Sigma 50 1.4 art......

F

fhibbs12

Senior Member
Well I had a lens dilema I had to decide on but the wife graciously fixed it.

She showed up with the Sigma 50 art.....

The only issue is I still have the nikkor 50 1.8g. Is the art that much better?

I am sitting on the 35 art 50 1.8g 85 1.8g and tamron 70-200 VC currently. And now a still new in box 50 art.

Just not sure if the cost justifies it. 50 is a FL I enjoy. But that's 1k $ towards a more versatile tamron 24-70.

Other option is trading the 35 and 50 1.8g for the new 20 art.

Thoughts?
 
B

Bill16

Senior Member
I love prime lenses! But in the top glass primes just cost too much to cover the same bases for me that the Trinity can. So this very same decision was sorta decided for me if I wanted to keep and continue using the D8xx series Nikon's!
So I will start buying the Trinity one lens at a time, once a year hopefully! I just say go with what you believe will work best for you, if you can afford it! :)
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
fhibbs12 said:
Well I had a lens dilema I had to decide on but the wife graciously fixed it.

She showed up with the Sigma 50 art.....

The only issue is I still have the nikkor 50 1.8g. Is the art that much better?

I am sitting on the 35 art 50 1.8g 85 1.8g and tamron 70-200 VC currently. And now a still new in box 50 art.

Just not sure if the cost justifies it. 50 is a FL I enjoy. But that's 1k $ towards a more versatile tamron 24-70.

Other option is trading the 35 and 50 1.8g for the new 20 art.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Is the Sigma Art series 50mm "that much better"? Well, that's a hard question to answer the way it's phrased. I can tell you the Sigma is, simply put, significantly better in most every way than the Nikon 50mm f/1.8G; except perhaps in size/weight comparison. It's a large, heavy lens, when compared to the Nikon 50mm f/1.8G, no two ways about that. It's a superb lens but I can't answer whether or not the cost is justified or not; it just costs what it costs.
 
S

salukfan111

Senior Member
fhibbs12 said:
Well I had a lens dilema I had to decide on but the wife graciously fixed it.

She showed up with the Sigma 50 art.....

The only issue is I still have the nikkor 50 1.8g. Is the art that much better?

I am sitting on the 35 art 50 1.8g 85 1.8g and tamron 70-200 VC currently. And now a still new in box 50 art.

Just not sure if the cost justifies it. 50 is a FL I enjoy. But that's 1k $ towards a more versatile tamron 24-70.

Other option is trading the 35 and 50 1.8g for the new 20 art.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Trade in the 35 and 50 1.8g AND 50 art for the 58 1.4 Voightlander and a nikkor 20 1.8.
 
F

fhibbs12

Senior Member
salukfan111 said:
Trade in the 35 and 50 1.8g AND 50 art for the 58 1.4 Voightlander and a nikkor 20 1.8.
Click to expand...

I've been shooting with the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC USD since its release and been extremely happy with my results. I ended up trading in the 50 Art and getting the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC. I can't be more happy with the results I am getting.

I used to swear by my 35 50 85 primes trio with my 70-200. Now I am seriously debating on selling of the 3 primes and grabbing the new Tamron 16-35 2.8. I used in in the shop. It was amazing and the thought of having a 16-200 2.8 covered intrigues me. Very rarely I was shooting in the 1.4 to the 2.0 range anyways.
 
R

rikman

Senior Member
I have to say I had become something of a Nikon snob. I have the Nikon 50 1.4g....but then got the Sigma art 50 1.4, and as was previously stated...it is superb. If I can thread drift a bit and be a Nikon snob ;-) I would save or buy the Nikon 24-70 used like I did...it is superb and better than the Tamron. I'm not knocking Tamron...I have the 150-600 and it is great for the money...I just couldn't drop the money for the Nikon equivalent ....
 
Top