Thanks everyone. Just waiting to get discharged today. My wife kicked me out last night so I could sleep at home since sleeping on a couch here is a nightmare Also little girl wanted to sleep in her bed since she fell outta bed at her grandparents Wednesday night....and came back with red highlights in her hair
keepsabeat wrote:
Shot this at a car show on Father's day - the 58mm 1.4G is pretty much my walk around lens although I would like something in the 35mm range.
There's a nice 35/1.4G as well.
Not as sharp as the Sigma ART, but if you have/like the 58G than sharpness is not your main concern.
While we're OT That Nikon 35 has only 7 blades and no Nano, laughable
for $600. My Sigma Art rivals my Zeiss 135 ZF.2/Nikkor 200 f2 VR in sharpness.
No f1.8 glass touches 'em...then there's the plastic build Just sayin'
Hardcore wrote:
But not F1.4 That extra 2/3rds of a stop is nice for that extra bit of subject isolation when needed.
Makes zero difference in real use. Remember, I had both. The only difference is the sig has more contrast punch, which makes it junk for landscapes, but it's nice for people. Crank the clarity on the Nikon and it's equal. The lightweight for a 35 is nice. A heavy 35 or 50 is historically rare. I'm no sig hater, I own and adore their 24 & 85.
Jason_Brook wrote:
Makes zero difference in real use. Remember, I had both. The only difference is the sig has more contrast punch, which makes it junk for landscapes, but it's nice for people. Crank the clarity on the Nikon and it's equal. The lightweight for a 35 is nice. A heavy 35 or 50 is historically rare. I'm no sig hater, I own and adore their 24 & 85.
Junk for landscapes? I dunno man, I usually agree with most everything you say. I have heard nothing but rave reviews for the 35mm nikon but the Sigma is no slouch and It is anything but junk for landscapes imo.
To also say that 2/3rds of a stop doesn't make a difference is odd to me as well. If that were true then there would be no point in paying for faster glass. While the difference is less evident than say going from F2.8 to F1.8 there most definitely is a difference even on wide angle lenses.
Most of Y'all own latest high ISO bodies. 2/3 of a stop is a joke.
Blades? most of the primes are being used wide open. Who cares about 9 blades?!? So I disagree with the monkey, 7 vs 9 blades is irrelevant, you won't be able to tell a difference. NONE. If it was 5 vs 9, yes, I would agree that the sig is a better choice.
Finally, the sig is a hefty pig. It's bigger, heavier and that metal construction you have? Yeah, drop the sucker, see what happens
I dropped my 58G on the asphalt from about 3ft high last year!! You know what happened? that plasticky lens just bounced off, causing NO damage. the sig? yeah, would've scratched the heck out of the body PLUS made a dent, without a doubt.
hijazist wrote:
It's ironic that we're debating the difference (or lack thereoff) between 1.4 and 1.8 on a 1.4 THREAD
, ya I find that a bit amusing as well. The laughing stops though when someone says the 50mm F1.8g is the way to go over the 58mm F1.4g I think the end result is using a lens that works for you. I have no doubts that there are many slower lenses than F1.4 that would work fine for me.
---------------------------------------------
Elijah wrote:
Most of Y'all own latest high ISO bodies. 2/3 of a stop is a joke.
Blades? most of the primes are being used wide open. Who cares about 9 blades?!? So I disagree with the monkey, 7 vs 9 blades is irrelevant, you won't be able to tell a difference. NONE. If it was 5 vs 9, yes, I would agree that the sig is a better choice.
Finally, the sig is a hefty pig. It's bigger, heavier and that metal construction you have? Yeah, drop the sucker, see what happens
I dropped my 58G on the asphalt from about 3ft high last year!! You know what happened? that plasticky lens just bounced off, causing NO damage. the sig? yeah, would've scratched the heck out of the body PLUS made a dent, without a doubt. ...Show more →
So what good is 2/3rds a stop for then? I'm confused. I can see the difference between F1.4 and F1.8. Maybe some people can't? Is that what your saying? Also 2/3rds of a stop can be a huge plus when your at the limit in low light. It can mean getting a shot in focus or not getting a shot.
I have also dropped my Sigma 35mm from hip height on a concrete floor and I can guarantee that it would survive the same fall better than my 58mm F1.4g. Not that I plan on dropping my gear but the Sigma is a much better put together lens.
Also little girl wanted to sleep in her bed since she fell outta bed at her grandparents Wednesday night....and came back with red highlights in her hair 
That extra 2/3rds of a stop is nice for that extra bit of subject isolation when needed. 
That Nikon 35 has only 7 blades and no Nano, laughable
Just sayin' 
I think the end result is using a lens that works for you. I have no doubts that there are many slower lenses than F1.4 that would work fine for me. 
