# Nikon 85mm f/1.4G vs Sigma 85mm f/1.4



## RalphP13

For low light applications, I'm considering getting the Nikon 85mm f/1.4G, however, for the price of the Nikon 85 mm I could get the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 and throw in a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and have change to spare.

Does anyone have any experience with both the Nikon and Sigma lenses. I have found a few online comparisons but I was wondering if anyone on the forum has any personal experience with both?

I have heard some minor complaints about the Nikon, however, it seems like they are very small nit-picky things from people who expect perfection from a lens that costs as much as this one does. (Although, I may share that expectation.)

I have also heard issues about Sigma quality. Is this something that is perhaps exaggerated by "third party company haters?"  I have also heard good things about the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. Does this extend to the 85 mm as well?

Future resale value may also be a consideration. Nikon lenses seem to hold their value relatively well. I know nothing of Sigma.

Thanks in advance for any input.


Thanks, Ralph


----------



## dxqcanada

Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Lens Review: 5. Test results (Full Frame): Digital Photography Review


----------



## dxqcanada

Sorry, wrong lens ... I was looking for the 85mm review.


----------



## Sw1tchFX

I'm in the same boat as you, except i already have the Nikon 50mm. 

I've not used the Sigma, but I have used the Nikon 85G and it is a beautiful lens. The only things i don't like about the Nikon is how much it vignettes, and the price. I think it's overpriced considering how vanilla the optics are, and it vignettes more than most 85's do. 

I'm going to give the Sigma a shot because it's about half the price, according to reviews, just as sharp, has a better physical design (imo), Almost as good of Bokeh, and vignettes much less than the Nikon. 

It's just for $900 how could you go wrong? I am worried about the AF, no doubt. Sigma has a bad track record for lousy AF accuracy, and at f/1.4 AF is critical. However i've hardly seen any complaints from Nikon shooters about AF on the 85EX. Canon shooters seem to have a little more trouble for some reason..

I've never owned a Sigma lens, my experience with Sigma is their 50mm f/2.8 Macro (great lens), 12-24mm version 1 (OK lens), and their 20mm f/1.8 (awful lens). 

So yeah, it will be interesting what happens.


----------



## subscuck

RalphP13 said:


> I have also heard issues about Sigma quality. Is this something that is perhaps exaggerated by "third party company haters?" I have also heard good things about the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. Does this extend to the 85 mm as well?


 
I'm not sure if "third party haters" are the culprit. I think it's more a case of a lot of people feeling compelled to constantly repeat what they read on teh internets. Even, and especially, when they have never owned or used the product in question.

What seems clear is this; Sigma does seem to have had some quality issues in the past. Were they ever as widespread as the forums would have you believe? I don't know. Sigma is a healthy company that continues to have lots of money to spend on new lens offerings. If the problem was as bad as people would have you believe, you would think Sigma would be suffering financialy, if not out of business alltogether.

I can't speak as to the quality of the new 85mm, I own the Canon 1.8, and I don't see an upgrade any time soon as I'm very happy with it and don't use it as often as I would like. I do, however, own the Sigma 30 1.4 and 50 1.4, and I would never part with either of them. The 30 was bought on the recommendation of a Nikon shooting friend, and the 50 was purchased based on my reading of all available reviews at the time. I recently recommended the 30 to a friend of mine, and she purchased, and loves, it. None of us have had any of the front/back focus issues you hear about, or the unreliable AF you hear about. They're both great lenses. Currently available reviews of the Sigma 85 place it on a par with the Canon 1.2 and Nikon 1.4G.

As an aside, which means absolutely nothing, but maybe worth mentioning, my Canon 85 has more MA applied than either of my Siggy's.


----------



## hp1000

Nikon 85mm F 1.4D is an option. It is cheaper than the G version. I recently bought this, and can't stop using it. Awesome lens. It is pretty clear why it is called the cream machine.


----------



## RalphP13

Thanks for everybody's input so far.

I was very much leaning towards getting the Nikon 85 mm f/1.4, in fact, I am renting both the Nikon 85 mm f/1.4 and Nikon 35mm f/1.4 this weekend to try them out (and no they don't have the Sigma to compare).

I've been happy with Nikon brand stuff so far, but the fact that I can get a whole set of Sigma prime f/1.4 lenses (30 mm, 50 mm, and 85 mm) for about the same price as the single 85 mm Nikon is making the decision difficult. 

I guess I was looking for somebody to definitively say the Nikon was that much better than the Sigma or the quality of Sigma is just as good as Nikon.

Does anybody else have any opinions on the matter.


Thanks, Ralph


----------



## benhasajeep

I now have my 3rd Sigma lens.  First one I sold after a year for a couple hundred dollar loss as it was just a bad lens.  Nikon 170-500AF.  Sent for repair 3 times!

My second Sigma lens was a Canon version 28-70 f/2.8.  And except for a couple error messages due to coupling.  It worked fine until I sold my Canon system.

My current 3rd Sigma lens is their new 150-500 hsm os.  I had to send it to the shop after 50 min of use.  It just came back with a different problem!  So it has to go right back to them.

I am done with Sigma for the near term.  If I can get the lens fixed propperly.  I will sell it and buy a Nikon 80-400 VR.  I think they are giving the 80-400 a refresh to VR2 pretty soon so I will probably wait till then.  But with having to send my first 170-500 to them 3 times, and now a brand new 150-500 a 2nd time.  They have lost my business.

Others have had good experiences with Sigma.  Then you have almost as many with issues with them.  As they say, it really deppens on which one you get off the factory line.  If its going to be a good one or not!

I have had at least 75 Nikon products in the last 20 years.  I have only had to send 1 thing to Nikon for a repair.  And that was due to my error for dropping it.  I am probably lucky to have that many items and 0 non-user caused problems.  With Sigma I am batting .166 with just 3 items purchased (5 repairs - so far)!


----------



## Derrel

benhasajeep said:
			
		

> I have had at least 75 Nikon products in the last 20 years.  I have only had to send 1 thing to Nikon for a repair.  And that was due to my error for dropping it.  I am probably lucky to have that many items and 0 non-user caused problems.  With Sigma I am batting .166 with just 3 items purchased (5 repairs - so far)!



Nikon has a reputation. It stands behind its USA-imported lenses for FIVE full years.

Sigma has a reputation. Unfortunately, it's not the kind of reputation a lens maker really wants to have follow it around.

So yeah, sure, you could get a Sigma 85 and 50 1.4 for the price of a Nikon 85/1.4 AF-S G. I can also get six burger and fry orders at Burger King for the price of a steak and fries and drink at El Gaucho.


----------



## benhasajeep

Well I just remembered. I did have 1 other Nikon item break. One of my SB-25's I broke the foot. But I repaired it myself by ordering a part (was easy). Again it was my fault though. So maybe I am 73 for 75 if you count the things I broke. Or still 75 for 75 deppending on how you look at it. And 75 is an estimate could be higher or little lower.  I can't remember all that stuff.


----------



## JohnMF

I've owned three of Sigma's over the years (all Canon fit), to be honest they've all been poor. Poor image quality, poor focusing, dull, muddy, soft images. One of them even gave everything a purple outline.

I currently own the Sig 30mm f/1.4. Total waste of money. Never had a sharp image out of it. The annoying thing is, I know someone with the Nikon fit Sig 30mm and it's great - nice and sharp, beautiful colour.


----------



## Sw1tchFX

Derrel said:


> So yeah, sure, you could get a Sigma 85 and 50 1.4 for the price of a Nikon 85/1.4 AF-S G. I can also get six burger and fry orders at Burger King for the price of a steak and fries and drink at El Gaucho.



LOL Yeah right Derrel! When was the last time you went to El Goucho?! 1985? One of my friends went there with his girl three days ago and walked out $180 poorer! And they had a gift certificate!! His steak was $80!!


----------



## sleist

I have three Sigma primes:

30mm f/1.4 DX
50mm f/1.4
150mm f/2.8 macro

All are excellent and are as good or better than their Nikon counterparts.
I'm currently deciding between Nikon 85mm f/1.4*D* and the Sigma 85 1.4.
I was called a couple days ago because my local shop had the 85G and my name was next.  That meant 1700 + tax.  I said no - too much to spend for 85mm on a DX and I'm in no hurry for it.
I need to see more samples of the Sigma 85 bokeh.  The 50 and 30 are stellar in this regard, but the Sigma 85 has some serious competition here, including some cheap manual focus versions.

Bottom line is that I would not be afraid of Sigmas based on my experience.


----------



## Sw1tchFX

I've heard that the 150mm is just ridiculous sharp.


----------



## Overread

Sigma 150mm macro - fantastic lens
Sigma 70mm macro - fantastic lens (I'd say a slight sharpness cut above the 150mm!)
And those have to compete against the MPE macro lens (possibly one of the kings of macro lenses )
see for yourself: http://www.flickr.com/photos/24534478@N04/sets/72157623359678512/

And not to leave their wide angles out: 
Juza Nature Photography
Juza Nature Photography

Sigma can and do make good lenses  -  where they slip up (and if you look at the 100-400mm history even canon can't get it quite right) is with their larger number of zoom super telephoto lenses which are very difficult to produce and also tend to have a wider tollerance band.
Plus a lot of people buy really cheap 3rd party stuff (70-300mm types) and then compare it directly to an own brand prime lens or zooms many times the cost of the 3rd party. So a lot of the opinion is based on comparing low end against mid or top range so its no surprise it can't win


----------



## sleist

The 150 is just fantastic - very sharp as you say. You are tied to a tripod though unless you're shooting in direct sun (which you should be for macro). I see the revised 150 has VR, but I don't think that would help for pure macro use - only if you want to use it as a telephoto too. I prefer my Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR for that focal length (non macro) - much faster focus.

I was surprised at just how sharp the 30 was to be honest, and very fast focus compared to the nikon 35 1.8. Really a great street lens.


----------



## Overread

Direct sun is hard to work with in anything from macro to regular shooting - far far easier is to bring flash into the equation. Then you're not only able to shoot in any lighting, weak or strong, but also able to diffuse and control that lighting so that you can shoot with a nice soft light - not strong, harsh sunlight. 

150mm is also a neat range to work easily with - a speedlite flash and softbox (something like the lumiquest softbox) and you're good to go with a decent lighting setup. You can get far more complicated, but its a good solid starting point with that range of lens in macro work .


----------



## sleist

Overread said:


> Direct sun is hard to work with in anything from macro to regular shooting - far far easier is to bring flash into the equation.




I wrote it goofy, but I meant you should use the_* tripod*_ for macro not direct sun. 
My direct sun comment was more about using it for non macro purposes given that there's no VR.  Your points were all valid regardless.


----------



## Heck

I seen the sig 85 get tested up and down and it seems some people can get a bad copy. But If you get a good one your golden as it is a great lens for the price. I pick up one for myself to be my first prime so I can't give you a expert point of view. AF accuracy seems hard to hit 100% but that I suspect is just me being so green with this type of lens. I love mine so far.


----------



## drdobs

hehe, I don't think the responses are giving you the clear direction you wanted...  How did your test go with the two Nikon primes?


----------

