

 

[sworth]

If you plan to shoot wide open and want the best bokeh, get the Sigma. If you plan to stop down to get more depth of field, get the Nikon, because it is sharper stopped down. I have the Sigma 30 and 50 with my D200 and I love them both. The 30 is more versatile. On DX, the 50 is pretty much a portrait lens. Too long for groups of people or wider street shots. The 30 is my favorite for night and street shooting.

 

[Burninh2o]

I know what "stopped up/down" means but why don't you tell me what it means anyways as if I am a 5 yrs old (Thank you Steve Carell)

...here I go search for Sigma 30mm.

Thanks you very much for your suggestions.

 

[P Hartung]

I would get the Sigma. The tests and sample images I've seen favor it at wider apertures.

For DX, however, I'd consider the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 as an alternative. It's really sharp all over the place and gives a bit better sense of environment for street shooting even if the background is soft.
--
Paul

“The worth and excellency of a soul is to be measured by the object of its love”
Henry Scougal

 

[Burninh2o]

Yeah, I have considered getting 35mm one. But then i thought, I would rather get 50mm f1.4 now and use it for a while and then get 35mm when they come out with f1.4 version...

I honestly don't know which kind of photography I prefer more as I have not shot many photographs of either. But, in near future, I plan on shooting portraits and street shost...

Thank you for your suggestions.

 

[ajmeeker]

I would get the nikkor just on the account of size..

The sigma is big, the nikon at least will balance ok with the D40.

 

[Jerry R]

--
Canon A2E, Sony R1, Panny TZ5, & Nikon D5000.

 

[sworth]

Translation: The Sigma 50 1.4 is better in low light or when you want nice looking out of focus backgrounds. The Nikon is better if you want the most sharpness in normal landscape type shots where everything from near to far is in focus.

 

[Big Daddie]

IMHO you might find the Nikon 35/1.8 a better choice for your street shooting, though I wouldn't use it for tighter portraits (too much perspective distortion if you get too close, e.g. a big nose relative to the face).

Do you realize that a Nikon 35/1.4 is likely to cost more than the Canon version, which is currently $1,400? That makes the $200 price of the 35/1.8 a huge bargain.

I own the 35/1.8 and had the Sigma 30/1.4 side-by-side with it for several months. The Sigma had better bokeh and focused quicker. But the Nikon focused more consistently and accurately and generally seemed sharper in the center and across the frame. Plus the Sigma is relatively expensive and suffers from sample variation.

I also have owned both the Sigma 50/1.4 and Nikon 50/1.4G AF-S since August. The Sigma is the better lens at wider apertures -- sharp in the center, and better bokeh. The Sigma 50/1.4's bokeh is better than the 30/1.4's -- not just because of the focal length but because the aperture shape holds better with the Sigma. The Nikon 50/1.4G is the better lens as far as corner-to-corner sharpness goes once stopped down to f/2.8 or f/4, and especially at f/8.

Again, the Sigma 50/1.4 suffers from sample variation so if you get it, be sure to buy from a dealer that permits easy returns.

 

[Burninh2o]

Is there a big difference b/w two lenses when it comes to sharpness from corner to corner? Is sigma really bad compared to nikon in this situation

 

[sworth]

No. And if you stop down a little, the corners go totally sharp. With portraits with narrow depth of field, the sharpness in the corner rarely matters anyway. The Sigma 50 is definitely a portrait lens.

 

[Chuck Steenburgh]

Owned both, decided on the Sigma as best, though I am primarily interested in indoor sports with those two lenses.

Still, I found the Sigma to have better bokeh and to be sharper wide open which sounds like they are the deciding factors for you. 'Bokeh' meaning the quality and appearance of out-of-focus areas, my little 5-year-old.

--
http://www.sportsphotoguy.com - Reviews, Technique, Portfolio
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=575

 

[Boris]

Shooting a brick wall my Sigma 50f1.4 on DX is perfectly sharp by f4 across the frame... on FX at f5.6.
Boris
--

http://public.fotki.com/borysd/

 

[G Davidson]

I have the Sigma and an (older) 50mm 1.4D. I have to say, the Sigma's bokeh (the way things in the background turn into blurry bits!) is extraordinary, the smoothest I have. But it's a big weight to lug around for an angle that isn't exactly convenient on DX, so I use it mostly for portraits. If you want something to use a lot, probably the Nikon is the way to go, but if you want gorgeous bokeh, go for Sigma.





--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pefectfutures/
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pefectfutures/

 

[pixelman105]

here are the DX test charts of both lenses at f/1.4 and at f/8 from the reviews here at DpReview

first the sigma 50mm f/1.4 at f/1.4



and now the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G at f/1.4



as you can see the sigma is a bit better, but it is very close.

now here are the charts at f/8

first the sigma



and now the Nikon



as you can see stopped down the edge to center sharpness of the Nikon is substantially better than the Sigma and it actually out resolves the sensor from center to edge

so, if you are going to shoot predominately wide open and are not concerned about corner sharpness - get the sigma, it is no doubt the better portrait lens when used this way, but if you plan on using the lens as more of a general purpose lens/portrait lens then I would get the nikon.

this is a quote from the conclusion of the Nikon review here that sums it up fairly well.

" Essentially, with this lens Nikon has produced perhaps the best-balanced full-frame fast 50mm autofocus prime we've yet seen. It may not be quite match the sharpness and clarity of the Sigma at F1.4, but it's still perfectly usable wide open, and once stopped down to F2.8 it's more than a match for anything else in its class. When used on the D3X in particular, it produces some of the most detailed, aberration-free images we've yet seen"

and from Thom Hogans review

"Compared to the Nikkor

The Sigma is bigger and heavier physically. Optically, the two lenses are close cousins in terms of performance. If central performance and bokeh (e.g. portraits) is most important to you, I'd slightly favor the Sigma. If overall performance is most important to you, I'd slightly favor the Nikkor. Autofocus performance is slightly faster on the Sigma at the expense of manual focus precision."

Is there a big difference b/w two lenses when it comes to sharpness from corner to corner? Is sigma really bad compared to nikon in this situation

 

[Bjorn_L]

I own the older Nikon (50mm f1.4d). I have tried out both the Sigma 50mm 1.4 and the Nikon 50mm f1.4g. I do not like the "g" and would not trade my older "d" for it as a straight swap. The focus speed was just not very good.

The Sigma was much faster. And, I buy f1.4 lenses to shoot as close to wide open as possible. And the Sigma is better wide open. And it is definately sharper at f1.4, the Nikon starts worse and gradually catchs it and might pass it at f8 or what-have-you... I could careless that the Nikon is sharper at f8. I already have a whole bunch of very good choices above f2.8. Also the Sigma has better bokeh.

For 30/35mm, I bought the Nikon 35mm f1.8g. In retrospect I wish i had opted for the Sigma 30mm f1.4 or maybe the Sigma 24 f1.8. I find the 35 and 50 a little too close and so I most often end up using only the 50mm. (even though I like the results from the 35mm). The plus with the Nikon "g" lenses is their size and weight. The Sigmas as better, but are much heavier, larger and a little more money.

 

[1vwGTIdriver]

of the two you mentioned - there are pros and cons

sigma is the better lens wide open and better bokeh - but getting a working copy of the lens takes time as a lot of people including myself got one with focus issues . after sending it to sigma NY - my sigma 50 mmis now spot on with my 2 bodies.

the nikon is not bad really but the sigma is a better lens - except its easier to get a good copy of the nikon 50m G so less hassle .

 

[VRII]

as you can see stopped down the edge to center sharpness of the Nikon is substantially better than the Sigma and it actually out resolves the sensor from center to edge

Buying a fast F/1.4 prime to shoot at F/8 is like paying $50 for a steak when all you want is the baked potato. There are several lenses that shine at F/8 infinity and corners available for $100 , no need to pay top dollar for F/1.4 if that is your primary concern.

Once in a while you will shoot a F/1.4 at F/8 and the corners are critical, but you don't want to trade that one shot for hundreds of soft wide open shots with mediocre bokeh.

Ask most owners of the Nikon 85mm F/1.8 , (which has excellent corners) if they would trade it straight up for the 85mm F/1.4 D which has soft corners and is not as sharp at F/4 and smaller.

 

[pixelman105]

would you buy a nikon 24-70 f/2.8 to only use at f/2.8?

Seriously, I shoot portraits with my Nikon 105mm f/2D-DC and it is stunningly sharp at every aperture, The Nikon 85mm f/1.4 which is also considered a stunning portrait lens also gets better stopped down to f/8

Fact is the sigma 50mm f/1.4 is the only lens I know of that is worse at f/8 than it is at f/2.8

it's kind of like being forced to pay for a three course meal and only getting the desert

here is the sigma at f/2.8



and here it is at f/8



fact is as good as the sigma is wide open, it falls completely apart once it is stopped down past f/2.8

it is a one trick pony - if that is the trick you need that is great, but most people I know that spend close to 500$ on a lens want it to be good for more than one thing and the people I know like me who make a living shooting portraits would never even consider using a 50mm lens - even on dx - as a portrait focal length, you just cant get the subject isolation you can get with a true portrait lens like the 105 f/2DC or the 85mm f/1.4

as you can see stopped down the edge to center sharpness of the Nikon is substantially better than the Sigma and it actually out resolves the sensor from center to edge

Buying a fast F/1.4 prime to shoot at F/8 is like paying $50 for a steak when all you want is the baked potato. There are several lenses that shine at F/8 infinity and corners available for $100 , no need to pay top dollar for F/1.4 if that is your primary concern.

Once in a while you will shoot a F/1.4 at F/8 and the corners are critical, but you don't want to trade that one shot for hundreds of soft wide open shots with mediocre bokeh.

Ask most owners of the Nikon 85mm F/1.8 , (which has excellent corners) if they would trade it straight up for the 85mm F/1.4 D which has soft corners and is not as sharp at F/4 and smaller.

 

[VRII]

would you buy a nikon 24-70 f/2.8 to only use at f/2.8?

Yes, I had the 28-70mm F/2.8 AF-S , from F/4 and smaller there is literally no difference between them, the 24-70mm is sharper wide open and it's the reason I ended up with the 17-55mm DX it's the sharpest of them all wide open.

Seriously, I shoot portraits with my Nikon 105mm f/2D-DC and it is stunningly sharp at every aperture,

I know I use the lens, but I'f I'm shooting at F/8 and corners, then I use a $100 85mm F/2.0 which is insanely sharp at the corners and F/5.6 and smaller. No need to lug around a heavier lens and pay $900 more for that.

The Nikon 85mm f/1.4 which is also considered a stunning portrait lens also gets better stopped down to f/8

All lenses get better when stopped down, frankly even a cheap zoom catches up to a an expensive prime at F/8 , what separates the men among boys is the performance at the widest F/stops

Fact is the sigma 50mm f/1.4 is the only lens I know of that is worse at f/8 than it is at f/2.8

Great, I never shoot at F/8 , actually if Sigma could make it even sharper at F/1.4 and limited the F/stop to F/5.6, I'd buy it in a heart beat.

it's kind of like being forced to pay for a three course meal and only getting the desert

Funny spin, You pay premium for performance at F/1.4 , just like you pay premium for the steak not the baked potato.

here is the sigma at f/2.8

and here it is at f/8

fact is as good as the sigma is wide open, it falls completely apart once it is stopped down past f/2.8

Pixelman, it's obvious you're engaged in a one man California mud slinging campaign against the Sigma, I find it comical, since I'm an Nikkor guy, I've owned just about every single Nikkor 50mm & 60mm prime including the Noct and I can tell you by far that the sigma is simply the best F/1.4 prime out there. Honestly comparing to the Nikon 50mm F/1.4 is a waste of time it really should be compared against the Noct it's just that good.

it is a one trick pony - if that is the trick you need that is great, but most people I know that spend close to 500$ on a lens want it to be good for more than one thing and the people I know like me who make a living shooting portraits would never even consider using a 50mm lens - even on dx - as a portrait focal length, you just cant get the subject isolation you can get with a true portrait lens like the 105 f/2DC or the 85mm f/1.4

I own those lenses and have tested the Sigma extensively against those lenses, result, The Sigma has a seat at the table, it's simply that good. Instead of endlessly regurgitating MTF charts, have you done any side by side comparisons that you can share? You're criticizing a book without having read it, try it don't be affraid, you may end up liking the Sigma steak much better than than the Nikon potato

as you can see stopped down the edge to center sharpness of the Nikon is substantially better than the Sigma and it actually out resolves the sensor from center to edge

Buying a fast F/1.4 prime to shoot at F/8 is like paying $50 for a steak when all you want is the baked potato. There are several lenses that shine at F/8 infinity and corners available for $100 , no need to pay top dollar for F/1.4 if that is your primary concern.

Once in a while you will shoot a F/1.4 at F/8 and the corners are critical, but you don't want to trade that one shot for hundreds of soft wide open shots with mediocre bokeh.

Ask most owners of the Nikon 85mm F/1.8 , (which has excellent corners) if they would trade it straight up for the 85mm F/1.4 D which has soft corners and is not as sharp at F/4 and smaller.