Thanks for helping me narrow it down in my last thread and I have come to a decision between these two lenses. The purpose of this purchase would be for indoor shooting. It would be mostly still life but occasionally people shots or group portraits. While the Nikon is definitely cheaper with sharper edges and less focusing problems, the Sigma is 7.5mm wider as well as having 1.4. However, I've heard about front-focusing problems with regard to the Sigma and am concerned about the quality or hassle of the lens.
I have only done test shots with the Nikon, and it was a very nice lens. I own the Sigma 30 and absolutely love it. Especially with a DX camera, getting every mm wider is key for indoor shooting, and that extra 2/3 stop for auto focus is great.
Thank you for your input. Did you have to re-calibrate your lens to your camera? Also in your opinion does the lack of edge sharpness in the Sigma affect your photos greatly?
froda wrote:
I have only done test shots with the Nikon, and it was a very nice lens. I own the Sigma 30 and absolutely love it. Especially with a DX camera, getting every mm wider is key for indoor shooting, and that extra 2/3 stop for auto focus is great.
I had the 35G. Compared to the Sigma it is lighter, smaller, cheaper, focuses closer, is very sharp and I never heard of focusing issues with it so I never really looked into the Sigma to tell you the truth.
Personally I find that now that Nikon has the 35G, the Sigma only makes sense in Canon-land, where the closest competitor is the 28/1.8, but that's a whole other discussion.
Hm, I see. I think the only advantages that I've heard Sigma has over the Nikon is better bokeh, wider range, and extra 1/3 stop. I'm most concerned about the calibration aspect with Sigma. I'm leaning towards Nikon right now. Still indecisive.
Ah yes, don't know where I got 2/3 stop. I haven't had to calibrate mine, and it is bang on sharp in the center at 1.4. Two things I don't care for on my copy is the MFD, and I don't get edge to edge sharpness by stopping down. Given I use this lens primarily between 1.4-2.8 for photographing people, that never really bothers me.
I've owned both and the poor focusing of the Sigma is enough for me to keep the Nikon. I don't care how sharp a lens is if it is nearly impossible to nail a good shot.
I haven't tried the nikon, but the sigma is great. People complain about the focus - mine is accurate. People complain about the sharpness, mine is sharp at 1.4 in the center. Unless you need edge-to-edge sharpness and plan on spending a lot more, I'd buy the sigma
Hm, thanks I saw that video already, but still couldn't decide. It seems that both lenses have their pros and cons, but everyone is to their own, Nikon or Sigma.
Mine nails the focus without hunting.... don't know what all the fuss is about. Perhaps a Nikon sticker of the Sigma brand would change a few opinions.
froda wrote:
Mine nails the focus without hunting.... don't know what all the fuss is about. Perhaps a Nikon sticker of the Sigma brand would change a few opinions.
Agreed. The sigma is amazing, it's the ultimate 'normal' lens on DX.
Gaylon Holmes wrote:
I believe f1.4 to f1.8 is indeed 2/3 stops. yeah, I was gonna WTF the bad math but thought "let it go" That 2/3 of a stop is HUGE as is the aforementioned 7.5 mm wider. F' the corners...who needs 'em
Haha oops. I'm kind of an amateur at this so... Anyway, I think I'll give the Sigma a shot after I (hopefully) get my D7000. First, I need to sell my D5100 and my 70-300mm f/4.5 lens though...
yeah, I was gonna WTF the bad math but thought "let it go" That 2/3 of a stop is HUGE as is the aforementioned 7.5 mm wider. F' the corners...who needs 'em 
