I don't shoot weddings nearly as much as I use to but when I do I love the intimate images I can get with the 24f/1.4 at minimum focus. I find the 24 in close quarters @ 1.4 will provide 100% keepers. When I shoot minimum focus environmentally with subjects farther away off to a side the keeper rate can decline a bit even @ f2.2-4.0. I'm not sure why the 24 focus declines a bit shooting subjects farther out at the minimum focus side. I thought I once read that prime lenses can be adjusted to have more accurate focus toward the minimum aperture side or toward the max aperture side. I definitely have noticed this with the 105f/2. Mine is tack sharp from 2.0-5.6 (to be expected). But I had to test it @ f8 just to see. At f8 the images become very soft, so soft that it was hard to really gauge the focus point. This test was by all means just for giggles and not at all scientific. It did reinforce that the 105 excels at the minimum focus focal lengths. Does anyone know if if primes have a range in their sweet spot for focusing and accuracy? I find the magic from the 24 happens when Im close in @minimum focus. The farther out I find my 24-70 @35f2.8 does quiet well. The DOF on the 35 prime may also require f2 depending on circumstances of your shoot. The DOF sweet spot of the 24 is awesome. I'm still a 24f/1.4 junkie, .
I love the sigma. I think it kinda shocked Nikon into this new 35mm 1.8 or whatever that is about to come out. IF they can nail it for 600 dollars will users still by the nikon or pay the 200 to get the 2/3 of a stop of light for the razer sharp sigma? I guess time will time and competition and choices is good for us consumers.
The DOF of field is thin on FF at 1.4 I will give you that. Thats something that a lot of us "struggle" with I think or at least I do at times.
Gregg Heckler wrote:
"make sure he knows theres a $700 difference brand new."
Would you still buy the Sigma if it was the same price as the Nikkor? I doubt it.
Not sure if serious.
I have the Sigma 35mm and D800. Frankly, after seeing the Zeiss 35 and Canon 35L, I'd pay $700 more for the Sigma to get one.
Oh, I forgot the Nikon 35mm. Well, it is not even on the same container than the Sigma 35mm. No? Look at FS forum after the Sigma had became available.
"Would you still buy the Sigma if it was the same price as the Nikkor? I doubt it."
I certainly would. After testing and comparing the Siggy to the Nikon, I found the IQ of the Siggy to be superior, IMO, and promptly purchased one. That was a year ago and have not regretted it one bit. The poster of the above comment is entitled to his opinion, but it's a bit presumptuous to speak for each and every reader of his comments, especially a year or so down the pike.
.