Nikon 1.8g's vs Sigma 1.4 Art Series

Started Aug 16, 2014 | Discussions
MArcos Blois Regular Member • Posts: 434
Re: 28, 35 and 85

agree with the comment. I have 28 f1.8 and 35 art. Both are really very sharp but 28 bokeh is much nicer. 35 Art is also very heavy, 28 very light weight.

 MArcos Blois's gear list:MArcos Blois's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P900 Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR +7 more
paulski66
paulski66 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,107
Those pesky masses...
3

...they ruin it for everyone.

 paulski66's gear list:paulski66's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G +2 more
Stacey_K
Stacey_K Veteran Member • Posts: 8,373
Re: Those pesky masses...

paulski66 wrote:

...they ruin it for everyone.

Not really, they just don't seem to have the same priorities that I do.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Sony Alpha a7 +16 more
clarnibass Senior Member • Posts: 1,978
Re: Nikon 1.8g's vs Sigma 1.4 Art Series
1

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.

OP pgeorges Regular Member • Posts: 259
Re: Nikon 1.8g's vs Sigma 1.4 Art Series - Update
1

I've ended up ordering the 28mm 1.8g. I think I'll live without a 50mm lens for the moment, the 28 and 85 1.8g's should be the perfect set of primes to go along with the 14-24 and 70-200mm 2.8g zooms!

I should say thanks to everyone for contributing valuable opinions in this thread. It helped me make my decision!

-- hide signature --
 pgeorges's gear list:pgeorges's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D +4 more
Stacey_K
Stacey_K Veteran Member • Posts: 8,373
Re: Nikon 1.8g's vs Sigma 1.4 Art Series - Update
1

draculr wrote:

I've ended up ordering the 28mm 1.8g. I think I'll live without a 50mm lens for the moment, the 28 and 85 1.8g's should be the perfect set of primes to go along with the 14-24 and 70-200mm 2.8g zooms!

I'll bet you end up happy with them, enjoy!

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Sony Alpha a7 +16 more
Stacey_K
Stacey_K Veteran Member • Posts: 8,373
Re: Nikon 1.8g's vs Sigma 1.4 Art Series
2

clarnibass wrote:

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.

When people have no idea what the development costs are, what the possible liability for producing the product could end up being nor what the manufacturing costs of a product are, how they can proclaim a product is -over priced- or not seems odd to me. This lens is in the same price point as the other f1.4 lenses built using these same materials, yet for some reason, some people feel it should cost $300. They assume that the amount of glass or complexity of the design is what sets the price, if that was the case, the 70-300 zoom should be over $1000. Guess what, it isn't. Or that the weight/size of the lens = it worth?

Another example, you felt your D600 was over priced. Look at what selling that camera has cost nikon in warranty claims. -ANY- product can end up with defects requiring a warranty claim and it's part of the pricing. If they has priced the D600 at (well I have no idea what you feel it should cost) $1200, it would have been an even larger loss for them having to give away D610's to the buyers of the D600. And again you have no idea what the development costs of the whole imaging pipeline was for that camera. Or what sorts of problems they ran into developing it.

So then you say that because I have some understanding of why price points are set where they are, instead of just wishing something was cheaper, it's "psychobabble".

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Sony Alpha a7 +16 more
Nexu1 Senior Member • Posts: 2,745
Re: Nikon 1.8g's vs Sigma 1.4 Art Series
2

Can't help you with the Sig's but I've been pretty happy with the 50mm f1.8G.  It gets a bit of a bad rap IMO.  I rented the 58mm hoping to see a huge improvement (especially bokeh) but didn't.  Here are a couple test snapshots for your own perusal/judgment:

paulski66
paulski66 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,107
No huge improvement? What?!? Are you blind?!?
7

Nexu1 wrote:

In the 50mm shot, the dog is looking to the left. In the 58mm pic, the dog is looking to the right. TO. THE. RIGHT.

How can you not see this?

You must be one of those "masses" Stacey warned us about. Commoner...

 paulski66's gear list:paulski66's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G +2 more
Matsu Senior Member • Posts: 2,026
Nikon 1.8g's vs Sigma 1.4 Art Series, the 3D-look and real photos
7

Nikon has four current 1.8G lenses and they're all good to excellent. Two are among the very best in any mount at any aperture. Those being the 28mm and the 85mm. The 50 is cheap enough that it's worth owning for a lightweight fast normal. The 35, I have not tried yet, but it tests well and the images look good. For size, weight and price, I wouldn't hesitate to get any of them. On pure quality, some are at least as good or better than faster f/1.4 peers.

Some of the Sigma's are special, but they're large and heavy, and may or may not have some AF problems, though I trust Sigma to be able to cure these with firmware updates, and to stay on top of it. However, at the sizes involved, you're almost certainly better off with a 24-70 f/2.8 AFS

Prime shooters may cringe, and you will no doubt read people posting about the "3D" look and sharpness at maximum aperture, but I offer a cautionary note. A lot of blur and a thin focus plane do not add up to a 3D effect. If anything, they produce the exact opposite - a painterly effect with a thin slice of focus - more 2D than 3D. Photos are in fact 2D representations of a 3D world, and besides stating the obvious, it's worth mentioning and repeating, because obliterating depth cues does nothing to make an image "More 3D". Subtly rounding them can help, but for most subjects this needs apertures at least two stops smaller than f/1.4, maybe f/2.8 or even f/4 or f/5.6.

3D effects come from lighting and shadow (primarily directionality or modelling, but also fall off, transition, specularity, etc) and perspective (depth cues like relative size, environmental haze, and field of view.). Sometimes even the suggestion of motion might enhance the feeling of three dimensionality, well captured motion blur that makes a subject appear more animated.

A sharp focal plane that punctuates the action or artistic intent can heighten the importance of the subject within the scene, of course it has value, but it is so often abused and seems like a tired contemporary trope now, and, it's just technically bad photography in many cases - when only one eye is in focus, for instance, or once face between a couple, etc...

Shallow depth of field ruins more photos than it helps.

 Matsu's gear list:Matsu's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Panasonic 20mm F1.7 II Nikon D800 Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +9 more
Stujomo
Stujomo Senior Member • Posts: 1,416
Re: Nikon 1.8g's vs Sigma 1.4 Art Series, the 3D-look and real photos

Matsu wrote:

Nikon has four current 1.8G lenses and they're all good to excellent. Two are among the very best in any mount at any aperture. Those being the 28mm and the 85mm. The 50 is cheap enough that it's worth owning for a lightweight fast normal. The 35, I have not tried yet, but it tests well and the images look good. For size, weight and price, I wouldn't hesitate to get any of them. On pure quality, some are at least as good or better than faster f/1.4 peers.

Some of the Sigma's are special, but they're large and heavy, and may or may not have some AF problems, though I trust Sigma to be able to cure these with firmware updates, and to stay on top of it. However, at the sizes involved, you're almost certainly better off with a 24-70 f/2.8 AFS

Prime shooters may cringe, and you will no doubt read people posting about the "3D" look and sharpness at maximum aperture, but I offer a cautionary note. A lot of blur and a thin focus plane do not add up to a 3D effect. If anything, they produce the exact opposite - a painterly effect with a thin slice of focus - more 2D than 3D. Photos are in fact 2D representations of a 3D world, and besides stating the obvious, it's worth mentioning and repeating, because obliterating depth cues does nothing to make an image "More 3D". Subtly rounding them can help, but for most subjects this needs apertures at least two stops smaller than f/1.4, maybe f/2.8 or even f/4 or f/5.6.

3D effects come from lighting and shadow (primarily directionality or modelling, but also fall off, transition, specularity, etc) and perspective (depth cues like relative size, environmental haze, and field of view.). Sometimes even the suggestion of motion might enhance the feeling of three dimensionality, well captured motion blur that makes a subject appear more animated.

A sharp focal plane that punctuates the action or artistic intent can heighten the importance of the subject within the scene, of course it has value, but it is so often abused and seems like a tired contemporary trope now, and, it's just technically bad photography in many cases - when only one eye is in focus, for instance, or once face between a couple, etc...

Shallow depth of field ruins more photos than it helps.

I like images that don't have too shallow DOF. I found that my 85mm 1.4 Ais is not great wide open but stopped down to f4 or f5.6 it becomes really crisp and the subject jumps from the background.

This one came from the 85mm 1.4 AIS. The EXIF maybe wrong as I forget to change the lens in the menu.

 Stujomo's gear list:Stujomo's gear list
Nikon D1H Nikon D700 Nikon D800 Sony Alpha a7 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +6 more
thelenspainter Senior Member • Posts: 1,894
Re: Nikon 1.8g's vs Sigma 1.4 Art Series

Excellent points It's worth mentioning that Canon will sell you a 70-300L lens for over $1000. So clearly the basic optical formula and/or the amount of glass is not an indicator of price. AFAIK the Canon lens has some special DO glass in it that might bring the price up - and it's an L lens! Same thing as high-end Nikon lenses - red ring = high price.

 thelenspainter's gear list:thelenspainter's gear list
Leica TL2 Leica Summilux-TL 35mm F1.4 ASPH
OP pgeorges Regular Member • Posts: 259
Re: Nikon 1.8g's vs Sigma 1.4 Art Series, the 3D-look and real photos

Matsu wrote:

Nikon has four current 1.8G lenses and they're all good to excellent. Two are among the very best in any mount at any aperture. Those being the 28mm and the 85mm. The 50 is cheap enough that it's worth owning for a lightweight fast normal. The 35, I have not tried yet, but it tests well and the images look good. For size, weight and price, I wouldn't hesitate to get any of them. On pure quality, some are at least as good or better than faster f/1.4 peers.

Some of the Sigma's are special, but they're large and heavy, and may or may not have some AF problems, though I trust Sigma to be able to cure these with firmware updates, and to stay on top of it. However, at the sizes involved, you're almost certainly better off with a 24-70 f/2.8 AFS

Prime shooters may cringe, and you will no doubt read people posting about the "3D" look and sharpness at maximum aperture, but I offer a cautionary note. A lot of blur and a thin focus plane do not add up to a 3D effect. If anything, they produce the exact opposite - a painterly effect with a thin slice of focus - more 2D than 3D. Photos are in fact 2D representations of a 3D world, and besides stating the obvious, it's worth mentioning and repeating, because obliterating depth cues does nothing to make an image "More 3D". Subtly rounding them can help, but for most subjects this needs apertures at least two stops smaller than f/1.4, maybe f/2.8 or even f/4 or f/5.6.

3D effects come from lighting and shadow (primarily directionality or modelling, but also fall off, transition, specularity, etc) and perspective (depth cues like relative size, environmental haze, and field of view.). Sometimes even the suggestion of motion might enhance the feeling of three dimensionality, well captured motion blur that makes a subject appear more animated.

A sharp focal plane that punctuates the action or artistic intent can heighten the importance of the subject within the scene, of course it has value, but it is so often abused and seems like a tired contemporary trope now, and, it's just technically bad photography in many cases - when only one eye is in focus, for instance, or once face between a couple, etc...

Shallow depth of field ruins more photos than it helps.

Great post. I think as far as prime lenses go, trading in 2/3rds of a stop for a lot less weight is a fair trade. It's still a significant step up from an f2.8 zoom.

The 3D effect is more due to micro-contrast rather than extremely shallow DOF. The Sigma 35 certainly can produce a lovely 3D effect due to having great micro-contrast but from my flickr adventures the 28mm 1.8g can also. The Sigma lenses have a much colder feel out of camera (closer to Zeiss) whereas the Nikon lenses seem to render a warmer image with smoother bokeh from what I've seen. I'll know for sure when my lens comes in

-- hide signature --
 pgeorges's gear list:pgeorges's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D +4 more
anotherMike Veteran Member • Posts: 8,673
Re: Nikon 1.8g's vs Sigma 1.4 Art Series, the 3D-look and real photos
3

Actually, regarding the warmth of the respective lenses, the Sigma 35/1.4 is a bit warmer than the Nikon 35/1.8G. The Nikon 28/1.8G however is warmer than the 35/1.8G. And I certainly wouldn't classify Sigma or Zeiss color as cold at all - if anything, they tend to be more accurate across the entire tonal range than Nikon in many cases.

-m

Shaun_Nyc
Shaun_Nyc Senior Member • Posts: 2,279
Re: 28, 35 and 85
6

Stacey_K wrote:

Shaun_Nyc wrote:

Stacey_K wrote:

But that said, I can't say I've ever captured a "wow" image with it either.

Well that's dependent on the photographer

Interesting I -have- gotten "wow" images with the 58 and also with the 17-70 sigma at 50mm...

Well, that's purely your opinion isn't it ?

In any case tens of thousands of "wow" images have been shot w cheap 50 1.8's from both Nikon & Canon, go figure..

 Shaun_Nyc's gear list:Shaun_Nyc's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Nikon D50 Nikon D3 Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR +10 more
Stacey_K
Stacey_K Veteran Member • Posts: 8,373
Re: 28, 35 and 85
2

Shaun_Nyc wrote:

Stacey_K wrote:

Shaun_Nyc wrote:

Stacey_K wrote:

But that said, I can't say I've ever captured a "wow" image with it either.

Well that's dependent on the photographer

Interesting I -have- gotten "wow" images with the 58 and also with the 17-70 sigma at 50mm...

Well, that's purely your opinion isn't it ?

In any case tens of thousands of "wow" images have been shot w cheap 50 1.8's from both Nikon & Canon, go figure..

Translation: Let me insult your ability as a photographer and then put a smiley face after it so it's OK.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Sony Alpha a7 +16 more
Shaun_Nyc
Shaun_Nyc Senior Member • Posts: 2,279
Re: 28, 35 and 85
1

Stacey_K wrote:

Shaun_Nyc wrote:

Stacey_K wrote:

Shaun_Nyc wrote:

Stacey_K wrote:

But that said, I can't say I've ever captured a "wow" image with it either.

Well that's dependent on the photographer

Interesting I -have- gotten "wow" images with the 58 and also with the 17-70 sigma at 50mm...

Well, that's purely your opinion isn't it ?

In any case tens of thousands of "wow" images have been shot w cheap 50 1.8's from both Nikon & Canon, go figure..

Translation: Let me insult your ability as a photographer and then put a smiley face after it so it's OK.

Sorry you feel that way, anyway what I said is accurate. Tens of thousands of great images have been made with the 50 1.8 plastic fantastic from both camps.

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=16

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=42&perpage=12&focal_min=none&focal_max=none&aperture_min=none&aperture_max=none&res=3

 Shaun_Nyc's gear list:Shaun_Nyc's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Nikon D50 Nikon D3 Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR +10 more
Stacey_K
Stacey_K Veteran Member • Posts: 8,373
Re: 28, 35 and 85

Shaun_Nyc wrote:

Stacey_K wrote:

Shaun_Nyc wrote:

Stacey_K wrote:

Shaun_Nyc wrote:

Stacey_K wrote:

But that said, I can't say I've ever captured a "wow" image with it either.

Well that's dependent on the photographer

Interesting I -have- gotten "wow" images with the 58 and also with the 17-70 sigma at 50mm...

Well, that's purely your opinion isn't it ?

In any case tens of thousands of "wow" images have been shot w cheap 50 1.8's from both Nikon & Canon, go figure..

Translation: Let me insult your ability as a photographer and then put a smiley face after it so it's OK.

Sorry you feel that way, anyway what I said is accurate. Tens of thousands of great images have been made with the 50 1.8 plastic fantastic from both camps.

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=16

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=42&perpage=12&focal_min=none&focal_max=none&aperture_min=none&aperture_max=none&res=3

Thanks you for making my point, with both lenses, first two pages any shot with a even slightly busy background shot more open than f5.6 displays what I find when shooting with this lens. You might as well just shoot with the kit zoom at f8. And if you call that "wow"....

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Sony Alpha a7 +16 more
larrywilson
larrywilson Veteran Member • Posts: 5,874
Re: Nikon 1.8g's vs Sigma 1.4 Art Series, the 3D-look and real photos

I just sold my Sigma 35mm f1.4 art lens to be able to purchase the Nikon 35mm f1.8 lens to take its place.  I never enjoyed the Sigma because of its weight, auto focus required a lot of fine tuning and will not even work in live view for my new d810.  I would have to send it in to Sigma so that they could upgrade it to work in live view auto focus or get another piece of equipment.

I have the Nikon 85mm f1.8g lens and love it, one beautiful lens.  Yes Stacy it is cheap, but the images are pretty darn good.

Larry

 larrywilson's gear list:larrywilson's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon D500 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G +6 more
Stacey_K
Stacey_K Veteran Member • Posts: 8,373
Re: Nikon 1.8g's vs Sigma 1.4 Art Series, the 3D-look and real photos

larrywilson wrote:

I just sold my Sigma 35mm f1.4 art lens to be able to purchase the Nikon 35mm f1.8 lens to take its place. I never enjoyed the Sigma because of its weight, auto focus required a lot of fine tuning and will not even work in live view for my new d810. I would have to send it in to Sigma so that they could upgrade it to work in live view auto focus or get another piece of equipment.

I have the Nikon 85mm f1.8g lens and love it, one beautiful lens. Yes Stacy it is cheap, but the images are pretty darn good.

Larry

I love the 85mm f1.8g, it's the 50 f1.8g I really don't care for.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Sony Alpha a7 +16 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads