zesto wrote:
Received my Sigma 35 f/1.4 this week (the first 3rd party lens I've ever bought, apart from Zeiss) and it's absolutely one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used. I have a 200 f/2 and the Sigma is very, very close to that. Sold my Nikon about a year ago and now in in the process of selling my Zeiss 35/2.
Colin, I would think that the Sigma sample your friend has/had has something wrong with it. I know of one person who had to return his as it wasn't up to scratch. Get hold of an average copy of the Sigma and it is superior to the Nikon 35 f/1.4 in sharpness. The bokeh is about the same looking back at some shots taken with my Nikon 35 f/1.4. ...Show more →
You might be right about his copy, it wasn't very good wide open and the af wasn't accurate with the d800 outer points. He has sold it and got a Nikon 35 now and couldn't be happier.
traylorc wrote:
If you prefer the Nikon...nothing wrong with that. I have shot with both, and overall prefer the overall performance of the Sigma. Don't get me wrong, it's not that the image rendering of the Nikon was bad. But it was not good enough for me to justify the significant price difference between the two lens. I'm fortunate to have the disposable income to spend on either one...but if I'm going to pay essentially a "premium" for the Nikon IMHO it would need to blow the Sigma out of the water. I just didn't see that.
To me this is one of those nice occasions in photography when you can purchase a third party product, pay less cash, and receive comparable or even superior performance than buying from the big two.
To answer the OPs question...I would pick the Sigma 35mm over the Nikon 24mm. I agree with Ben who commented that his purchase of the 24mm was a case of N.A.S.. The 24mm is a very good lens...but I just didn't find myself using it enough to justify the cost.
Choice is a great thing, no right and wrong way to go as long as you are happy with your purchase that's all that matters. Plenty of pros are using both 35's and getting top quality shots.
