Nikon 50 1.4

[cccott3]

Today my nikon 50 1.4 arrived!! It's crazy small compared to the sigma I really hope I made the right choice by getting the nikon and not the sigma?

 

[BlairWright]

You made the right choice.. The focus is on spot 100% of the time and the bokeh is sweet melted butter... great little lens for a good price IMO. Sure, it's more expensive than the Sigma but it's better..

Enjoy!!

 

[Netskimmer]

Planning on grabbing oen of those myself. I would love to see some pics, with the lens, not of it.

 

[MTVision]

Planning on grabbing oen of those myself. I would love to see some pics, with the lens, not of it.

The sigma or the Nikon? I have the Nikon version. I can post some pictures if you want - I'm not the best photographer!

 

[MTVision]

From what I've read the sigmas autofocus is a little faster but the two lenses are pretty similar in everything else. I've never noticed the autofocus being slow in the Nikon but I've never used the sigma so I wouldn't worry about it.

I don't know if the sigma version is for full frame cameras but the Nikon definitely is which is good if you ever upgrade.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Sorry to gatecrash this thread with blatant fanboyism! But the Sigma 50 1.4 is amazing and yes it can be used on full frame cameras.

The idea the the Nikon is 'Better' as Blairwright states is a very one sided opinion. I would say they are well matched lenses, the Nikon has better sharpness, the Sigma has better bokeh! I wanted the bokeh!

 

[BlairWright]

Yes, it is my opinion... true...

Not a gatecrash, everyone has an opinion right? Ours just differ

 

[joealcantar]

Why don't we all just post some images.
-
50mm weekend?
-
Shoot well, Joe

 

[molested_cow]

From what I've heard, the Sigma has more rounded bokeh as compared to the AF-S, but have fading(or whatever you call it) towards the edges. It is, however, sharper than the AF-S in the center.

I was shopping for one a few months ago and decided on the AF-D instead. I got a used one for only $260, so that's a big plus. Bokeh isn't as smooth as the other two but I can accept that. AF wise, it's comparable to the AF-S as well, so in general, I don't see a reason to pay more than twice as much for a new AF-S or Sigma over a used AF-D. That's just me. I am a budget shooter.

Note: Bokeh wise, unless you are shooting in a very specific condition, such as object against background with lights, the roundness of the bokeh rarely matters. I do street scene most of the time. Even at night, I find that my backgrounds are always much more complicated looking than plain lights, so having more blades doesn't give me a whole lot.

 

[BlairWright]

I'll shoot something with the Nikon 50mm 1.4G today and post later....

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Yes, it is my opinion... true...

Not a gatecrash, everyone has an opinion right? Ours just differ

Yes thats very true, differing opinions make the world a more interesting place. Just thought I'd put my case forward for the Sigma as the Nikon seemed to be getting all the credit and I couldn't hack it as I adore my Sigma 50 1.4, due to the fact I have taken my best portraits with this lens.

They are both great lenses, just they serve different purposes in my mind. I very nearly got the Nikon, it was only when someone showed me how smooth the Sigma bokeh was, that I was swayed.

 

[ghache]

i had the nikon G and i sold it because it was no better than the 1.8 optically. For the price, I couldnt keep it. Broken bokeh, soft wide open.

 

[BlairWright]

Bokeh test - Nikon 50mm 1.4G

Full image taken with Nikon 50mm 1.4G on a D7000 (if you want to see this on full frame tell me and I'll repeat on the D3S), ISO 100 f 1.4 1/250. Taken from ~3 feet

Same photo 100% crop in center


50mm 1.4G test-2418-2.jpg by Nikon Blair, on Flickr


One more example, same camera settings but from ~5 feet.


50mm 1.4G test-2421.jpg by Nikon Blair, on Flickr

 

[brian_f2.8]

everybody needs a nifty fifty, great choice.

 

[D-B-J]

Your photo's seem underexposed.