Is the Art really 3x better? 35 is my favorite focal length so I did get the Sigma 35mm ART, but looking at some of the reviews and some samples at least I'm not seeing it worth 3x the price.
I mostly just shoot family, I just ordered the 85 1.8G, so thinking the 50 1.4G might be more than I need. Thoughts?
It's worth 5x if those using it will benefit from what it offers I've seen the reviews and samples and I think the ART is on another level in terms of basically everything. Build, AF, correction, resolution, and even rendering.
The 85 1.5g is a great lens, so is the 50 1.8g btw which is half the price of the 50 1.4g.
I had the 50 1.4G and didn't like it at all, it was slow and dull to me........switched it for a Sigma 50 1.4 HSM and I absolutely loved that lens! beautiful bokeh, fast focus, etc....
these days the 58 1.4G lives where the other 50's did.
if I had to choose between the 50 1.4G and the 50 Art, I'd get the Sigma lens.......and if the ART is too expensive for you, get a Sigma 50 1.4 HSM.
I'm sure that you'll be very happy with the 50 Art. The sigma art lenses are just excellent. It's kind of a larger lens which doesn't bother me at all but it did some.
The Nikon 50mm AF-S 1.4 has a lot of fringe when shooting wide open, but I still run around with it because it's super light and compact. There are similar complaints regarding the Canon version. The Sigma 50mm Art is crisper but comes with additional price, weight, and size. There's the Nikon 58mm AF-S 1.4 if you absolutely have to stick with Nikon glass.
I've been testing the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art and have been struggling with fine tuning the AF with the Sigma Dock. I know there's a lot of trial and error required to get it perfect. The Sigma Dock is also made for the Sigma 50mm Art. Has anyone had to tinker and tune the 50mm to get it right? This is something I didn't have to worry about with the Nikon 50mm.
If you aren't routinely using a tripod you likely won't see a difference. I almost always do use one, and bought the Sigma. The detail it gives on a D800E is superb.
The Sigma 50 art was the first lens where I really think it's good at 1.4 on a regular basis. My 50/1.4D and G and 85/1.4D and G were hit or miss on focus. The sigma hits focus like 95% of the time compared to 50-75% on rhe Nikkors. It ain't sharp if it ain't in focus.
trenchmonkey wrote:
I'm also down for 5X Having had ALL the AF Nikon 50's (as well as
all the Canon offerings) the Art stands alone as the only one I kept.
I cannot view your EXIF. But, to me, your shots (including the ones you posted on the People forum) don't seem as sharp as what I have seen from Sigma 50 ART (e.g. those in the previous post in this thread), including our own copy. Either you need to fine tune it a bit, or perhaps use a faster shutter speed. Hard to say without looking at the full resolution image and identifying a clear focus point.
His lens seems to be front focussing quite a bit. You can see by the fact the the edge of the couch being more in focus than the child.
cambyses wrote:
I cannot view your EXIF. But, to me, your shots (including the ones you posted on the People forum) don't seem as sharp as what I have seen from Sigma 50 ART (e.g. those in the previous post in this thread), including our own copy. Either you need to fine tune it a bit, or perhaps use a faster shutter speed. Hard to say without looking at the full resolution image and identifying a clear focus point.
I've seen the reviews and samples and I think the ART is on another level in terms of basically everything. Build, AF, correction, resolution, and even rendering.
Having had ALL the AF Nikon 50's (as well as 
