Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2014 · Sigma 50 1.4 art vs Nikon 1.8g- 1.8G is great

  
 
CanadaMark
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Sigma 50 1.4 art vs Nikon 1.8g- 1.8G is great


What I find with Nikon's 1.8 lens lineup is that they are all *almost* as good as the 1.4's, strictly from a sharpness perspective, and still have decent bokeh. For most people, this is the point of diminishing return, and the most cost effective level to purchase at.

For those who need the edge in sharpness, extra 2/3 stop, bokeh rendering, microcontrast, etc. there are the 1.4 versions available at 2-3 times the price. Generally that's what you're getting when you buy the 1.4 over the 1.8, along with better build quality - not so much outright sharpness, which to the casual photographer is generally most important, since it still does everything else pretty well.

I wouldn't say the 1.8 G Is better than the Sigma 50 ART though. If the 1.8 suits your needs, that is ideal, since it's a lot cheaper. Nothing wrong with that.

We're lucky Nikon makes a fairly complete lineup of outstanding, cheap, 1.8 primes IMO. Adds some great optionality to the lineup.

Edited on Aug 25, 2014 at 02:54 PM · View previous versions



Aug 25, 2014 at 12:17 PM
trenchmonkey
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Sigma 50 1.4 art vs Nikon 1.8g- 1.8G is great


2/3rds of a stop


Aug 25, 2014 at 12:30 PM
ohsnaphappy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Sigma 50 1.4 art vs Nikon 1.8g- 1.8G is great


mawz wrote:
Actually while there's little difference between the two 50G's at f2 (the 1.8 will focus faster, but otherwise little difference), the 58G on the other hand will have notably less DoF (about equivalent to f1.6 on a 50) and smoother OOF rendering, due respectively to the longer focal length and the optical design. The 50 Art at f2 will be much sharper near the edges than either of the 50 G's but otherwise similar.


I'm not talking about technical differences. I'm talking about looking at shots. If you just look at shots from each lens, with no identification, you'd be hard pressed to pick between them at f2. In the last year I've owned and shot the 50 1.4G, the 50 1.8G and the 58 1.4G. If you walk around shooting wide open all the time then there's an obvious difference between the lenses. But if you're a pro and you're using the lens at multiple f stops you're not going to notice much difference at all.

I set aside my prejudices and tried the 1.8G like everyone suggested. I genuinely believed the 1.8G was oft suggested because most people were just too cheap to buy the 58. But I set my arrogance aside and just bought the lens. I shot the 58 and 50 1.8G side by side at receptions for three weddings and the only difference I could tell was prettier flare coming from the 58. So I sold it.

The fact is, Nikon's 1.8G's will surpass the needs of 90% of the photographers out there. They're just that good. And they're stealing photographers away from Canon



Aug 25, 2014 at 09:33 PM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Sigma 50 1.4 art vs Nikon 1.8g- 1.8G is great


ohsnaphappy wrote:
The fact is, Nikon's 1.8G's will surpass the needs of 90% of the photographers out there. They're just that good. And they're stealing photographers away from Canon


And one would hope that Canon takes heed; though I doubt that many would jump ship over such a thing. There are plenty of other reasons...



Aug 25, 2014 at 10:34 PM
jtra
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Sigma 50 1.4 art vs Nikon 1.8g- 1.8G is great


Jason_Brook wrote:
I've used my 28 more than my 16-35 for landscapes. Never been bothered by any field curvature nonsense.


Look at this https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1312679/4#12534235



Aug 26, 2014 at 12:58 AM
Weasel_Loader
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Sigma 50 1.4 art vs Nikon 1.8g- 1.8G is great


I just sold my Sigma 50 Art and looking to pick up another 50/1.8G again. The 50 Art is an outstanding lens! For me (on my D700), it is just way too big and heavy for my needs. The 50/1.8G is not too far behind the 50 Art, but WAY cheaper and much smaller/lighter for everyday use.

Serious photographers looking for the best 50 will not be disappointed with the Sigma Art. I'm just not that serious much happier with a smaller/lighter 50 at the moment.



Aug 26, 2014 at 01:19 AM
ilnonno
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Sigma 50 1.4 art vs Nikon 1.8g- 1.8G is great


Palmguy wrote:
Well, you're right about being wrong. The 28 and 85 are both excellent.



Perhaps. Perhaps not.
I own the 24 1.4G, and owned for over a year the 85 1.4G (and the 35 1.4G), and I do not find even them excellent, so I doubt I'd be stunned by the 28/85 1.8G. (although, played for a hour with the 85, and was left pretty much indifferent. But it's a very short time, admittedly).

I don't think Nikon has anything truly exciting – for me – when it comes to primes.
I want primes that I can shoot wide open with confidence in AF and sharpness.
The 24G is hit and miss, and really needs f2. The 35G is just the same (and I sold it after a week of purchasing the Sigma)... The 85 1.4G is again hard to focus, and amazingly uncorrected wide open (try shooting high contrast scenes, like at night, and see what it'll be able to come up with). All the 3 become amazing at f2.8 though, truly spectacular. But we're 2 stops down.

My idea of an exciting prime?
Sigma 35 1.4. Zeiss 135/2. (to a point, even the) Nikon 200/2 (really, very, very little contrast on this one).

The 50 1.8g is just a - in my opinon and experience, again - a very mediocre lens. Better than the dreaded afs 1.4 (which is atrocious wide open), but still sub par. And it's not even justified by "mediocre zooms around": cheap zooms a là 24-85 and 18-35 are very sharp wide open, albeit slower.

I am just at a loss where Nikon is heading to. Luckily other vendors are filling in with top notch performers.
Lory




Aug 26, 2014 at 02:14 AM
mawz
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Sigma 50 1.4 art vs Nikon 1.8g- 1.8G is great


ohsnaphappy wrote:
I'm not talking about technical differences. I'm talking about looking at shots. If you just look at shots from each lens, with no identification, you'd be hard pressed to pick between them at f2. In the last year I've owned and shot the 50 1.4G, the 50 1.8G and the 58 1.4G. If you walk around shooting wide open all the time then there's an obvious difference between the lenses. But if you're a pro and you're using the lens at multiple f stops you're not going to notice much difference at all.

I set aside my prejudices and tried
...Show more

So you're telling me people can't see the difference between two differing focal lengths? I've shot extensively with both 58mm's (the Voigtlander, not the Nikkor) and 50mm's (just about every one Nikon has made except the 50/1.4G and including the 5cm f1.4 LTM rangefinder lens) and guess what, there's a clearly visible difference between the two focal lengths, and it's a lot more than flare. It's also pretty visible at f2 just by the DoF differences. Can I tell the difference between the two 50's? Nope. I can usually between the old D's at wide aperture (if it's soft, it's probably the 1.4), and ditto for the 50/1.2 (super-chunky bokeh at wider apertures, and it'll glow at f1.2 in the right light like the old 5cm does at 1.4)

I'm not saying the 50/1.8G is a lesser lens (frankly, for FX that would be my choice of the three current AF normals, the 58 would be my preference on DX because I prefer the 85mm-e focal length to 75mm-e).



Aug 26, 2014 at 06:10 AM
mawz
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Sigma 50 1.4 art vs Nikon 1.8g- 1.8G is great


ilnonno wrote:
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
I own the 24 1.4G, and owned for over a year the 85 1.4G (and the 35 1.4G), and I do not find even them excellent, so I doubt I'd be stunned by the 28/85 1.8G. (although, played for a hour with the 85, and was left pretty much indifferent. But it's a very short time, admittedly).

I don't think Nikon has anything truly exciting – for me – when it comes to primes.
I want primes that I can shoot wide open with confidence in AF and sharpness.
The 24G is hit and miss, and really needs f2. The 35G
...Show more

The Nikkor 28/1.8 is the best fast 28 on the market today. That's not a particularly high hurdle admittedly, but it's the truth.

The 50/1.8 is certainly not mediocre. It's not a world-beater either, but it's a $250CDN lens that matches or exceeds everything in its class under $900 and some over that. Hate to break it to you but there are very few ~50mm's that are fast and aren't atrocious wide open, and only one is under $4K new (the Art). 50's until recently were an area where traditional design ruled and that meant double-gauss designs and poor wide aperture performance.

Fast 85's also are generally not very well corrected wide open. This is for a very simple reason, well corrected SA gives funky bokeh, and people buy fast 85's for their bokeh. This is also why Nikon and Canon's 85/1.8's are generally known for poorer bokeh than their faster compatriots, but being sharper wide open (they're better corrected than the faster lenses) Guess what, when the 85 Otus arrives the verdict is almost assuredly going to be that it's incredible wide open but the bokeh is a pity.



Aug 26, 2014 at 06:17 AM
ilnonno
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Sigma 50 1.4 art vs Nikon 1.8g- 1.8G is great


mawz wrote:
The Nikkor 28/1.8 is the best fast 28 on the market today. That's not a particularly high hurdle admittedly, but it's the truth.

The 50/1.8 is certainly not mediocre. It's not a world-beater either, but it's a $250CDN lens that matches or exceeds everything in its class under $900 and some over that. Hate to break it to you but there are very few ~50mm's that are fast and aren't atrocious wide open, and only one is under $4K new (the Art). 50's until recently were an area where traditional design ruled and that meant double-gauss designs and poor wide aperture
...Show more

To be honest, but of course, not willing at all to turn this into an argument, I don't agree with your post.
Reasons being:
* the fact that other 50 lenses are equally bad doesn't turn the 1.8g into a good lens. That the 50 1.8 is technically a poor lens, it is a fact of life. Yes, it's cheap, and yes, by 2.5/2.8 gets very sharp. Is it good below that? Is it contrasty enough? I own one, tried another, I know the answers, and don't care whether other 50s (admittingly, all very old) perform or not. (by the way: it's not only the Otus or 50A out there, as you suggest: Sony has a new Zeiss 50 1.4, and an excellent 55 1.8 for the FE mount, so other gems exist. New designs are bigger, but high quality).
* Spherical aberration (but my knowledge is incomplete, and I'd be glad to be rectified by lens designers or other experts among us) appears to be just one of the elements defining bokeh. It's not "required" by fast 85s to show good blurring characteristics (although it certainly helps them look very bad abeeration and focus shifting wise). Very well corrected lenses like the Zeiss 135/2 Apo Sonnar, the 200/2 show still very good bokeh. The 55 1.4 is in a class of its own bokeh-wise, despite being supremely corrected. As such, their 85 will probably be do even better than that. Even the Sigma 35A, a well corrected lens, has a nice bokeh. Did the 35G I had had it better? By a hair. But then, I ended up using it at f1.8/2 all the time for sharpness, even on a forgiving D3s.

Why this "tirade" on SA?
Because I am unhappy at Nikon. Because Corrected lenses exist that excel on many planes, just not from Nikon. They have chosen instead not to make them, and instead they offerl us loyal consumers very expensive but underspecified glass (24/35/85 1.4G).
I read Lenstip's review of the 58 1.4G with a little hilarity, but also a bit angry at them for bashing Nikon so hard with only one sample of the lens tried. Then went to try it myself (two copies, my shop allows me some leeway...).
I wasn't smiling anymore: the lense is very, very soft upt to f2, it needs live view to ensure proper reliable focusing (due to the aberrations wide open), and the level of longitudinal aberrations was impressive, in a negative way.
Went home with my money in my pocket, of course, and with a new respect for Lenstip.

In the end: some may like this rendition, this "mellow" and endearing pictorial style at all costs.
But I need fast glass to perform wide open, and Nikon makes none. The 50 1.8g can be excused for its price, the rest of the line truly makes me question where Nikon wants to drive their customers.

Again, no "argumenting" with you in my mind. Just sharing the conclusions that work for me, that took me innumerable tests and disappointments. I may represent a very tiny niche (shooting in truly awful light most of the time), but I value very highly wide open useability, and am willing to pay for it, it some company offers it on the market.

Lory

P.s.
you're unfortunately right on the 28 being the "best" out there...
I laid my hands on 2 28 1.4D, "legendary" according to the internet, and the results have been abysmal with both "like new" and revisioned (one) lenses...



Aug 26, 2014 at 09:38 AM
popinvasion
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Sigma 50 1.4 art vs Nikon 1.8g- 1.8G is great


What's your 85? Canon is awful at primes too. How often are you getting super sharp reliable results wide open with your art lenses?

ilnonno wrote:
To be honest, but of course, not willing at all to turn this into an argument, I don't agree with your post.
Reasons being:
* the fact that other 50 lenses are equally bad doesn't turn the 1.8g into a good lens. That the 50 1.8 is technically a poor lens, it is a fact of life. Yes, it's cheap, and yes, by 2.5/2.8 gets very sharp. Is it good below that? Is it contrasty enough? I own one, tried another, I know the answers, and don't care whether other 50s (admittingly, all very old) perform or not. (by the way: it's
...Show more



Aug 26, 2014 at 05:28 PM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Sigma 50 1.4 art vs Nikon 1.8g- 1.8G is great


A well-corrected, full-frame fast AF prime below 200mm that's sharp wide-open with smooth, contrasty rendering doesn't exist.

Throw size and price into the list of variables, along with build quality and AF speed and accuracy, and then decide where you want to compromise.

Each of Nikon's 50's (and the 58G) represent a different compromise, as do Canon's older but optically similar equivalents, Sigma's EX and Art, and Zeiss' Planars and Otus. The same can be said for most other focal lengths, and generally there is no 'bad' alternative.



Aug 26, 2014 at 06:25 PM
mawz
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Sigma 50 1.4 art vs Nikon 1.8g- 1.8G is great


johnctharp wrote:
A well-corrected, full-frame fast AF prime below 200mm that's sharp wide-open with smooth, contrasty rendering doesn't exist.

Throw size and price into the list of variables, along with build quality and AF speed and accuracy, and then decide where you want to compromise.

Each of Nikon's 50's (and the 58G) represent a different compromise, as do Canon's older but optically similar equivalents, Sigma's EX and Art, and Zeiss' Planars and Otus. The same can be said for most other focal lengths, and generally there is no 'bad' alternative.


+1, although I'd say below 135mm, as the modern fast 135's are pretty well corrected (135/2 APO-Sonnar and ZA 135/1.8 Sonnar).



Aug 26, 2014 at 07:38 PM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Sigma 50 1.4 art vs Nikon 1.8g- 1.8G is great


mawz wrote:
+1, although I'd say below 135mm, as the modern fast 135's are pretty well corrected (135/2 APO-Sonnar and ZA 135/1.8 Sonnar).


The Zeiss doesn't have AF, but is probably the 'best' lens available for full-frame DSLRs, while the Sony has AF, but also has pretty bad (though typical) LoCA wide-open.

One could even throw the 135L in with the lot; great optics with great rendering and great AF at a lower price and lower heft.

But that's the challenge, isn't it? Pick the compromise that works .



Aug 26, 2014 at 08:51 PM
BenV
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Sigma 50 1.4 art vs Nikon 1.8g- 1.8G is great


RCicala wrote:
I think it does sometimes

In the graph below, the horizontal 0 is the plane where the image is focused. The red area is actually in focus. Granted, this is one of the most extreme field-curvatures I know of (Voigtlander 35mm f/1.4).


That I guess would be pretty bad. But I don't really pixel peep, so I'd imagine I don't see much of it as it is.



Aug 26, 2014 at 09:52 PM
jtra
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Sigma 50 1.4 art vs Nikon 1.8g- 1.8G is great


mawz wrote:
Fast 85's also are generally not very well corrected wide open. This is for a very simple reason, well corrected SA gives funky bokeh, and people buy fast 85's for their bokeh. This is also why Nikon and Canon's 85/1.8's are generally known for poorer bokeh than their faster compatriots, but being sharper wide open (they're better corrected than the faster lenses) Guess what, when the 85 Otus arrives the verdict is almost assuredly going to be that it's incredible wide open but the bokeh is a pity.


I agree. Undercorreted Spherical aberration causes smooth background bokeh (and edgy foreground bokeh). Overcorrected Spherical aberration causes edgy background bokeh (and smooth foreground bokeh). Properly corrected Spherical aberration is necessary for perfect sharpness, but neutral bokeh with perfectly even light distribution can still be distractive with busy backgrounds. My visualization pretty much confirm that, see here:
http://jtra.cz/stuff/essays/bokeh/index.html

Users of Nikon DC lenses which allow to select amount of SA correction know that when they set DC ring for smoothest rear or front bokeh (DC value higher than selected aperture), the sharpness suffers. Deep optics knowledge is not required, it is a simple geometry of rays - see visualizations on my page.

That said it is possible to create smooth bokeh by other ways like apodization elements in lens design. I wonder why nobody offers lenses like this. They can be super sharp yet have smooth bokeh.



Aug 27, 2014 at 03:41 AM
Dpedraza
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Sigma 50 1.4 art vs Nikon 1.8g- 1.8G is great


johnctharp wrote:
The Zeiss doesn't have AF, but is probably the 'best' lens available for full-frame DSLRs, while the Sony has AF, but also has pretty bad (though typical) LoCA wide-open.

One could even throw the 135L in with the lot; great optics with great rendering and great AF at a lower price and lower heft.

But that's the challenge, isn't it? Pick the compromise that works .

I never dealt with the Zeiss 135mm or the Seiss 135mm 1.8 but I do have first hand experience with the 135mm L it's a great lens especially considering you can get it for around $800. Super sharp wide open and the AF only missed because my subjects were inside the MFD.

From all I've read about the Zeiss 135 apo it's the balls. I might look into buying one in the future for a 135mm.



Aug 27, 2014 at 08:21 AM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.