# 50mm:  Sigma vs. Nikon



## genital_apparatus (Dec 26, 2008)

Hey all, I need some help deciding on a 50mm f1.4.  Which is better, the Sigma or the Nikon?  The Sigma is more expensive, but it's bigger and looks way cooler.


----------



## benhasajeep (Dec 26, 2008)

I am a believer the top Branded Lens is normally better than a top off brand lens. The Nikon 50mm has been such a good lens for so long. Not sure if the Sigma is that much better to warrant a higher price? I have not seen either new one in person though.

As for the bigger size, wondering if that just due to using some of the same parts so it fits Canon mount as well (larger), without having to have too many different parts??

Seems every Branded manufacturer's 50mm is considered good / great lens. Not sure why Sigma chose to make the same lens?? And then charge more for it.


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 26, 2008)

The new 50mm F/1.4 that Nikon *just* released is superior to the Sigma.  If you are talking about the previous 50mm F/1.4, they are closer but the Nikon still wins out.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 26, 2008)

Everyone knows the bigger cooler lens takes the better pictures.  That is until you get tired of lugging them around because they are heavy.


----------



## epp_b (Dec 26, 2008)

> The Sigma is more expensive, but it's bigger and looks way cooler.


Wow, seriously?  Concern yourself more with the quality of the glass, not how "cool" you look with the lens.

That said, the Nikon f/1.4 has been around for so long and it's always been excellent.  There's no reason to get the Sigma over the Nikon.


----------



## SpeedTrap (Dec 26, 2008)

I have been using the Nikon 50mm F1.4 for a few years and it is a fantastic lens


----------



## Joves (Dec 26, 2008)

epp_b said:


> Wow, seriously? Concern yourself more with the quality of the glass, not how "cool" you look with the lens.
> 
> That said, the Nikon f/1.4 has been around for so long and it's always been excellent. There's no reason to get the Sigma over the Nikon.


 
I was just thinking the same thing.


----------



## kundalini (Dec 26, 2008)

epp_b said:


> Wow, seriously? Concern yourself more with the quality of the glass, not how "cool" you look with the lens.


 Am I getting old?   Yes..... No...... well, yes, but I'm not getting stupider either.  My gear *IS* cool, but i didn't buy it because it *LOOKED* cool.


----------



## genital_apparatus (Dec 26, 2008)

> Wow, seriously?  Concern yourself more with the quality of the glass, not how "cool" you look with the lens.


LOL wow, you're in a happy mood.  Not knowing which lens produces better quality since I own neither and have worked with neither, I came on here asking for advice.  Since it seems to stress you out so much, please don't concern yourself with my requests for advice in the future.  

P.S. thanks to those for giving advice, much appreciated.


----------



## uplander (Dec 26, 2008)

garbz was just being sarcastic....sigh!!!!!!!
get a glove ...hey!


----------



## table1349 (Dec 26, 2008)

genital_apparatus said:


> LOL wow, you're in a happy mood.  Not knowing which lens produces better quality since I own neither and have worked with neither, I came on here asking for advice.  Since it seems to stress you out so much, please don't concern yourself with my requests for advice in the future.
> 
> P.S. thanks to those for giving advice, much appreciated.



Perhaps if you wanted a strictly serious answer, you should have asked a strictly serious question.  

That would have been way cool.  :lmao:


----------



## JustAnEngineer (Dec 27, 2008)

I haven't used the Sigma yet, but I have recently used the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D on my cousin's D80.  It does well indoors without a flash, but I did notice that the autofocus was much slower than my 40D with 17-55 f/2.8 IS managed for the same shots.


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Dec 27, 2008)

I personally think the Nikon is better built and feels more solid, and the image tests seem to confirm it's slightly optically better as well.

Jerry: there is a new 50mm 1.4 from Nikon? What do you have to look for in the name to distinguish it from the previous one?   I've not heard about this new lens yet.

Anyway, here is a neat comparison page of a couple of the current 50mm lenses.


----------



## TUX424 (Dec 27, 2008)

Jerry: there is a new 50mm 1.4 from Nikon? What do you have to look for in the name to distinguish it from the previous one?   I've not heard about this new lens yet.[/quote said:
			
		

> Im not Jerry but...
> Nikon did come out with a new 50 1.4, the new one is AF-S for all of those D40/60 uses out there that want to have AF. I have heard that the IQ is not as good as the old AF 50 1.4 but that could just be talk. But the new AF-S 1.4 has nothing to offer me since u dont have a D40/60 and not worth the extra $200.
> 
> Sorry about the bad quoting i cant get it to work
> O Well


----------



## shivaswrath (Dec 29, 2008)

So I got the New Nikon 50mm 1.4 for Diwali/Xmas (was ordered on Diwali, but the damn thing took freakin' too long to get here!)

Got it from J&R with a $5 off coupon for $394 shipped (no tax). . .I figure it'll come down to about $375 in the end, so I was okay with being an early adopter.

This is my first prime, and I'm absolutely in LOVE. . .it's disGUSTINGLY sharp, like unbelievable, and from what I've read about comparo's to the previous Nikon 1.4, it's thought to be sharper.

Since the previous Nikon 50 1.4 was considered sharper than the Sigma, I can assume that it'll supersede the Sigma in comparison.  But I haven't tried them both.

I wanted something light for a prime, as well as able to switch between a FX and DX sensor, which this fit the bill - I use it on my D40x and recently acquired N75; unbelievable pictures, really made the Christmas pics come out stunning this year.

Given the Sigma is more expensive and they are notorious for having AF issues (this thing focuses fast on both my old N75 and D40x, as well as silently!), I would give my personal nod to the Nikon; but try them both and see what weighs/feels/shoots right for you.


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Dec 29, 2008)

If any of you guys don't listen to TWIP (This Week In Photography), you should be.  So much of what I know about photography came form this show.

Anyway, in show number 52, they have a guest come on and discuss the Sigma 50mm 1.4. They start talking about it 34 minutes into it.  This guest kind of rambles and you can tell he's not used to speaking to an audience, but these are the points he makes:

The Sigma is huge. Very huge and heavy. But it was required to have the lens work so well wide open. This lens was specifically designed to be used at f1.4, unlike most other 50mm lenses, which work best a few stops down from there. The sigma also has nearly zero chromatic aberration or vignetting problems wide open. It's also sharper.

But again, it's heavy, big and more expensive than any other 50mm lens out there.  (Well, except for the upcoming Pentax DA* 55mm 1.4 at $800. I'm drooling already)


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 29, 2008)

Dubious Drewski said:


> Jerry: there is a new 50mm 1.4 from Nikon? What do you have to look for in the name to distinguish it from the previous one?   I've not heard about this new lens yet.



The 50mm F/1.4G 

AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G from Nikon

Seems that besides the faster AF, the rest of the improvements are minimal.  Both of Nikon's 50mm F/1.4s are more than acceptable performers.  The Sigmas are just a notch underneath.

Seems you cannot do too badly with any of these lenses.


----------



## EhJsNe (Dec 30, 2008)

screw the looks. Thats like buying the most expensive camera in the world just because you have the money. there is better cameras.

I would go with the Nikon lens. My nikon 36-72mm f1.2 lens takes absolutely amazing pictures. (once I get a film scanner or my regular scanner working Ill post some pictures)


----------



## ChrisOquist (Jan 2, 2009)

I seem to be in the complete minority here (a minority of one?) but I don't think the Sigma would be a bad choice. My brother has the Sigma 50mm f/2.8 Macro and it's a fantastic lens - _very_ sharp, _very_ well-built, and it does great macro. This leads me to believe the 1.4 can't be half bad either.

I have a Sigma 10-20mm and it's great as well - the "bigger and looks way cooler" remark might put some sensitive people off, but it's tied to something - Sigma builds their lenses like tanks, and the EX coating is awesome - very tactile, making the lenses a pleasure to use.

I don't think you can go wrong either way..


----------

