There hasn't been done a nice comprehensive comparative review of these two lenses, so I thought that maybe some of the member here might have one of these two lenses, and could give their opinion on it.
Nikon 50mm 1.4 G or Sigma 50mm 1.4 HSM- Reviews/Pros-Cons
(30 posts) (19 voices)-
Posted 4 years ago #
-
There is a review in the UK's amateur photographer magazine. I call bullshit though because they give the Sigma the plaudits by 2% even though they acknowledge the Nikkor is sharper and has less aberrations (at least that's how I remember it). They got all excited over the fact that the Nikkor vignetts more than the Sigma and punished them for it, despite the fact that Nikon will probably build improved vignette-control into all of their future FX cameras, and maybe even manufacture sensors that are less fussy about the angle of light.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I have the Nikon 1.4G. Got it a few weeks back. Not worth the money. The sole reason I say that is I can't use it at 1.4 because the quality is so poor. At all other F stops the lens is great and sharp and a nice contrast. But at wide open (1.4) it becomes so soft that it is by far the worse of my lenses at their wide open (18-200 VR, 17-55/2.8 and 70-200/2.8).
The build quality is good. But I had the 1.8 and sold it for this. I was hoping to gain better autofocus speed and accuracy as well as the extra stop. Well the lens does not focus any faster than my old 1.8 and since I can't shoot anything of quality @ 1.4 ... it was a waste of money. I should have gotten the 1.4D and saved my $.
I called the place I purchased from and they said I would have to pay a restock fee (that their supplier sets) to return it and try another. So I am sitting on the fence over it. I want a 1.4 that shoots well (not excellent ... just well) @ wide open.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I have tested the Sigma vs. the 1.4G, 1.4D and 1.8D. I chose the G over the Sigma due to better wide open sharpness in the corners + the lesser weight and bulk. The Sigma renders a somewhat softer bokeh at wide apertures. The G focussing collar rotates ca. 200 degrees from close to infinity whereas the Sigma does the same over 90 degrees: this makes manual focus more accurate on the Nikkor.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I should update my comment to say that I have learned more about ultra fast lenses and their wide open characteristics. I may have been overly critical of my 50mm 1.4 G. I have looked at a couple of review sites (Nikon 50m 1.4G and Sigma 50m 1.4) and the 100% crop samples weren't any different than mine. I had expected more at wide open as my 17-55/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 are both greate at wide open.
Anyways ... the lens is very well built, has a nice feel and weight and my cut is wicked sharp at F2 through to its smallest @ F16.
I still think I paid to much as the 1.4D is 60% the cost.
Posted 4 years ago # -
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. . .
Posted 4 years ago # -
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.
Posted 4 years ago # -
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 priceI played with Sigma for about 10 min, its a bit slower and bigger...thats all I can say : )
Posted 4 years ago # -
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.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
You sir just received the Honorary Situational Awareness Award.
Thank you for replying to a necro thread.
Thank you for playing.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Okay, I just realized I misread clillja's post. Sorry about that.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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". . .
Posted 3 years ago # -
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
Posted 2 years ago # -
well consider the 50 1.8G before you do. . .if you don't mind slightly mushier bokeh?
Posted 2 years ago # -
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)
Posted 1 year ago # -
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.
Posted 1 year ago # -
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
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
