Hi guys
I went out and bought the Nikon 1.4G after reading this thread, many other sites and conducting my own shoot tests.

The Sigma is one phenomenal beast of a lens, a 77mm dia and 1/2Kg of weight, wow! The sheer amount of light it captures is amazing. The bokeh is indeed better on the Sigma. The build quality is also at par with Nikon if not better. My dealer (whom I trust) told me that this lens is a big hit with those shooting 1080 videos on Nikon bodies.

I chose the Nikon 1.4G because in my test shots it did provide better edge to edge sharpness, something I need when putting the subject away from the centre (happens often), also because I can't risk getting a bad apple Sigma lens (there are reports of this being a persistent problem) and finally cause I need a lighter 50mm, already have lotta heavy lenses. The bokehn is also pretty world class on it, though not as buttery as on the Sigma.

Right now I'm on D2x, once I move to an FF body (if the powers that be at Nikon decide to finally come out with a D800) I will need even better edge to edge sharpness. But if ever I get tired of the Nikon 1.4G or want to try a more "arty" product the Sigma 1.4 it'll be.

How about Zeiss 50mm. Has anyone used either the makro-plannar 50mm/f.2.0 or planner 50mm/1.4?

I had previously the Sigma 50/1.4 and sold it to get the Nikon 50/1.4G, mut say I am happy with Nikon. The sigma was big and heavy (even though it wasn't so much issue for me). The thing that bothered me most with Sigma was focusing, even with D7000 and adjusting the focus didn't work, if I changed the focus to be spot on in short distances it wasn't on longer and vice versa, with Nikon no issues, it just works.

Not saying the Sigma is bad, but with Nikon it is just no issues what so ever. I did actually have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and changed that to Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRII and happy with Nikon as well, but that was bit different since the Sigma wasn't the OSM version, but now with Nikon, it is amazingly sharp compared to Nikon. I used to believe that you can get same quality of pictures for less money with Sigma, but now I am only buying Nikon lenses, they just keep on not letting you down.

I have the 1.4D and to me the only other one of interest is the Sigma. The 1.4D is wonderfully small, the reason to change is to get the smoothness of the sigma and the 1.4g just sits in the middle. The lack of aperture ring is also a killer. One day, when the scratches get too bad, and the front element finally drops out of my battle scared D, i will probably try a sigma (and then buy another, cared for, D when i get tired of carrying the sigma about)

I wouldn't worry too much with the Sigma 50mm. Sigma's top notch lenses are really top notch. The 50mm & 85mm are probably the best of their line-up. There is a huge difference with the Gold ring Sigma's. That said, I would test the hell out of them right when I got it to make sure the focus is spot on.

Take a look on Flikr for for the sigma 50 to see the bokeh. I know I have ran across many x-mas light type photos.

Thanks for your comments here TaoTeJared. Guess I was looking for support in buying it but it's just not adding up. Another fear is that it would be a good copy to start but something would go wrong several months from now vs. the flawless track record I've had with Nikon lenses. I returned the one and only Sigma lens that I ever ordered due to inconsistent focusing issues (17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM).

The weight and size wouldn't be a problem but I'm picky too and don't think I want to put up with the CAs and cat's eyes bokeh since I'd be using it this Christmas for that very cool out of focus christmas light effect.

Thanks

Although I love my G the Sigma is really good an maybe slightly better at the bokeh. It is much better on FX but so is the G.

The reasons I didn't get it are really picky - really picky - but with these two so close it's all I could come up with. Here is why I didn't get it as the list is very long why to get it.
Cons:
-CAs are strong - usual Sigma purple and green.
-Size - not a big deal for most but I use my 50mm for a lot of street photography and the smaller the better.
-Heavy - this is a big bastard. Again traveling with 3-4 primes all day this is important to me.
-Bokeh - only thing I don't like is that it can have "cat's eyes" rather than perfect round. Not a big deal to most but just a preference of mine.
-Bad experiences with many Sigma's - None with Nikon.
-Much better on FX - I shoot DX.
-G was cheaper (at the time).

-I hate CAs this was my deal breaker as Nikon will not auto correct any other companies lenses. CAs in Bokeh is not easy to fix if you need to. A lot of times you get banding in the corrections. Just a thing I don't want to deal with.
The bokeh on the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G is more jittery to me which I'm a stickler for. Again really picky but I notice it.

I warned it was picky. Both are great lenses and the bokeh is great on both.

OK, I'm re-opening this thread - which had an interesting twist when it was re-opened a year after the initial opening.

Now that we're out in the open, has anyone here bought or tried the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM recently? I'm aware of the quality control issues with Sigma lenses so aside from that, many who get a good copy claim that it focuses faster, is actually sharp at f/1.4, and "bokeh-creamier" than the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G.
Any comments or observations appreciated. BTW, I've highly considered the new Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G but want the best bokeh on DX as possible.

(I've got a $80 account credit at Adorama that I'd like to use before it sits there too long and want a lens that offers something totally different from the norm)

Not sure why but some of my posts seem to not go through...

Digital rev tv has just posted a side by side review of these lenses on it's site.

Yes I have also owned both and can say that the build of the G is much better and more solid. You can't hear any noise when the lense is shaken (not a big deal) and the G focuses faster as well. The newer G lense has some distortion that can be easily fixed in Photoshop as well.

I eventually did away with both and went back to the 1.8 D because I was happier with the results and felt it was sharper. I've been tempted to try out the new 1.8 G but they are currently overpriced where I live because its such a new item. Right now its sitting at $300 in Korea. Iris maybe factor the 1.8 lenses into the equation besides the 1.4 D and G lenses.

adamz said:
check this:
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=30
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=1537
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=661
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=3318

Sorry... I will do a more thorough search of the forum before I post from now on.

TaoTeJared said:
Own both, used the 1.8 as well.

AF speed - works different between the two but are essentially the same. Since the G is faster, it can move past the focus point and hunt a bit in bad lighting. If it has a straight line to lock to, it is supper fast. In the real world trials, it is much faster.

AFS - Focus override - I love it especially with a 1.4 lens. Works on all current bodies where the AFD only will work with the D7000 and Up bodies.

Aperture ring - I use FE2-s and bought a 1.8 E series for $20. I don't miss the aperture ring at all.

Build - much better sealed (if you put a UV filter on - small gap in the focus of the lens by design to move in and out). I always get dust in my D version. It is larger but still not a big lens like the Sigma 50mm. It is a solid lens.

Sharpness - Better overall. Some people have had some and they said were soft. My guess it was early sample variations. Anyone, including myself, who I know who has purchased one in the last year says it is better than the old version.

The Largest difference is the Bokeh. AFD = Hexagon bokeh highlights and a bit jittery because of it. G = Round smooth bokeh highlights. This lens was designed to be a good portraiture lens for DX.

Overall impressions after 5 months, I'm selling my AFD without a second thought.

Thank you very much. This is the kind of comparison I needed. I most likely will get the 1.4G now. I don't like that the 1.4G might hunt more in low light (I used to own a 1.8 that did that all the time and used to drive me crazy) but I'm getting this lens for portraits and bokeh and sharpness are more important to me at this point.

TaoTeJared said:
Own both, used the 1.8 as well.

AF speed - works different between the two but are essentially the same. Since the G is faster, it can move past the focus point and hunt a bit in bad lighting. If it has a straight line to lock to, it is supper fast. In the real world trials, it is much faster.

AFS - Focus override - I love it especially with a 1.4 lens. Works on all current bodies where the AFD only will work with the D7000 and Up bodies.

Aperture ring - I use FE2-s and bought a 1.8 E series for $20. I don't miss the aperture ring at all.

Build - much better sealed (if you put a UV filter on - small gap in the focus of the lens by design to move in and out). I always get dust in my D version. It is larger but still not a big lens like the Sigma 50mm. It is a solid lens.

Sharpness - Better overall. Some people have had some and they said were soft. My guess it was early sample variations. Anyone, including myself, who I know who has purchased one in the last year says it is better than the old version.

The Largest difference is the Bokeh. AFD = Hexagon bokeh highlights and a bit jittery because of it. G = Round smooth bokeh highlights. This lens was designed to be a good portraiture lens for DX.

Overall impressions after 5 months, I'm selling my AFD without a second thought.

nice review TTJ

thanks

Own both, used the 1.8 as well.

AF speed - works different between the two but are essentially the same. Since the G is faster, it can move past the focus point and hunt a bit in bad lighting. If it has a straight line to lock to, it is supper fast. In the real world trials, it is much faster.

AFS - Focus override - I love it especially with a 1.4 lens. Works on all current bodies where the AFD only will work with the D7000 and Up bodies.

Aperture ring - I use FE2-s and bought a 1.8 E series for $20. I don't miss the aperture ring at all.

Build - much better sealed (if you put a UV filter on - small gap in the focus of the lens by design to move in and out). I always get dust in my D version. It is larger but still not a big lens like the Sigma 50mm. It is a solid lens.

Sharpness - Better overall. Some people have had some and they said were soft. My guess it was early sample variations. Anyone, including myself, who I know who has purchased one in the last year says it is better than the old version.

The Largest difference is the Bokeh. AFD = Hexagon bokeh highlights and a bit jittery because of it. G = Round smooth bokeh highlights. This lens was designed to be a good portraiture lens for DX.

Overall impressions after 5 months, I'm selling my AFD without a second thought.

check this:
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=30
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=1537
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=661
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=3318

I tried to do a forum search and I wasn't able to find any comparison specific to these two lenses.

Does anyone own or got the chance to test both? I'm contemplating either one at this point. At about $100 less the 1.4D is more attractive but other than the AF-S and lack of aperture ring are there any other differences between the two? I'm looking specifically for optical and performance -wise differences. I've looked at the MTF charts for both which suggest better performance of 1.4G when wide open but I was wondering if anybody had any hands on experience with both lenses.

EDIT: Did not mean to post this in DSLR. Admin, can you move discussion under lenses? Thanks

well consider the 50 1.8G before you do. . .if you don't mind slightly mushier bokeh?

i have the Sigma 50 1.4
i like it , but speed AF is not worth the weight of the lense.

im gonna trade it for the Nikon 50mm 1.4G

Niko
I take issue with the fact you are labeled the Terminator and I'm not cool enough to get a snazzier title. . .

:-(

maybe something like "Resident Lingham". . .

Okay, I just realized I misread clillja's post. Sorry about that.

You're right, you are no mod. Go back and reread the my post and clillja's response. The "issue" was that clillja's tone made it seems as if poster was lazy and hadn't done a search for reviews of the Sigma lens. I was merely pointing out that the original question was posted over a year ago when there were no reviews of the lens. Clillja himself admitted he was going to post a more "trenchant" response to posters question. So the "issue" wasn't that he revived this old thread but that he (clillja) didn't notice this was NOT a recent discussion.

As I remember correctly NSX, just recently you were "complaining" about all of the repeating threads and how "slow" the forum was, but now apparently you also take "issue" with how we "moderate" threads too. Next time feel free to email me if you take issue with something I say or do.

NikoDoby said:
Clillja you do realize that the original question was posted over a year ago right? At the time the Sigma lens was new and reviews weren't up yet.

NikoDoby- I'm no mod, but I don't find any issues with raising up old threads as long as the poster is either bringing up a good point or brings up relevant discussion. At least he didn't start a new thread.

I did a shoot test between the 50G, 50AIS, 50F1.8, my 35-70 F2.8@50mm and my 18-200. The 50G is amazing! Really surprised that the 50AIS was almost as amazing! and in fact I liked the colour from the AIS :-)(only problem is its manual focus ) I should do a write up and post some time :-) .. If you don't have a 50mm and want one aim for the 50G Its probably the best of the lot at the moment.. IQ is amazing and AF speed and accuracy is so sweet. (Did not test the 50D though. will have to find one a try that out. ) Didn't like the 50f1.8 but for the price and sharpness its almost a must have lens. Bokeh is worst than the 35-70. but not as bad as the 18-200. Flare wise the old lenses were not good. even the 18-200 beat the AIS and 35-70 and was close to the F1.8

I shot with the 50mm G and wasn't impressed enough to dump my current 1.4mm D. The 1.4 D is spectacular so why bother dropping $500 on a newer version? If the G blew away say the new 50mm Leica Summicron then that would be a different story. $500 for the new G or half the money ($250) for equally great D I think its a no-brainer. Heck even the 1.8 is an absolute steal! The only better deal for a Nikkor lens would have to be the 28-80mm G lens at $70-$110.

NikoDoby said:
Clillja you do realize that the original question was posted over a year ago right? At the time the Sigma lens was new and reviews weren't up yet.

Sorry Niko. Glad I didn't post the more trenchant response that I composed. Sometimes very old "related threads" come up when posting on current threads and I assume they are still relevant. My bad, I will check before posting next time.