The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art lens for Nikon mount is finally shipping


credit: Erich Satran from Austria

The new Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art lens for Nikon mount is finally shipping to existing Amazon and B&H pre-orders:


This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • yoyo

    first – yo !

    • Gay

      What a great day for you.

  • They missed my estimated delivery date by 2 weeks! Jerks. But seriously I’m looking forward to using this lens. I might actually find a 50mm that I am happy with..

    • Me

      Two weeks in something that’s going to have a life of several years is not the end of the world. It may have been for legitimate reasons or for reasons beyond their control such as getting a better deal on international shipping insurance because marine costs fluctuate and one per cent of a gazillion dollars can add up.

      My issue is that — please no-one howl before reading in full, Sigma has had some longevity issues with their mechanics. If they took an extra two weeks to sort that, then really they should be applauded.

      Nikon’s pro lenses last forever. Sure, their cameras have had some issues recently and I am no expert in Nikon’s kit and consumer lenses, but I own several of the G series lenses and they’re built for daily use. I look forward, with interest, in seeing how his new batch of products finds a place in the market.

      • Rory

        I know several pros that have run in to reliability issues with Nikons pro lenses. Additionally their service and customer experience were atrocious.

        I shoot Nikon, but am a bit disenfranchised by the issues people have had with their service centers.

      • Cos

        David, could you please let us know what G lenses you are so excited about.

        • I own or have owned all of Nikons G lenses minus the 300mm+ primes. So I guess to answer the question I’m excited to try the 800mm

      • You obviously missed the sarcasm in my post… Damn internet.

    • I’d be interested to learn which 50mm lenses you’ve tried and, particularly, in which ways you’ve been unhappy.

      • Nikon 50 1.4G/D, Nikon 50 1.2, Nikon 58 1.4G, Nikon 50 1.8G, Sigma 1.4.

        The best I would say in my experience was the Sigma until it not severe body moisture and then the focus was crazy. But all the Nikon 50’s I’ve owned have been poop.

        • If you didn’t like them, you didn’t like them – neither I nor anyone else can argue against that. Still, I’m very surprised you didn’t like the 50mm f/1.2 – I also didn’t see the 50mm f/1.8 D on your list (I’ve yet to meet a photographer that would call it poop). Anyway, I hope the new Sigma is 3x better than the old one (coz it’s 3x more expensive). 9x more expensive than the 50mm f/1.8 D.

          • We haven’t met, but I never liked the 50/1.8D. For all the hype the 50/1.4D was always superior to the 1.8. People would insanely insist that the 1.8 was actually better optically than the 1.4. Other than price, the 1.8 is inferior in every way. Unless it happens to be the one in your bag and you can’t afford better, the 1.4D is better. And the G is a step better than that.

            I’ve never used nor seen images from a 50/1.8D that didn’t have more softness, more LoCA, more CA…more bad optical issues than either 50/1.4D I owned. The 1.8 was just a worse lens.

            Totally usable, but not magic. And not “better” than anything in particular, at anything in particular.

            In my opinion, the previous Sigma 50 wasn’t all that either. I really like my 50G. I can see where other lenses are superior, but they’re not superior enough in ways that entice me to upgrade.

            • Michael Sloan

              +1000, I owned the 50/1.4D and was totally disappointed at close focus distances, it was soft and had a weird distortion effect. I bought the 50/1.4G and although better, it didn’t deserve the hype it received. I’m still looking for the perfect 50mm, at first I thought the newer 58/1.4G was going to be my only hope in this range, but now Sigma has given me something else to consider. My only concern is the quality deviations that Sigma is known for. I might have to go to a pro shop that has 3 or 4 of them and test shoot them all till I find one I like.

  • joey jo jo

    this lens was nothing short of spectacular when i had a quick looky look at it last night. the 24 105 was equally as impressive…
    really keen to go back and buy both
    great work sigma

  • TailSpin

    “Finally” ?
    The release of the D300s replacement could justly be described as finally if it ever happens, but in respect of this Sigma that’s rather carping.

    • umeshrw

      Oh yes. Replacement of D300s is going to happen sooner than we think as 7d2 is coming in august( according to canonrumours).

      • Flying Pigs!

        Oh well, if Canonrumours says the 7DII is due August (wasn’t the last guess March and before that December ’13?) then the D400, D9300 or whatever must be an absolute certainty. No doubt the production line is rolling as we squabble.

        • umeshrw

          This is different apparently. They are giving some units to photographers for use at FIFA.

          • Fed, watered & ready to fly

            Nope, just the same. Supposedly some 7DII were going to snappers at the winter Olympics.
            No show.

          • Kynikos

            Yep. Instead of suffering through the bad football in the poorer group games wondering why more proper teams aren’t present, I’m going to be looking for new gear among the photographers forced to work those matches.

  • coloring

    Artsy black and white box!

  • DuncanM

    I really want one, but not for a grand. I think I’d rather have a 58/1.4 for a bit more.

    • Noor

      No, you don’t. I have the 58/1.4, and it’s nothing like it’s Noct brother. Decent performance at night, but not worth $1700. The reviews online are much the same.

      This Sigma I’m genuinely interested as the first Pro level AF 50mm. If they finally have worked out their QC issues, I’ll be so very happy!

      • DuncanM

        You should sell me yours then…since you don’t like it all that much.

      • lichtspieler

        I actually got a mint Noct 58mm and the 58G. I did many comparisons between my mint Noct and the 58G (some still on my flickr-stream) and there is no big difference between the 2 lenses.

        In addition the 58G got AF, TTL BL distance reading for my flashes and AF+ flash AF illumination (for even 100% darkness).

        I use ND filters to push shutter speed <1/250 in broad daylight for some flash/sunbacklight madness and such things are nearly impossible with the Noct, since you just wont see through the 1000x ND Filters to focus anything in movement.

        TLDR: stop the 58G bashing, It is a fun toy for men

        • Rafa R

          Nice to hear good things about the 58G, info on the web isn’t saying good things about it much, either they are bashing on it big time.. or where there´s smoke there´s fire, but nice to see some people standing up for it.

          • Me

            Lots of people bash gear they don’t own. The closest I have come to as an explanation is reverse snobbery.

        • Neopulse

          Pricey filters at that size and if they are of quality even more.

        • clifflwms

          I don’t own the NOCT, but I did purchase the 58G. No regrets! it’s one of my favorites. Ignore the “reviews”, just rent one and give it a try.

      • Steve Griffin

        I dunno about “first” as my Pentax DA*55/1.4 is bitingly sharp on my K-5 despite what DXO says. Lenstip has a pretty decent set of MTF’s for most 50’s to prove it. I returned my Nikkor 50/1.4G ASAP.. low contrast junk.

        Yes I know a ’55 is “not” a ’50. The old Sigma 50/1.4 is really 47 so let’s not quibble.

        I’ll try out the new Sigma and may replace my current “old” version for my D800e’s but it’ll be more than resolution that sways me if I do.

      • Neopulse

        How is it decent performance? It has better optics (besides the extra aspherical), nano-coating, weather sealed, good weight and size especially, fast AF, a fast aperture and $1000s less. Yeah, I’m gonna stick to the 58mm f/1.4G. Even though I’m selling one, it’s a great lens and it’s something one should look out for.

      • Kynikos

        You’ve said a lot in very few words! Expanding:

        1) The “old” Sigma 50 1.4 is just fine–as long as you get a proper copy.

        2) The Nikon 58s are very specialized tools. The Sigma 50s (and Nikon 50s) are geared to do many different things well.

        3) If I were starting today I think I’d be all over this new Sigma. But I have too many 50s/58s as is.

        Where we disagree is that I’m finding I’m getting good results from 58/1.4 especially in situations where AF gives me a 30% chance at the shot instead of a 5% chance with MF.

        • The old Sigma is “fine” (mind you not great) if you got a proper copy and it doesn’t melt down after a couple years. The AF drive is made of pixie dust that evaporates if you sneeze on it.

          I sure hope the drive in this new lens is more robust, because the optics appear to warrant nothing but the best!

      • Julian

        But, the bokeh!!!

    • Anto de Chav

      Why??the Sigma is better..

      • Kynikos

        how do you know it’s better?

        • Anto de Chav

          Because a pal of mine runs a large camera shop and has both of them to test..

      • Mansgame

        Why buy a Hyundai when you can have a BMW?

        • Dpablo unfiltered

          To save money for a camera?

        • Jorge

          Well they are both pieces of crap but at least when the Hyundai breaks (and it will soon) the parts/labor are cheaper than the german junk.
          And yes, i’ve OWNED, not leased BMW and Audi.
          And No. I’ve never have owned a Hyundai, and never, ever will.

  • phil999

    I’ve had mine for a week here in the UK. Very impressed with it so far.

    • Sina Bahrami

      Is there anywhere in London where they have it in stock?

  • rt-photography

    I couldnt be happier sigma is (finally. Where the hell were u till now) stepping up and delivering quality stuff. It puts pressure on nikon. I think here with the price it works agaibst them though. I wouldnt pay a grand for a simple 50 1.4. I dont care how good it is. No one will know you shot with a 50 1.8g or This sigma. But i salute them for the effort. Bravo sigma.

    • Photo-Jack

      Hi RT
      I wish you were right and good 3rd party products could put Nikon under pressure to deliver good stuff. Unfortunately the past showed, that these are either ignored or Nikon purues some strange paradigms, like with its 58/1.4 (to me this would not even be a viable alternative to Nikon’s standard 50mm.
      Samyangs 14mm ist better than Nikon’s albeit DxO mark test are a story for themselves. But Samyangs 24 PC left Nikon cold and did not push them to bring out an im proved verion with dual axis movement. They rather seem to be willing to compete in the fast tele market with Canon.
      I bet we’ll see a similar race with a 135mm lens. Zeiss marked the bar but for Nikon it seems to be sufficient to issue patent in order than no other can take chance.

      All the f2.8 lenses are from the last century, but Nikon deceided to pursue only fast lenses, and didn’t do even that well like the Sigma 35/1.4 shows. However it seems that it have escaped them, that 1.4 lenses have their peak performance at f 2.8 or 4.0. Shallow DOF is not everything! Hello Nikon, you have customers who want right the opposite!
      Hey Nikon, wake upand start producing, what customers want to buy instead of the 120 th iteration of P&S or Nikon 1.

      • Me

        > and didn’t do even that well like the Sigma 35/1.4 shows

        Shows what exactly? DXO mark and the rest measure sharpness as THE single most important metric for determining a lens’s value. Well, sharpness is the easiest thing to measure on a lens, so of course people exaggerate its importance.

        To be specific, the sharpness test is of a flat target, at one focal distance, in black and white. It doesn’t measure the slope of into and out of focus zone, flare handling, saturation, colour cast, weird tonal aberrations at some point in the spectrum (every lens has at least one). Bit hey, if you’re planning of using the lens to take photos of chessboards in flat light, we know what to do!

        Sato, the lens designer of Nikkor’s 35mm 1.4 said very specifically that he made the lens to capture skin tones, not be a chart topper.

        And yet, we have people screaming blue murder in photography fora that this or that lens is sh*t because they don’t understand just how restricted the value of a sharpness test is. It’s like saying a meal is good because of one item on the plate. Optical design is about managing trade offs.

        In short, I believe people talk about sharpness because they don’t know about optics.

        • DuncanM

          This guy gets it.

        • longzoom

          Sharp lens means it was assembled up to the specs of the manufacturer technology. I’ve seen a lot of decentered to some degree brand new optics, believe me. Of course there are a lot of soft lenses designed to that purpose, make difference. Take a look at this very sharp 100% crop, 28-300 Nikkor, D800. DXO test value this lens among the worse – they got a bad sample for test.

          • longzoom

            Click on image to magnify. Do not forget it is 100% crop.

            • DuncanM

              I wouldn’t call that bitingly sharp or anything in all honesty. Yes, its sharp, but not leading the pack.

            • saywhatuwill

              I bet if he didn’t say what lens it was you would have had a different opinion. If he had lied and said it came from a Leica I’m sure everyone’s tune would have been different.

            • longzoom

              Hah, how do you know that? I did some unintentional mistake to post this 24×36″ print among some scene decorations images taken with S camera to show to The Boss (hah) to obtain her final decision – what to post. Nobody was able to tell it from the Leica! My sheer compliment to your eyes! THX!

            • saywhatuwill

              How funny cause I didn’t know. I was just using it as an example.

            • longzoom

              One word only – “Exactly!”.

          • Spy Black

            Well, that’s a bit hazy, although you can probably compensate for that using Lightroom’s or Photoshop’s clarity process. What F-stop is that? What do the edges of the image look like?

            • longzoom

              It doesn’t need any clarification or compensation – it is baby image. Tonality – what is the main goal here. And do not forget – 28-300 lens, 100% crop. Come on, Gentlemen!

            • Spy Black

              Well, I’m not looking at “a baby image”, I’m looking at what the lens brings to the table. It’s a bit hazy. You can see around the strands of hair. It’s something that to me can be compensated for, but it is what it is. Again, what F-stop is that, and what does the image edges look like?

            • longzoom

              F8.0, coze anything wider is eating alive by D800/e sensor. Edges are great – go to Nikon Café, under the same name I’ve already posted dozens and dozens images. Please do. One of the greatest lenses, if you got good copy – sample variation is huge.

            • longzoom

              BTW, one more crop of 100%. Everything else is the same.

            • Spy Black

              Yeah, I’m no friend of long zooms, but I’m glad you’re satisfied with yours. No search criteria at Café, BTW.

            • longzoom

              Nikon Cafe – like this, no apostrophe, sorry. THX.

            • paulski

              “Sample variation is huge” and “anything wider than f8.0 is eaten alive by D800/e sensor” automatically discounts a lens from “one of the greatest in its class” status, imho.

            • longzoom

              Of course, you are correct, just prove it. You are able to see crops made by me, and check exif data of the last image at Flickr, or Nikon Cafe. So you should post the crop of 100% made by ANY lens, and made it better, then we compare. Without it the situation on your side looks like “Blah-blah”… Much easy to criticize than do something, so I discount your post automatically, till you make it better.

          • Cos

            DxO is crap.

            • longzoom

              I think it is not, but they must work with bad copies, sometime.

            • Me

              It may be that DXO’s in a difficult spot. The review everything but I suspect that it is mostly consumers and not pros who spend time at their site. Consequently, sharpness may be extremely important in kit and consumer lenses where the trade offs are significant.

              In other words their methodology may be very good for one audience but they use it on all gear, and advanced hobbyists, pro/ams, and low complexity pros may not be best served by this approach.

              In comparison, Lens Rental seems to take in a much more nuanced view of lenses, and even forgiving one as not every lens is good for every type of pro. They also look extensively at build quality.

              The above opinions are just that, opinions. If reading the above made your eyes bleed, I am sorry.

        • Spy Black

          “In short, I believe people talk about sharpness because they don’t know about optics.”

          I believe you don’t want to accept Sigma has a superior lens to Nikon.

          • DuncanM

            Completely subjective. Thanks for proving his point though.

            • Spy Black

              Completely subjective. Thanks for proving mine.

          • Me

            If you want, I’ll say that the 35 Sigma (from what I’ve read) has more sharpness than the competing Nikkor 35 1.4G.

            However, let me ask you some questions. How’s the Sigma’s ability to hold contrast and saturation in the out of focus portions of the image? (As things are out of focus, they lose contrast. In fact, this is how one of the AF systems in your camera detects if something is in focus.) The Nikkor 35’s ability to hold saturation in out of focus areas is INCREDIBLE.

            How’s the Sigma’s flare reduction? I’d say that Nikkor’s flare Nano stuff has got everyone’s beat hands down.

            How’s the build quality? Nikkor’s pro lenses are made for daily use which is why (sob) they cost so much. Sigma’s pro lenses have (and I think this is fair) had issues with their mechanicals.

            Lenses have quirks. They do weird things to he spectrum. Sato of Nikon apparently aims for excellent reproduction of skin tones. Sigma may choose to emphasize another area of the spectrum. Or they may not care at all and aim for an average. What do you prefer?

            As a comparison. I own the Nikkor Design Team 2 created 35mm 1.4 and the Design Team 1 created 24mm 1.4G. The latter has a lot of built in contrast and you really need to pull back the black levels in Lightroom, as such, I prefer the 35 for people shots because it’s gentler on skin.

            What choices has Sigma made?

            See what I mean. Sharpness is one consideration of many. It’s a factor and even an important one, but its one factor. It’s a bit like being obsessed with big breasts and forgetting that that the woman standing being them matters too.

            • Spy Black

              Well your comment seemed like it was derailing what is obviosly a great lens. No two lenses are going to look alike, and personal preferences will dictate which one you’ll choose. Overall I’ve yet to see something Nikkor does better than the Sigma, at least from what I’ve seen of both lenses.

            • Steve Griffin

              I’ve owned the Sigma 35/1.4 and I still own my Nikon 35/1.4G. The bokeh on the Nikon is far superior in every respect as I felt the OOF foregrounds of the Sigma were fractured and busy.

              The Sigma had better control of aberrations but, all things considered, the 1.4G is a better lens for my usage. OOF specular highlights of the sigma are loops, donuts or galaxy rings, whatever you want to call it, whereas the OOF parts of 35/1.4G images look naturally OOF and not some sub atomic map from the LHC.

              Resolution is only part of the story of a lens as the overall aesthetic is much more important where “art” is the object.

            • Robert

              Thank you Steve for sharing your hands on experience. The images I have seen from both lenses so far make me prefer the Nikon 35/1.4G over the Sigma 35/1.4. I agree that resolution is far from the only important aspect to lenses and lens designs. IMHO the Nikon has much nicer bokeh and OOF rendering than the Sigma.

            • fred

              Bad bokeh is bad bokeh at any price. As you say, there is more to consider than sharpness alone.
              ‘That Nikon Guy’, Matt Granger, tested all the Nikon 50′ primes together and the best colour saturation by far was,surprisingly the 30 year old 50 f1.2.!

            • saywhatuwill

              In the old days Nikkors were developed to try to be consistent across the focal lengths, meaning colors and contrast would remain consistent from lens to lens. That was important for slide film and for people who needed to know exactly what they were going to get. Today it appears Nikon figured it doesn’t really matter if the colors and contrast are consistent from lens to lens probably because of the post processing people do on their computers.

            • silmasan

              I often find Sigma 35/1.4 Art’s bokeh distracting as well. And I’m glad that the new 50 Art seems to be way better in this regard. “Natural” OOF look has a lot to do with the evenness of the light transmission across the image circle, and the new 50 A got it just right. This is their first “Art” lens where the moniker is justified, IMO.

        • JR

          I certainly agree with your circumspect view here. Lens forums have become increasingly myopic in their focus on sharpness (apologies for the barrage of unintentional optical puns). That said, I don’t love the Nikon 35 as an optic. It suffers from a significant amount of LoCa and the purple fringing that results from the axial aberrations demands more post production and affects more than sharpness after retouching. All that being said, pleasing color rendition and micro contrast are at the heart of most of the greats out there. I just don’t feel this is one of them.

          • Me

            My experience with the 35 and the 24 is that the 24 hides the LoCA by cranking the contrast. The side effect of this is ever image coming out of the 24 mm has a lot of contrast.

            The LoCA in the 35 is more visible when shooting wide in brightly light scenes but very gentle easily automated PP sweeps it out. This leaves one the option of cranking the contrast, or leaving the 35 mm as is. The result is that there’s a sameness to images generated by the 24; the 35 can more easily be made to look different depending on how you treat the image.

            (Hey, where are the D700 moonies?)

        • Cos

          Me, it looks like you are commenting on Sigma 35 1.4 art. Do you have or used one? If not, I suggest you do as this lens is really good. And i do not mean sharpens only, also micro contrast, (very) low CA, etc.

        • Michiel953

          I fully agree. I’ve got the 35/1.4G, had to get used to its quirks, but it really is a great lens; could well be a classic.

          Oh, and it’s sharp as well… 😉

        • Photo-Jack

          “Optical design is about managing trade offs.”

          I also agree with your critique on DxOmark. Nevertheless, there are sufficient sources reporting e.g. about the Otus and also the Sigma 35/1.4. This doesn’t mean to say that I’d consider Sigmas 35 as the ideal lens for me. But the Nikon 35/1.4 at this price point is sure not!
          I’d rather have a 2.8 lens maximizing (corner-)sharpness, microcontrast and absence of distortion
          And what Nikon had chosen to trade off in many ocasions, is a point of my critique. They seem to have listened too much to wedding photographers.

          Not all, who are ready to spent money on a certain focal length are interested in shallow DOF but prefer to have the peak performance at, say, f8.0, not all want to maximize bokeh at any costs resectively trade-offs (=> 58/1.4). Not everyone’s priority is to max out skin tones. (whereby it is not clear to me, why if a lens with a high color accuracy should have bad skin tones)

          And my impression is, that these people are increasingly given up on by Nikon.

      • Spy Black

        I hope Samyang puts out a 135mm f/2.

        • Arne

          Without AF?

          • Spy Black

            Haven’t seen them make an AF lens yet. 😉

        • Kynikos

          The more 135/2s, the merrier.

      • rt-photography

        buddy youre all over the place. PC 24mm, 14mm, samyang zeiss.

        im talking about sigma making an effort and putting out products that ARE stressing nikon. bottom line, their stock is the lowest its been since 3 years.

      • Cos

        In order to change things at Nikon you need to change the management (and owners).

    • Spy Black

      “I wouldnt pay a grand for a simple 50 1.4.”
      Except it’s anything but.

      • rt-photography

        we are all entitled to our opinion. you think its a great lens and it seems that way to me as well. just not a grand great. no matter how shiny that A is on the lens.

      • Me

        Just because you can’t afford something doesn’t mean it’s overpriced.

        • Spy Black

          I didn’t make that comment.

          • Me

            My error, sir!

        • rt-photography

          No one said anything about not affording it and you should not assume. otherwise youre making an ass of yourself.

          I buy according to worth. the fact thats its performance is good doesnt make it worth the price. I wouldnt buy the 50 1.4g because I dont see a reason to buy it since the 1.8g is sharper and the af is much faster so while its better in low light, its not relevant since I the lens wouldnt be able to focus fast enough for me. it also costs twice as much and isnt as sharp as the 1.8g, so see no reason to buy it.

          theres only certain amount of money I would invest in a 50 1.4 because I dont believe its a focal length I want to invest in. id invest in a lens like the 14-24 AFS, which I did, and 70-200 VR2 because its worth it over the sigma or tamron 70-200 2.8 but a 50 1.4 for a grand? no way. $600 would be the most Id pay for a 50 1.4

          • fred

            This 50mm f1.4 is one third cheaper than Nikon’s 85mm f1.4, and just as good. I don’t hear anyone complaining about the Nikon 85mm f1.4 price.

            • rt-photography

              yea I hear you. but I wouldnt buy the 85 1.4g. the 1.8 is sharper than it and since I usually shoot only from 2.2, the 1.8g is just stellar. same with the 50 g’s the 1.8 is sharper and has faster autofocus.

  • broxibear

    Here’s one of the few reviews out there so far

  • Aldo

    pay all that extra money for a fancy 50mm to put it on a d800 instead of a d800e?

    • DuncanM

      Marginal difference in sharpness, definitely not $600 worth of difference.

      • Mansgame

        Same can be said for this lens vs. a Nikon 50mm 1.4G…

  • Royl

    I don’t believe it is over-priced, and I believe it will yield very sharp images. I also believe it is a big hunk of metal that just doesn’t fit the role of a 50mm lens. The 35mm f1.4 was much the same. I bought it, and I liked the results. However, I did not like the way it handled. It was like having a 24-70mm mounted, and I guess this 50mm will be the same. Sharpness has passed the point of “over-rated”. There are other things to consider.

  • koenshaku

    I don’t know sigma glass always seemed to perform better on Canon bodies. Where Tamron seemed to perform better on Nikon bodies in my experience, could be that I am just looking at the gold strip on the Tamron glass though teehee.

  • THomas

    Sigma may be superb in terms of optical performance, but it’s not impressed at all in terms of size and weight. This lens is so big and bulky. I do prefer Nikon 50/1.4G.

  • Jon Ingram

    Although I’ve been really impressed with Sigma lately, I just can’t bring myself to spend the $$ on a 50mm lens. I love 35mm; I love 85mm; but 50 isn’t for me. The Sigma lens is tempting only in the sense that I love technically excellent image quality, but not tempting enough to drop 1k for it. I just couldn’t justify it since I don’t like 50mm that much, does anyone else feel the same? The old sigma 1.4 has some nice bokeh, so I will probably stick with that for the time being.

    • Me

      The bog standard 50mm 1.8G’s not a bad deal. The 50 1.4D is also something that can be had for a song these days.

      • Jon Ingram

        Yes, I’ve had the 50 1.4 and and 1.8g, and both are nice, but kept the sigma 1.4 due to bokeh (I also kept the Nikon 1.8g due to being dirt cheap and super light). The older Sigma 1.4 is a nice lens, but I always use the Nikkor 85 1.4g instead…, I just like the field of view better. I suppose if the new sigma had bokeh comparable to the NIkkor 85 1.4g, I would buy it instantly, but I just don’t see that happening. All that said, I love Sigma lately, but I just don’t like the 50mm focal length very much.

    • Parky

      Likewise. 50mm often used to be the lens that we had only because it came with the camera. It was then put in a draw and forgotten as soon as more interesting lenses were aquired.
      It’s a boring focal length. Can’t understand folk falling over themselves to spend serious $$$$ on the things!

  • I bought the Otus as an exotic fun lens. I took some quick shots at church while singing in the choir. The beauty and power of that lens brings tears to my eyes. The purity of the color (a true apochromatic), the smoothness of transitions, its handling of harsh conditions. It’s combination of qualities allow the emotional experience of subtle and complex situations to be felt.

    Manual focus on the D800 is a bear. But the results.

  • K-Mount Man

    The best SLR lenses you can get these days, IMHO, are Pentax. Any search of Google will show how often the word legendary is used to describe them.

    • Thos.

      Done. The only people describing Pextax as legendary are Pentax users in Pentax forums. When other people start using that language, then start biasting.

      • BigEater

        I still sometimes use the 50mm 1.8 Takumar that came with my Spotmatic on my Nikons. It’s a nice lens, but it’s all about what emotion you want to convey. Takumars, in my experience are good for when you want to express happiness or any of the lighter emotions. Nikkors are still the best for moody or serious shots.

  • Lamaindadam

    Are we assuming the lens was used to photograph the box? Seems like significant distortion or a flared rectangle, you be the judge.

  • Mansgame

    If the $400 50mm 1.4G isn’t good enough, then the problem is you, not the lens.

    • phil999

      If only such wisdom was held by everyone. Think how much money we could all save!
      Maybe I should sell my Mercedes and get a Kia? After all, it would get me to where I need to go.

      • Mansgame

        You’ve got your car metaphors mixed up. Nikon is the Mercedes. They have a long history of quality products and everybody else is trying to keep up with them. Sigma is the Hyundai and Kias of the world who decided they wanted to play with the big boys so they came out with expensive “luxury” models that kind of sort of look like the BMW and Mercedes models.

        At the end, it’s still a Kia and this is still a Sigma.

        • phil999

          You would be correct if the Sigma didn’t significantly out perform my Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G, but it does.

          • Me

            Well, post some eight-bit jpegs of the same scene using both lenses and I’m sure, if what you say is true, that we’ll spot the ‘significantly out perform’-ing lens every time.

            • phil999

              By a strange coincidence, I just did that.

            • phil999

              Here are two crops from the above posted images

              I think it’s plain which is which.

            • phil999

              hmm, looks like I can’t post images as a guest, sorry, but the images are on the link to DPR I posted above

          • Mansgame

            What do you use your 50mm lens for that requires all that pixel peeping? It’s a 50mm lens – a normal lens. It’s not a portrait lens, it’s not a landscape lens, it’s not a sports lens…it’s just a general lens.

            • phil999

              You should tell that to Zeiss, Nikon, Canon and every other lens manufacturer who take a great deal of care over their 50mm FF lenses. Perhaps if they knew how little it really mattered they would put the effort into something YOU like instead?

            • Mansgame

              I’m around photographers from pro to soccer moms on a semi-daily basis and I have yet to see one who uses their 50mm other than a general low light lens.

            • phil999

              Now that’s not really an argument is it…
              Every lens manufacturer produces a high quality fast 50/55/58mm. The Zeiss will cost you $4000, the Nikon will cost $1700, the Canon around $1650. Sony have just released a 55mm FE Carl Zeiss f/1.8 at around $1000.
              Are you really trying to suggest there is no market for these lenses?
              If your happy with the quality of the Nikon 50mm AF-s that’s fine, I’m delighted for you, however that’s no reason to make daft arguments against other peoples choices.

  • Nikon User

    Why do we need the 58mm F1.4 that almost double the price and half the image quality?

  • Alex Lock

    I have this one:

    but I’m not very happy with. Now I consider to buy a Tamron SP 60mm, but this Sigma looks good. All the reviews are positive. What do you think Sigma or Tamron?

  • John

    I have this new Sigma 50 ART

    It is a great lens for how it is reviewed. Blazing sharpness blah blah.
    However I specialise in portraits and weddings, and after using this lens for 4 full jobs (all at f1.4, about 800 good images from this lens per job) , I found that I do not like the look this lens produces . Mainly how the OOF areas are rendered. It is subjective but i don’t like it.

    I have written off the new 58G some time ago, thinking that it is just a marketing stunt. But after a lot more research I find renewed interest in it. I will be renting one to confirm and should it be as I read to be (inclusive of Nikon’s lengthy explanation of its character in one of their books) , I will sell the Sigma 50 ART to get the 58G.

  • Back to top