Sigma 35mm lens on Nikon D5100

f4af100uk

f4af100uk

Messages
35
Edit My Images
No
most people seem to recommend spending money on quality lens and was wondering....
I currently use a Nikon 35mm 1.8f on my Nikon D5100 and have been thinking about getting a sigma 35mm 1.4 lens but was wondering if I would notice a difference?

My friend has the same lens on his canon and his pictures are defiantly sharper and look a lot better but after the opinions of you guys :)
 
I don't think you would notice the difference tbh. The depth of field will be narrower at f1.4 but regards sharpness I think the Nikon is as sharp if not sharper than the Sigma. Is the Sigma the , "Art" lens? When you say his shots are sharper than yours is this viewed in camera?
 
For sharpness I would recommend the Nikkor 85mm F1.8g. (y)
 
sbowler579 said:
I don't think you would notice the difference tbh. The depth of field will be narrower at f1.4 but regards sharpness I think the Nikon is as sharp if not sharper than the Sigma. Is the Sigma the , "Art" lens? When you say his shots are sharper than yours is this viewed in camera?
Click to expand...

The test sites seem to disagree and seems to be saying that the Sigma is sharper.

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/422-nikkor_35_18g?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/792-sigma3514dgfx?start=1

Sharpness isn't everything though and personally I'd go for something that's merely good enough and hopefully a more compact lens than the doubtless very good but rather largish Sigma.

That 85mm looks good but according to that same test site can't match the Sigma at its sharpest and I assume that anyone wanting a 35mm will have to take quite a swerve to end up with an 85mm.
 
Last edited:
The Sigma is a beauty, but it wants to be for 4-5 times the price. When I had DX bodies I'd have struggled to jusitfy the upgrade but when swapped to FX it was an easy decision. Since I've been really happy I did as there's plenty of times I've needed 1.4 so the investment for me has paid off. I really love the out of focus areas on it too which is nice, and that not mentioning the sharpness. It's sharp even from 1.4 so the entire aperture range is more than useful.

That said, it's not a cheap lens, nor is it small and light so definitely something to bear in mind. Maybe go and have a play with one, I'd read it was a heavy bugger but was still a little shocked when it arrived.

Despite all the above I still own my 35mm DX, the only one I couldn't let go as I really liked used it and just know one day i'll be able to put it back into use
 
The Nikon is plenty sharp enough. Any noticeable increase in sharpness will probably be in your mind and spending the extra won't be value.

I guess the Sigma goes that extra bit to 1.4 but in the real world how important is that to you? Or How often do you find 1.8 isn't low enough?
 
Thanks for all the input guys. Think I'm going to go for it.

The extra sharpness is definatly not in my mind! Pics have been taken side by side and definatly sharper!
 
f4af100uk said:
Thanks for all the input guys. Think I'm going to go for it.

The extra sharpness is definatly not in my mind! Pics have been taken side by side and definatly sharper!
Click to expand...

Do it!! The Sigma is well worth it.

Some people will tell you to buy a Nikon lens just because its a Nikon, somehow that makes it the best.
 
f4af100uk said:
Thanks for all the input guys. Think I'm going to go for it.

The extra sharpness is definatly not in my mind! Pics have been taken side by side and definatly sharper!
Click to expand...

Is it though?

Remember, you are shooting Nikon, your mate is shootng Canon. The images you see in the back of your cameras are a jpeg that have already had some processing done to them by the camera. So you are looking at 2 jpegs processed by 2 different processors. How certain can you be?

I dont want this to sound all negative, because at the end of the day, the decision is obviously yours, so not really any of my business. I just think it would be a shame to discard a VERY capable lens in the Nikon 35mm to replace it with a much more expensive lens and end up being disappointed when the actual differences in the image quality are not going to jump out at you. Dont get me wrong, the Sigma is a lovely lens...

...just sayin'
 
Nikon_Nick said:
Is it though?

Remember, you are shooting Nikon, your mate is shootng Canon. The images you see in the back of your cameras are a jpeg that have already had some processing done to them by the camera. So you are looking at 2 jpegs processed by 2 different processors. How certain can you be?

I dont want this to sound all negative, because at the end of the day, the decision is obviously yours, so not really any of my business. I just think it would be a shame to discard a VERY capable lens in the Nikon 35mm to replace it with a much more expensive lens and end up being disappointed when the actual differences in the image quality are not going to jump out at you. Dont get me wrong, the Sigma is a lovely lens...

...just sayin'
Click to expand...

I appreciate your input and understand what your saying. This difference is noticeable in raw aswell once got on to the computer so not just on the little 3" screen.
I get what your saying about the Nikon vs Canon difference. I might compromise and get a Second hand sigma then if I'm not impressed I won't lose to much cash. Nothing ventured is nothing gained :)
 
Last edited:
Buy new and if it's a dud you can return it.

Is it the Art lens? You could also consider the 18-35mm f1.8. Unrivaled performance, sharpness and optical quality. It is like having a bag full of primes.
 
minnnt said:
You could also consider the 18-35mm f1.8. Unrivaled performance, sharpness and optical quality. It is like having a bag full of primes.
Click to expand...

Very good suggestion. If I was shooting APSC Id definitely go for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top