I’m looking to possible upgrade from my 24mm 2.8D lens for general landscape and environmental portraits. If price were no object which would get? I’ll be shooting on a D610.
I’ve had them both and would go with the Nikon. My Nikon version was consistently sharper at all apertures (nix 1.4) than the Sigma and the Sigma would literally NEVER focus in the same place twice...just my two cents.
I am still having both and consider to sell one of these.
Actually had the Sigma 24mm 1.4 first and liked the filed of view a lot.
The lens is sharp but there are sometimes some focusing issues, and I think the rendering is on the harsher side regarding the oof area and the booker, if it is of any matter with a 24mm lens, is not as smooth as I wished it was.
The Nikon 24mm 1.8 was then the lens I bought would fit perfectly in a very small 2-lens kit with a 50mm or the 58mm 1.4 or even an 85mm lens.
So I compared it to the Sigma , which might be a bit sharper when critically focused but this is not such a big difference at all.
And the bookeh and oof areas of the Nikon looks nicer to me, and I can use it for landscape shots between 5.6 and 11 with very good results ( both on d750 and d800 ) - so for me it is the more versatile lens for it is quite a bit small and much lighter.
Just my 2cents
To me the AF-S 24mm f1.8 is a one of a kind lens, one of Nikons masterpieces, and one of the reasons for staying with Nikon. *shrug*
I absolutely love its rendering. Better than my AF-S 20mm f1.8, which is already very solid. Stronger colors, definitely has some actual "pop" to the image, and less vignetting.
Sharpness is good enough for me. Its sharp into the corners even wide open. It stays sharp even when focusing close. I'm not obsessed with sharpness though.
I've used the AF-S 20mm f1.8 for years. Its great, too, but compared to my other favorite lenses, I never really fully warmed up to it. The 24mm is now another lens I actually have a hard time unmounting.
I'm sure you can get even better with some Zeiss glas. Like a Zeiss "Classic" Distagon 18mm f3.5 ZF. However you'll have to stop that lens down to get sharpness over the whole image. And I'm no landscape shooter. I want to shoot my glas wide open, basically at all times.
Currently use the sigma on a z6. No focusing issues, and I'm getting better optical output compared to my nikon 24 1.4g on a d700. The sigma 24 is really impressing me so far.
I think it really comes down to if you need the extra light of f1.4, or would prefer a smaller lighter kit. I'm sure you'd be happy with the output of either lens.
static808 wrote:
Currently use the sigma on a z6. No focusing issues, and I'm getting better optical output compared to my nikon 24 1.4g on a d700. The sigma 24 is really impressing me so far.
I think it really comes down to if you need the extra light of f1.4, or would prefer a smaller lighter kit. I'm sure you'd be happy with the output of either lens.
That is what I thought too, but since I do have both, I really want to emphasize that the difference in size and even much more in weight is absolutely significant ( and even more it would be on a z series camera attached to the adapter ! ).
Yes - I like the sharpness wide open and even more at f2 from the Sigma as well, but it is a little on the clinical side when used for casual portraits.
So , if this is important to you, I'd consider this as well.😊
nikonos6 wrote:
That is what I thought too, but since I do have both, I really want to emphasize that the difference in size and even much more in weight is absolutely significent ( and even more it would be on a z series camera attached to the adapter ! ).
Yes - I like the sharpness wide open and even more at f2 from the Sigma as well, but it is a little on the clinical side when used for casual portraits.
So , if this is important to you, I'd consider this as well.😊
The size of the Sigma on a Z6 adapted is no joke. It's part of the reason I bought the 24S
