Which Nikon 50mm to buy??

[JamesMason]

the 1.8 aint "cheap" glass in the sense of "cheap" Its just good vaule

Well. The fast glass and quality images you can get out of the 1.8 doesn't make it appear as cheap. However it does have a cheap plastic body and absolutely no weather resistance and does feel very cheap.

were you talking about the g ?

 

[itznfb]

the 1.8 aint "cheap" glass in the sense of "cheap" Its just good vaule

Well. The fast glass and quality images you can get out of the 1.8 doesn't make it appear as cheap. However it does have a cheap plastic body and absolutely no weather resistance and does feel very cheap.

were you talking about the g ?

I'm not aware of a Nikon 50mm f/1.8G

 

[fiveoboy01]

1.8af imho. All that money for 1 extra stop, nah.

Would not go for the g ethier, slow foucs and cheap feeling to it

I don't agree with this.

While the 1.4G may be slow to move from full stop to the focus point, once it's there, it does a very good job of staying locked on tight. It's awesome for tracking little kids running around the room:mrgreen:

 

[JerryPH]

I did not find the Nikkor 50mm F/1.4G slow at all... quite the opposite. If you want slow... try the Sigma 30mm F/1.4DC EX HSM DX lens... awesome little lens but noticeably slow to acquire focus.

 

[Derrel]

" I bet that huge opening lets in a lot more light than the Nikkor and is likely why it is better under low light situations."

That is just too funny. You're not serious are you? The big "opening" is the front filter threads....the width of a lens's diaphragm in relation to the focal length is what determines f/stop...the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is an f/1.4 lens; if it WERE better in admiting low light, it'd be called a 50mm f/1.2 or whatever it actually was.

Look at the Leica 50mm f/1.0 Noctilux M--it has a 60mm filter thread and it is f/1.0, or a full f/stop wider than f/1.4.
Leica | 50mm f/1.0 Special Edition Noctilux M Manual | 11603

The Sigma is an f/1.4 lens....the Nikkor is an f/1.4 lens...any f/1.4 lens admits the same amount of light. How large the manufacturer makes the front filter threads is largely determined by the need for a consistent filter thread, based largely on what will be professonally accepted. Sigma has learned its lesson with their non-standard coarse-threaded filters and their 82mm filters on things like their 100-300mm f/4 HSM zoom lens; the Nikon 300mm f/4 uses 77 mm filters.

In order to gain acceptance with professionals, Sigma made the 50/1.4 a 77mm filter thread lens,so serious users of Canon and Nikon and other pro-level lenses like 24-70,28-70mand 70-200 f/2.8 as well as 300mm f/4 lenses could standardize on the 77mm filter threads for filters.

Secondarily, making a lens designing physically larger means it is easier to fully correct a number of optical aberrations to near-perfection without the need for ultra-low dispersion glass and/or very costly aspherical element designs. As you an see, Leitz was able to reach the Holy Grail-type f/1.0 with a very compact lens with only a 60mm filter thread, but 77mm has become over the years, the "new professional standard" for Canon and Nikon pro glass, up from 72mm when I was a young man.

Sigma's decision to go with an aspherical design AND to make it large,and to really work at creating a great 50 is not/was not to compete with Nikon's 50 1.4 AF-D or Canon;s 50 1.4 EF but it was to try and siphon off some sales from Canon's 50mm f/1.2-L prime; the Sigma has exceptionally good optical performance compared with the 50/1.2 L from Canon--with the Sigma's massive elements AND aspherical design leading to superb correction of chromatic aberration and very consistent center-to-edge performance on digital FX sensors.

Sigma's design has large elements at the front, but the actual light-admitting path is not significantly larger than any other maker's 50/1.4, hence the specification. I've examined very closely comparison tests between the Canon 50/1.2L and the Sigma 1.4 Aspherical. Sigma went with the old-school approach of very large lens elements, plus the benefit of aspherical design, in order to make a high-performance lens priced affordably....not $1800 like a Canon and not $4,500 like a high-speed Leitz lens made with cutting-edge glass and extremely expensive asherical elements AND designed to be compact.

Nikon's 50/1.4 AF-S G is, in my opinion, a response to SIGMA's 50/1.4, but with an entirely different set of design parameters that appeal more to people who want a more-compact lens. Sigma's 50 1.4 is the *ONLY* aftermarket luxury 50mm lens on the market,and it's aimed squarely at Canon users who cannot afford the 1.2-L and who want better optical performance at a lower price than that particular L-series lens. This is the way the aftermarket lens makers work--pick a niche where mfr. lenses are either non-existant,or underpeforming or weak,or too-costly,and slot right in with something really good or of really good value.

 

[JerryPH]

" I bet that huge opening lets in a lot more light than the Nikkor and is likely why it is better under low light situations."

That is just too funny. You're not serious are you?

Holy crap Derrel, you are on the war path with just about everyone on the forum today, aren't you? Having a bad day?

The big "opening" is the front filter threads....the width of a lens's diaphragm in relation to the focal length is what determines f/stop...Sigma is an f/1.4 lens; if it WERE better in admiting low light, it'd be called a 50mm f/1.2 or whatever it actually was.

Yes, when I said that, I was being serious... I also said "I bet", as in "I am not sure why the Sigma acquires focus faster in low light than the Nikkor, but it does. Where the Nikkor hunts for focus a couple seconds, the Sigma locks in without hunting, fast and accurate and maybe this is a good possible reason...". I said NOTHING anything even remotely closele related to F/stop... perhaps you need to go back and read my post again?

The Sigma is an f/1.4 lens....the Nikkor is an f/1.4 lens...any f/1.4 lens admits the same amount of light.

On that we disagree. Though the same amount of light may reach the sensor, if the front element is larger, there may be the possibility to catch more light. Again, I am not sure, and again, I am not talking about exposure, I am talking lens functionality. There is more to a lens than it's ability to place a specific amount of light on the sensor.

How large the manufacturer makes the front filter threads is largely determined by the need for a consistent filter thread, based largely on what will be professonally accepted.

In order to gain acceptance with professionals, Sigma made the 50/1.4 a 77mm filter thread lens,so serious users of Canon and Nikon and other pro-level lenses like 24-70,28-70mand 70-200 f/2.8 as well as 300mm f/4 lenses could standardize on the 77mm filter threads for filters.

Well if that is the only reason (and I am still doubtful of that as being the only reason), it is still a positive feature and not a detriment. I own that 24-70, 70-200 and my Sigma 10-20 is also a 77mm as is my 85mm F/1.4... so it is still an additional valid selling point for me to get the Sigma over the Nikkor.

The fact that it uses 77mm filters is just another plus added to the list of other things it has over the Nikkor.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I couldn't rely on the Sigma's AF, and the lens sort of defeated the purpose of a 50mm for me because it was so big. It's a beautiful lens though when the stars and planets align and it looks sweet on a D700.

What's not to rely on? I am not the only one using the Sigma and none of the wedding photographers that own the Sigma (and had the Nikkor 50mm F/1.4G at the same time) had any focusing issues with it locking in on a target in perfect focus first time out.

This is the first I have heard of this.

The "race" in this case is indeed very close, but the Sigma does edge out the Nikkor in several areas... and it was $20 less to boot at the time I bought it (I *wish* I'd had bought it a week earlier, it was an additional $30 less at the time on Amazon... no regrets, though)

Sample variation. Once is enough for me to say no, and otherwise, the Nikon suits me better.

I can't believe you haven't heard of the AF problems, I say you're bluffing. Canon users have alot more trouble with it then the nikon users, but the most common problem with the sigma is AF, and what good is f/1.4 if it can't even focus on target?

Nonetheless, if both are working great, you really can't go wrong with either.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Just to further my point, here's a thread on the sigma 50, stright from the nikon section on DP review, front page. It's very common.

Update on Sigma 50mm 1.4: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

 

[JerryPH]

Sample variation. Once is enough for me to say no, and otherwise, the Nikon suits me better.

Of course whatever makes you happier is more important.

I can't believe you haven't heard of the AF problems, I say you're bluffing. Canon users have alot more trouble with it then the nikon users, but the most common problem with the sigma is AF, and what good is f/1.4 if it can't even focus on target?

I don't ever do research on Canon based units becuase that info is useless to me when making a decision, I look for the Nikon-specific info. what I normally do is:

- read the reviews
- read what Nikon users have to say in forums
- I really lucked out with the near dozen or so wedding photographers that group purchased both lenses and then returned the ones they found not as good as the other (all kept the Sigma and returned or sold the Nikkor)
- I often spend 30-40 bucks on LD calls to personally talk to people who own the lens and don't want to hear so much about the good as I want to hear about the bad.
- I never purchase any lens/camera that just comes out, but wait for real world info and results to come out.

In none of the cases above, in my research did AF issues arise. Again, none were Canon based tests either.

Nonetheless, if both are working great, you really can't go wrong with either.

I agree. At this level, we're just splitting hairs.

 

[Bigpopa]

I run the Sigma on my D60 and have never had any problems with AF and I have to agree with Jerry that in low light this thing kicks ass...........

 

[DScience]

Since we're throwing in examples, here is another in favor for the Nikon 1.4 (keep in mind i've never used sigma)

 

[Derrel]

I'm sorry Jerry, but the idea that a big front element lens "catches more light" is not why the Sigma 50mm 1.4 is so big. For example, Nikon used to make a 20mm f/3.5 lens with a positively HUGE, curved, impressive front element, with a 72mm filter size
20mm f/3.5 Nikkor-UD Auto Lens

The 1967-introduced 20mm f/3.5 had a big front element to help it with even illumination, but it was only a f/3.5 maximum aperture. Go to the above web page and LOOK at the optical diagram and see how positively HUGE the front element was--and yet, it's only an f/3.5 maximum aperture.

In 1979, Nikon introduced a 20mm f/3.5 lens with a 52mm filter and a NORMAL-sized front element. It used 52mm filters. I remember this lens well. So, Nikon went from a 1967 design with a HUGE front element and a 72mm filter size, to a small,normal-sized front element and using 52mm filters, yet BOTH lenses were f/3.5 maximum aperture. Links are there on those pages.

The physical size of a lens's front element does not allow it to "catch more light". That is simply an erroneous assumption on short focal length lenses like 20 to 50mm lenses. We can see two 20mm Nikkor lenses, one with a HUGE front element and one with a normal-sixed front element are both f/3.5, yet the one with the HUGE front element does not "catch more light".

The physical size of the front element on wide angle and normal lenses varies quite a bit,depending on the optical design choices, and the degree of optical aberrations the lens designers want to correct. LARGER elements are easier to grind,and physically larger lens designs can have aberrations reduced because the larger element has a gentler radius, and thus it is easier to grind the lens adequately well so that the desired optical aberrations are reduced--without the need to resort to costly hand-ground aspherical surfaces, or any aspherical surfaces at all. Larger lenses can be ground with lower precision,yet still retain amazingly good aberration correction. Miniaturizing costs money,and demands precision orders of magnitudes higher than going "big". Zeiss knew this when they developed their lens series for the Contarex cameras in the 1960's: Zeiss decided to let the lens designs at each focal length be as large as they needed to be to give the desired optical corrections; the larger and less-curved an element is, the easier,and cheaper, it is to make the element deliver nearly-perfect optical performance. Even if the grind is not perfect. Big covers errors!

As technology has advanced, modern methods have allowed designers to create *molded* and *hybrid-plastic* aspherical elements, instead of painstakingly hand-grinding all-glass aspherical elements, like on the 28mm f/1.4 AF-D Nikkor or on the 58mm f/1.2 NOCT-Nikkor lenses. (lenses now selling used for $3,500 or so on the eBay market! Over double their original retail costs!) Sigma and Leitz have the only aspherical 50's I know of.

The reason Sigma made a 50mm lens with a HUGE front element is not to "catch more light"; they made it big to deliver maximum aberration correction with an easy-to-manufacture,easy to assemble,simple design that betters Canon,Nikon, Pentax,and Sony 50s-- reliably,and affordably!

What Sigma did was to use proven optical design principles,dating back hundreds of years. Allow the lens to be large, with no concern over weight or petite size. Large, soft-curvature grinds are easy to make and easier to correct. The huge front is a large, soft-radius grind. The lens has ONE, molded aspherical element at the rear. They have tried very hard to correct saggital coma, JUST like NIKON did with the 28/1.4 and 58/1.2 Noct-Nikkor, so that in lowlight photography, and astrophotography, the lens will not cause horrible ellipsoidal blurring around point light sources. And, they have tried to keep all aberrations to an absolute minimum. In a side-by-side test I saw and examined very closely, the Sigma 50/1.4 BEAT the Canon 50/1.2L in terms of both resolution and chromatic aberration and center vs edge resolution. Sigma made the front element large,and the other elements large-ish for optimum lens correction that could be achieved using simple,everyday manufacturing technology, and ONE low-cost molded aspherical element at the very rear. The design was influenced by how GOOD they wanted the lens to be, at a reasonable manufacturing cost, without the need for extremely-high precision and very costly miniaturization: that Leica Noctilux-M 50mm f/1.0 I showed,with the 60mm filter threads? Those are selling for $4895 to $7500,used. Mini costs money!

The Sigma 50mm 1.4 is a close copy of the Leica Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4, with a single, eighth element, the molded aspherical one, added at the rear.
Sigma managed to make a superb 50mm 1.4 lens by using a very old approach: larger elements for maximal aberration reduction; high emphasis on reducing saggital coma and chromatic aberrations; and adding a non-traditional eighth element, an inexpensive molded aspherical element at the rear to apply "final corrections". The lens is still an f/1.4, much larger than other makers' f/1.4 lenses, but newer, better-corrected,and MUCH lower cost than Nikon or Leitz or Zeiss would have priced it. Killer design, old school big elements, a proven 7-element design like Leitz, plus a low-cost,molded aspherical 8th element. A simple mix of old- and new-think.

Go to Sigma's web page on the 50/1.4 and look at the diagram and read what they say about it. It is a brilliant design. I understand why you like it.

Sigma - Lenses

 

[Bigpopa]

Here is another example of the Sigma 50 1.4