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)

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.

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.

Poster, it does show thqat he's looking back through old posts - something we sometimes complain that people are not doing. And why are you getting down on a necroist? After all, he may be a mortician or coroner or something.

You sir just received the Honorary Situational Awareness Award.

Thank you for replying to a necro thread.

Thank you for playing.

@poster said: "There hasn't been done a nice comprehensive comparative review of these two lenses, so I thought that maybe..."

Thom Hogan, Bjorn Rorslett, dpreview and Photozone.de all have serious reviews of two or more of these lenses (Nikon 50/1.8D, 50/1.4D, 50/1.4G, and Sigma 50/1.4, not to mention the Zeiss ZF 50/1.4). So get reading, compare (easy enough, since many of the reviews are done with similar, if not identical methodology), and draw your own conclusions.

I had 1.4D before, but I decided to sell it for the AF-S. And the 1.8 is good for my street photography. But the Bokeh on 1.4D version was beautifully creamy.

Got 50mm 1.4D and I love it all the way : )
but I have to say if you on a budget get 1.8 you can barely see the different s and its half the price

I played with Sigma for about 10 min, its a bit slower and bigger...thats all I can say : )

Yeah, I noticed that it's a little soft at wide open, but by f2 it's a razor sharp.
I am still curious at the difference of bokeh between Sigma and Nikon. And I most definetifely won't pay +$500 for it.

The supply BS of Nikon is really pissing me off.

the Nikon is DEF worth the $$$

I got mine pre-ordered fgor $394 from JR. . .AMAZING prime wide open, works on both my film and digital body too.

Yes, it can be soft at f/1.4, but by f/2.0 it's WOAH. . .but that's to be expected of a prime 50 f/1.4

The nikon is also smaller and lighter than the Sigma (when I tested it). . .which was important to me, because in my bag, I have a 35 1.8G, 50 1.4G, and several zooms to weigh me down, don't need extra heft!

But for around the town shooting, I usually only take my 35mm 1.8G and 50 mm 1.4G. . .and good thing is there is very minimal LOCA and/or funky fringing in the bokeh areas, and less nervous bokeh as well when compared to my 35 1.8G. . .

I personally wouldn't pay more than $350 for one, and yes, I got mine early and ate the early entry fee ($44 premium). . .it's ABSURD what the 50 1.4G is going though right now, some sites are selling them for $695. . .don't fall for it, Nikon is doing the same old Supply Demand B.S. with hiked up lens prices, just wait it out. . .