They said, Sigma are better than Nikkor - 50mm

wud

wud

Senior Member
I wanted to try out the 50mm 1.8 lens, and well, it wasn't THAT expensive so I were planning on buying it. Tried it out for at few shots, and it looked really good - my husband then looked at the Sigma 50mm 1.4 and said to try that too, and sweet guy wanted to pay the difference if I wanted that instead.

I asked if they didn't have the Nikon/Nikkor instead, they did but the guy said that actually the Sigma were noticeable better!

Have you used both Nikon and Sigma, and do you think its right?

Well, I ended up with the Sigma, just looking at it makes you wanna buy it, lol. HUGE glass in front, mmmh sweet.
 
wud

wud

Senior Member
Horoscope Fish said:
I'm not surprised in the least; both Sigma and Tamron make some truly superb glass. Frequently equal to, and sometimes exceeding, its Nikon counterpart.
Click to expand...

Thats what the guy said too. And its a very cool shop, they dont just say stuff to sell.



First impression - I've gotten to used to 35mm and under. Keep going to close, hmm why doesn't it focus, hehe.
Niiiiice soft colors.
 
J

JDFlood

Senior Member
I think both are very good lenses. It is not one of the lens comparisons that one will win hands down. I shoot a Nikon 50mm 1.4.. Actually usually a 35mm 1.4. Taken as a group Nikon tend to be better to much better lenses, more consistently good and hold value better. However there are individual lenses that are similar or better. There are more aspects to what constitutes a good lens than usually first meets the eye. I can afford Nikon so it is my default, if you have the time and are willing to do the research there are alternatives that can be as good and very occasionally better. Also, depends on you usage, persuasion, and value of money to you. JD
 
wud

wud

Senior Member
JDFlood said:
I think both are very good lenses. It is not one of the lens comparisons that one will win hands down. I shoot a Nikon 50mm 1.4.. Actually usually a 35mm 1.4. Taken as a group Nikon tend to be better to much better lenses, more consistently good and hold value better. However there are individual lenses that are similar or better. There are more aspects to what constitutes a good lens than usually first meets the eye. I can afford Nikon so it is my default, if you have the time and are willing to do the research there are alternatives that can be as good and very occasionally better. Also, depends on you usage, persuasion, and value of money to you. JD
Click to expand...

Actually the Sigma were more expensive than Nikon. Around 110-120$ (european prices).

They are build very different, Sigma is pretty big, Nikon not so big. Well, maybe someday I can try the Nikon 1.4 out for a day or two, could be fun to see if I notice any difference.


Btw, talked to another guy working at another photostore (went to get some prints) and asked him about his opinion, he said that a difference between the 2 brands, are the color tone on the pictures. But if I thought it looked to green/red/whatever, I could set my camera up so whenever I attached that specifik lens, it had its own color profil that it uses.
 
wud

wud

Senior Member
Okay! So! I tried it out, ooooh my god, I am very exited! And it feels nice getting closer to the subject, although I have to get used to it again, lol.

50mm_0673-copyfb.jpg


50mm_0679-copyfb.jpg


50mm_0653fb.jpg


50mm_0592-copyfb.jpg




And a couple of dogs:

50mm_0610-copyfb.jpg


50mm_0620-copyfb-copy.jpg






​
 
E

eurotrash

Senior Member
Had both. I chose the Nikon because the Sigma I got had schizophrenic autofocus problems. A fantastic lens when it decided to work right but in the end, a reliable lens is the best lens for me. It seemed like it was less of a good all around choice and more a specialty low light piece as well. It wasn't very sharp past f5, and the Nikon beats it to death at every aperture past f3.5. Also weight became an issue with the sigma and sigmas customer support was lacking. I guess I just had very bad luck and ended up eating 350$+ on my trade in for the Nikon 1.4.

But if you get a good copy, its fantastic on DX and I wouldn't trade it if its a good one!
 
wud

wud

Senior Member
eurotrash said:
Had both. I chose the Nikon because the Sigma I got had schizophrenic autofocus problems. A fantastic lens when it decided to work right but in the end, a reliable lens is the best lens for me. It seemed like it was less of a good all around choice and more a specialty low light piece as well. It wasn't very sharp past f5, and the Nikon beats it to death at every aperture past f3.5. Also weight became an issue with the sigma and sigmas customer support was lacking. I guess I just had very bad luck and ended up eating 350$+ on my trade in for the Nikon 1.4.

But if you get a good copy, its fantastic on DX and I wouldn't trade it if its a good one!
Click to expand...

Sure hope I got a good copy. I'm on fullframe, but so far it seems good. I did notice the slower focusing, but guess its a portrait lens more than an action lens.

I'll try out some different apertures tomorrow.
 
E

eurotrash

Senior Member
Test, test, test, and test some more.. I wouldn't bother with focus charts and all that noise. Just try to figure out if it can accurately track moving vehicles in AF-C 3D, try to see if the minimum focus distance is accurate at f/2, (maybe at f/1.4 as well) test it in low light at wide apertures, and try to determine if, in normal shooting conditions, it's reliability. I got suckered into waiting too long to test the heck out of mine and I eventually wasn't able to return it in time to get my money back. There are too many supposed bad ones out there to not really put it through it's paces.. Even after sending mine in to Sigma and waiting 3 weeks for them to calibrate it to my particular camera, it still wasn't right in the end :/

I'll admit, shooting at 1.4 is a challenging thing to do and many times your image may well be out of focus slightly. But even at higher apertures like 2.8, mine was problematic. I'm in no way trying to change your mind or put a raincloud over this lens, I'm simply trying to share my story with the glass. It really did produce some stunning images while I had it and it was working like it should:

All at f/1.4


BOKEH! by stupidphotoguy, on Flickr


Tree Shot by stupidphotoguy, on Flickr


​ Log Shot by stupidphotoguy, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
wud

wud

Senior Member
Rick M said:
I think this may be a good example of lens curvature effecting the focal plane with thin DoF. Notice how the top of the image is comming back into focus!
Click to expand...

What is lens curvate??


I did look at it, but my guess was, that the part of the tree is at the fous area - same distance from me as the flower. I am standing above the flower shooting down. Or maybe I just focused wrong ;-)
 
wud

wud

Senior Member
Eurotrash, Im glad you are writing this, I'll definitely go out and test it today! Better safe than really sorry in a while.

When did you get your lens? Maybe they made a newer model. Mine is a EX DG HSM but don't know when it was made. The photoshop guy said, it was a newer model.

​
 
wud

wud

Senior Member
Okay here comes a bunch. Hope I did the testing right! No post processing at all, except indoor pictures of chips, there are a little bit of sharpen too it (forgot it was a step in the action).

A little windy here today so with the flowers, I think that was why aperture 1.4 didnt make a sharp spot.




First, very handsome guy :)
dude.jpg

Autotracking cars (did several, this is just 2 random)

autotrack2.jpgautotrack.jpg


Indoors. Note the measure tape (is it called tape??), I'm 0.45 cm from the chips which is the minimum focus.

TEST 50mm_0790.jpgTEST 50mm_0789.jpgTEST 50mm_0788.jpgTEST 50mm_0787.jpgTEST 50mm_0786.jpgTEST 50mm_0785.jpg



​
 
E

eurotrash

Senior Member
Lens curvature:
The physical curvature of the glass as seen by a camera sensor. I guess this happens when very large elements are used? I've never actually experienced this in photography. The out of focus elements will ''breathe'' in and out of the photo due to the curving glass of the lens. Theoretically, anyways..

I only bought mine about 7 months ago, so it was a new model as well. The one with the newer coating on the barrel.

Pictures are lookin' good! As long as you didn't have trouble attaining focus with it while shooting at wider apertures then I'd say you have a most excellent copy. Just use it a lot in the real world and you'll know if there's an issue with it.
 
Last edited:
wud

wud

Senior Member
eurotrash said:
Lens curvature:
The physical curvature of the glass as seen by a camera sensor. I guess this happens when very large elements are used? I've never actually experienced this in photography. The out of focus elements will ''breathe'' in and out of the photo due to the curving glass of the lens. Theoretically, anyways..

I only bought mine about 7 months ago, so it was a new model as well. The one with the newer coating on the barrel.

Pictures are lookin' good! As long as you didn't have trouble attaining focus with it while shooting at wider apertures then I'd say you have a most excellent copy. Just use it a lot in the real world and you'll know if there's an issue with it.
Click to expand...

I'm very glad you told me about it and I'll use it a lot and now I know what to be aware of. Thanks a lot :)

Maybe someday someone will make a test, to see if its possible to see the curvate, could be fun to see.
 
Top