Nikon users - how much better is the sigma 50mm art that the 1.8g

Sir SR

Sir SR

Messages
5,635
Name
Shaheed
Edit My Images
No
Hi good people

Just recently got the 35mm f1.4 art and am blown away by the wide open performance.

The nikkor 1.8g is light/small cheap but the wide open performance isn't as good as the 35.

Anybody used both? Thoughts on whether it's worth the extra to upgrade?

Thanks

Shaheed
 
Not Nikon, but I'm also looking at 50's again after buying the 35mm.

According to the review sites the Sigma Art is better than everything except the Zeiss (there's a whisker in it but at the cost of loss of AF). If I was rich like you... ;)

Unfortunately in priority order, I'm after a135 first, the 85mm isn't quite long enough on FF.
 
I was recently shown four 20 x 16 photographs one taken with a Nikon 50mm f1.8G, the other with a Sigma Art 50mm taken at apertures f/11 and f/2.8. To the naked eye and in the real world I could not discern which image was taken with which lens.

An increasing trend in photographing test charts and pixel peeping has led to some very bold claims. Personally, I would suggest the real proof is in looking at actual photographs rather than test photographs taken in scientific conditions. I'm not convinced the Sigma Art 50mm is actually better than the Nikon 50mm. If there is, it's virtually impossible to distinguish with the Mk1 eyeball even (using a loupe)
 
Phil V said:
Not Nikon, but I'm also looking at 50's again after buying the 35mm.

According to the review sites the Sigma Art is better than everything except the Zeiss (there's a whisker in it but at the cost of loss of AF). If I was rich like you... ;)

Unfortunately in priority order, I'm after a135 first, the 85mm isn't quite long enough on FF.
Click to expand...
Not rich Phil.....I buy things in quantas of "extra shifts"

After being fed up with the building works, the wife bought a coffee machine and I bought the 35 mm sigma. I also booked two extra night shifts to help cover the costs!

In fairness the 50mm won't be this side of summer and I can "get a tune" out of the nikon it I feel the sigma might be more melodious!
 
Sir SR said:
Not rich Phil.....I buy things in quantas of "extra shifts"

After being fed up with the building works, the wife bought a coffee machine and I bought the 35 mm sigma. I also booked two extra night shifts to help cover the costs!

In fairness the 50mm won't be this side of summer and I can "get a tune" out of the nikon it I feel the sigma might be more melodious!
Click to expand...
Unfortunately after our building works it was me who wanted the coffee machine (etc. etc), so I went without new camera gear for a while.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
I was recently shown four 20 x 16 photographs one taken with a Nikon 50mm f1.8G, the other with a Sigma Art 50mm taken at apertures f/11 and f/2.8. To the naked eye and in the real world I could not discern which image was taken with which lens.

An increasing trend in photographing test charts and pixel peeping has led to some very bold claims. Personally, I would suggest the real proof is in looking at actual photographs rather than test photographs taken in scientific conditions. I'm not convinced the Sigma Art 50mm is actually better than the Nikon 50mm. If there is, it's virtually impossible to distinguish with the Mk1 eyeball even (using a loupe)
Click to expand...

The reason to upgrade would be better performance at f1.4 and f1.8

To which I don't know the answer. Just wanted real world experience!
 
Last edited:
I don't know about he Nikon 50, but I made a similar decision between the sigma 50 and the Sony Zeiss 50. The sigma was fractionally sharper but for me it's like the difference between having a car that could hit 200mph and one that could hit 210mph. Both were far sharper than I actually needed.

The Sony Zeiss 50 1.4 had faster af, much nicer bokeh, lighter, smaller, was a no brainier.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
An increasing trend in photographing test charts and pixel peeping has led to some very bold claims. Personally, I would suggest the real proof is in looking at actual photographs rather than test photographs taken in scientific conditions
Click to expand...
So true, most people who buy gear like this do so for it's bragging rights value rather than image and rarely use the gear it to it's full potential.
 
redsnappa said:
So true, most people who buy gear like this do so for it's bragging rights value rather than image and rarely use the gear it to it's full potential.
Click to expand...

I can assure you that I won't be buying "gear for bragging rights" and slightly resent the insinuation that I do. If that was the case would I not have just bought it without finding out more about it?!

I like to shoot wide open a lot and the nikkor 50 f1.8 isn't as sharp as the sigma 35 f1.4 wide open. If the sigma is better then I'll put it in the list of things to save for.
 
Sir SR said:
I can assure you that I won't be buying "gear for bragging rights" and slightly resent the insinuation that I do. If that was the case would I not have just bought it without finding out more about it?!

I like to shoot wide open a lot and the nikkor 50 f1.8 isn't as sharp as the sigma 35 f1.4 wide open. If the sigma is better then I'll put it in the list of things to save for.
Click to expand...

Look, stop bragging about your soon to be sigma :rolleyes::D
 
make the choice based on rendering style, bokeh, sharpness, weight a and cost

if your on crop 60mm is better than 50mm
 
TBH at the '50mm' range I prefer the look of the 58mm over the rest. Even though it's not quite as sharp as some I just like the overall look.
 
snerkler said:
Bit confused by this statement? :confused:
Click to expand...
The field of view effectively becomes 90mm rather than 75mm.

Whilst one focal length isn't necessarily better than another, 90mm is an accepted focal length on full frame and is arguably a better portrait lens, whereas 75mm is a little 'odd'. It's not actually odd at all just unusual!
 
Brazo said:
The field of view effectively becomes 90mm rather than 75mm.

Whilst one focal length isn't necessarily better than another, 90mm is an accepted focal length on full frame and is arguably a better portrait lens, whereas 75mm is a little 'odd'. It's not actually odd at all just unusual!
Click to expand...
Oh right. Yeah I understand the difference in FL, but surely this is down to preference hence my confusion about you saying 60 is better. I actually used 50mm (75mmeq) when I had a crop body and really liked it tbh.
 
Yes hence my last sentence. You'll find 90mm is more popular but if 75mm works for you then that's cool:)
 
Brazo said:
Yes hence my last sentence. You'll find 90mm is more popular but if 75mm works for you then that's cool:)
Click to expand...
I like to be different :p TBH I don't use that FL since going FF, in fact I doubt you can even get a 75mm lol. The point I poorly made was that preferred FL is all personal ;)
 
on crop 50mm feels to long and to short to me
I think the extra 8mm on the 58 helps with bokeh :)

I prefer 40mm on ff to 50 aswell
 
pingu666 said:
I think the extra 8mm on the 58 helps with bokeh :)
Click to expand...
I would have thought the lens design will have more to do with the lovely bokeh rather than the extra 8mm tbh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top