Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras ships tomorrow (7/18/2008)

yes, but isn’t the AF-S (HSM) suppose to be faster and not so noisy? AF-S is suppose to be future proof – isn’t Nikon moving in that direction? 

again, there is another reason – I think Nikon is moving towards AF-S future, so getting the lens now makes it compatible in the future

Almost all Nikon lenses are backwards compatible – I think Canon changed their mount few years ago, so if you have an old canon lens, you cannot use it today (without a converter).

actually, BH Photo can send stuff to us here, but they don’t send nikon pro bodies (DXXX or DX), it takes about 20 days to arrive, and they are taxed about 35% over retail price. still a aceptable option.

BUT, i live right next to paraguay (80 miles from here) , and the prices there are about 10~30% more than US, (you can find only nikon/canon gear a bit of sony alpha bodies, a bit of sigma lenses, and that’s it) i get all my stuff there, but hoping not to get busted on the return home. hahaha! =D

Actually, I’d buy this forr the HSM, much nicer than the in camera motor. It also wouldn’t suprise me if build and IQ were near identicle.

I’m sorry, but what? What are you talking about? You bought a D40. The Sigma 50mm 1.4 is 500 dollars. That’s 200 more than the Nikon 50mm f/1.4. The reason the Nikkors are so popular is because they are a steal for their quality and build. If this was a real issue, you should have bought a D80 and then a Nikkor 50mm 1.4 for the extra 100 bucks it would have cost you.

Nikon isn’t Canon. They aren’t a huge company. They can barely put out enough cameras to match demand. Where you think they will magically find engineers to devote to lenses which are already perfectly functional and bestsellers is beyond me.

Ah, ok. Then that’s completely different. I apologize. I just assumed you lived in the US or where D80 and D40s were relatively close together.

Well the general feeling among photographers is that Canon is a much larger corporation. They have about 8x as many employees as Nikon and make an annual revenue that is about 5x as much as Nikon. This is because they aren’t strictly camera makers and most of their revenue actually comes from other electronics they produce, but this added revenue affords them more factories, engineers, and opportunities. For example, when Canon releases a pro line body (1d series), there is no line and supply is usually met within a week. When Nikon releases pro line cameras, they release them first to the “pros” who have already owned a D# camera and then to the general public because they have problems fulfilling immediate demand. This is also evident in lenses.

As for engineers, Nikon has chosen to go a different route with their lenses. They produce few lenses that they believe will last a long time and have superior quality. Canon produces many lenses (take the 70-200 as an example — there are four current versions of it available: 2.8, 2.8IS, 4, 4IS) that overlap and hope that the market will buy the one that fits their needs. This difference in strategy also gives Canon a better list of primes (50mm f/1, f/1.2, etc). Canon tends to go for speed while Nikon focuses on specialty lenses (PC-E, DC, Micro, etc) because (I believe) they feel that speed will be overcome with greater sensor capabilities but you will never have a sensor that can mimic PC-E or DC lenses. Anyways… the point is that the different goals of each company means Nikon will have less engineers than Canon since they don’t need to pound out a new lens every week and also that the company will not focus on lenses which it feels are already performing well (the 50mm f/1.8 and f/1.4 are bestsellers by any standard).

Do I think the 50mm f/1.4 needs an update? Not really, but I can understand why. However, if you compare the Canon 50 f/1.4 USM to the Nikon 50 f/1.4 without the motor, the Canon is $50 more and not even close to as sharp when wide open (slrgear.com for tests). Would I give up the sharpness of the 50 for USM? Not a chance.