The Nikon is just a fine lens. Sharp at f/1.8 BUT on cropped body it really makes it a 52mm lens.
it focuses slowly and it is plasticky and light.
The 5mm wider difference makes the Sigma much, much more desirable lens for indoor shooting. It actually makes huge difference as far as I am concerned.
Also, the max f of the Sigma provides 3/4 stop difference which can only benefit when needed.
Sigma is heavier and larger, but I actually like it that way. Balances much better on D7000.
After 4 new copies of the Sigma I had to give up. I had one copy that I thought was doing great, but at distances of over 15 feet it would always backfocus by a few feet. I just couldn't handle the focusing problems, and even having it calibrated to my camera didn't help it.
But ofcourse this was all within the first year or so that the lens came out. The QC on it might have changed on newer manufactured versions.
I've owned the f/1.8g and the f/2D. I felt the bokeh was really nervous on the 1.8g, while I really like it on the f/2D. I sold the 1.8g and kept the 2d. The 2d just had a better tone to it.
I've been contemplating the 30mm 1.4, but I just can't get over the conflicting reviews. At photozone, the center sharpness is great, but looking at bythom's review, the lens just looks like junk. If the Monkey recommends it though, I'll give it more thought.
Haha, yeah. My main concern is the conflicting reviews. I think I'm leaning towards Sigma 30mm though because once it's calibrated, there doesn't seem to be even one negative review.
