Sigma 50mm f1.4 vs. Nikkor 35mm f1.8g - Urgent Question

[DeAd-EyE]

Hello All,

I have a bit of urgency in this question as I picked up a lense at a store that gives me a 10 day exchange period but I'm leaving town and only have..I'd say about 24 hrs to settle one my first DSLR lense.

At first I got the Sigma and...well...it's amazing, superfast, amazing in the dark/low light, and the background areas (u know the watercolorish washed out area that you get when you use a shallow depth of focus) are gorgeous.

BUT, and this is really the one thing I noticed, is that on a D3100 which is a cropped sensor, It's a bit tough photographing inside a really tight room, or photographing a group at a table.

The Nikkor 35mm f1.8g is also a very pretty lense, and is easier to carry around, but the background areas are not as washout/organic (can someone please tell me what the proper technical term for this is as I feel like a numbnut trying to describe this with vague adjectives) as with the Sigma.

Advantages to the 35mm are its great for inside, tight spaces etc...areas where you can't step back a few feet.


The kinds of photos I will be taking are generally:
- Walking around town type stuff...so cool statues, street performers, buildings.
- On vacation, so once again buildings, people, etc...
- Cars...daytime shots but also night time meets with no natural light but street lighting and shop signs and stuff.
- Motorsports (at the race track)...not an issue with these lenses as I would get a proper zoomer for this.


As a first DSLR lense, does anyone have any suggestions on which one to keep?


Some of the things i'm thinking of are for instance:

Right now I'm thinking, keep the 50mm Sigma and If i don't like it, it will be worth more in 6 months to a year from now if I were to trade back to a 35mm so I will come out financially ahead (not a big deal if the difference will only be 100$ up/down i guess)

For tight interior spaces, a wide angle or a 10-35mm might be better than a 35mm would ever be..so keep the 50 and then get a 10-35 or something of that sort in the future might be an option.

Any advice would be much appreciated.

Cheers.

 

[KmH]

but the background areas are not as washout/organic (can someone please tell me what the proper technical term for this is as I feel like a numbnut trying to describe this with vague adjectives) as with the Sigma.

It's called shallow depth-of-field (DOF).

DOF is effected by 4 values:

1. lens focal length
2. subject to image sensor dostance
3. subject to background distance
4. lens aperture.

So using a shorter focal length lens, like 35 mm instead of 50 mm, makes it more difficult to blur the background.

Visit www.dofmaster.com , an online DOF calculator, and you can plug numbers in and see how they affect the DOF.

 

[reznap]

I wouldn't sell either..

There are a few nice ultrawide lenses that will go on your camera.

10-20 Sigma
11-16 Tokina
10-24 Tamron

Just the ones I can think of off-hand..

If you ever go full frame (D3100 is a DX 1.5x crop sensor camera) you wouldn't be able to use those. If you're planning to upgrade to FX, a Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is the king of full-frame super-wide angle zooms. It's expensive as hell. On a 1.5 crop it would be more like a 21-36mm lens.

EDIT: Maybe a 8mm fish-eye if you reall want to go wide
http://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-FE8M-...WDSK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297545178&sr=8-1

^ I want that lens.. it looks fun and affordable - but I've heard it works better on a Nikon... something to do with the camera being able to control the aperture, I think.

 

[adversus]

You are having trouble with the 50 on that body because it's effectively about an 75mm lens on a Nikon DX.

I use the 35mm on my D5000 (same crop as yours), and I love it. It's one of my two go-to-lenses (along with my 70-300).

This was taken with the 35mm in very low light, and I like the background blur just fine:


Elka, Princess by adversus.us, on Flickr

 

[sleist]

I own the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and just picked up the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. The 50mm was my favorite lens on my D90 until I picked up the 30mm. People crap all over Sigma, but I have 3 of their primes and they really produce some quality shots.

I like the 50 on a crop, but the 35 was too normal for me (I had the Nikkor 35 1.8 and got rid of it). The Sigma 30mm is just wide enough to make things interesting. If you decide to dump the 35mm, consider the Sigma 30mm 1.4. Well worth the extra $$.

30mm at F4 on D90

Obligatory cat shot
30mm @ F2 on D90

 

[flatflip]

I own the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and just picked up the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. The 50mm was my favorite lens on my D90 until I picked up the 30mm. People crap all over Sigma, but I have 3 of their primes and they really produce some quality shots.

I like the 50 on a crop, but the 35 was too normal for me (I had the Nikkor 35 1.8 and got rid of it). The Sigma 30mm is just wide enough to make things interesting. If you decide to dump the 35mm, consider the Sigma 30mm 1.4. Well worth the extra $$.

I like your advice and love your pics. (I like to say "pics". Is that offensive here?)

OP, Do you have a kit zoom? If so, I might lean to the 50 also. I have the 35 and love it for indoor-wide and outside-normal. I often wish I had a 50 for walking around.

 

[sleist]

I like your advice and love your pics. (I like to say "pics". Is that offensive here?)

Thanks and no - at least I'm not offended. But then I don't take myself quite as seriously as some.

 

[DeAd-EyE]

OP, Do you have a kit zoom? If so, I might lean to the 50 also. I have the 35 and love it for indoor-wide and outside-normal. I often wish I had a 50 for walking around.

Negative. No kit lens.

 

[flatflip]

OP, Do you have a kit zoom? If so, I might lean to the 50 also. I have the 35 and love it for indoor-wide and outside-normal. I often wish I had a 50 for walking around.

Negative. No kit lens.

Personally, I'd rather have a normal / 35 for just-one-lens.

 

[bluetibby1]

I love my 50mm 1.8. It is pretty much the lens on my D90 95% of the time. Have no experience with the 35mm. I am borrowing a the nikon 24.70mm 2.8 and I must say... I AM IN LOVE. But yeah.

 

[subscuck]

I also own both the Sigma 30 1.4 and 50 1.4 (Canon mount). They're both brilliant lenses. I would return the 35 and get the Sigma 30 1.4. If you love the 50, you'll love the 30 just as much. My 50 is hands down my favorite lens.

 

[DeAd-EyE]

Ended up hanging on to the 35mm but really miss the 50 now. Will probably buy it back as finances permit. Does anyone make a 18-50mm f1.4? =)

Side note: when comming to the website on my PC, i got a warning from microsoft security essentials and it found 2 java exploits as soon as the main page finished loading. Does anyone else get this?

 

[fsquare]

why the need for a 1.4 or 1.8? Get a Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 or Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 and call it a day.

 

[DeAd-EyE]

why the need for a 1.4 or 1.8? Get a Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 or Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 and call it a day.

Would those 2.8's be well suited to night shooting? Also is it true that prime's are sharper than zooms or is that just a myth from back in the day before manufacturing technology advanced to this point?

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

What you shoot most often should matter more than DOF effect (especially since they will both blur the background , just one more than the other.) , if you constantly miss shots or cant use the 50mm due to space, what good is that nice DOF effect?