Would you go from a Nikon 50 1.4G to the Sigma 50 1.4?

[Damnations Fury]

As thread title really, there seems to be huge praise for the Sigma and I am trying to do a fair emount more portrait work. The cost of going from on the the other seems fairly minimal, so would you say it is worth it?

 

[Gareth_R]

In a word......... No.

 

[woof woof]

Is this the one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfyrGfqZQ-A

If it is it doesn't look like much of a contest TBH with the Siggy winning easily. At wide apertures the Siggy looks sharper and has rounder "balls," the Nikon's looking angular and that's a big consideration in a wide aperture lens IMVHO. Googling seems to say that the Siggy has less CA too.

If you already have the Nikon I don't know if it's worth changing but if buying from scratch just like with the Canon fast 50's it looks like the Siggy is the one to beat.

 

[Damnations Fury]

Yes that one

 

[Laudrup]

I'd save my money and buy an 85mm f/1.8.

 

[Damnations Fury]

I'd save my money and buy an 85mm f/1.8.

Already planning to pick one up, was more asking if it cost me £30 to £40 to switch, would it be worth it?

 

[Laudrup]

If you regularly shoot wide open then it may be worth upgrading to the Sigma, just make sure you find a sharp one as they aren't renowned for their tight quality control. If you are shooting stopped down then there is little between the two and I wouldn't bother.

Once I had an 85mm for portraits I never really bothered with 50mm much.

 

[mh photography]

I did, but purely for it's better bokeh as I use it for portrait work, I prefer it in every way to the nikon. Faster focusing too.

 

[Damnations Fury]

It looks like I can pick one up 2nd hand for no real difference to what I can sell the Nikon at.

 

[Damnations Fury]

If you regularly shoot wide open then it may be worth upgrading to the Sigma, just make sure you find a sharp one as they aren't renowned for their tight quality control. If you are shooting stopped down then there is little between the two and I wouldn't bother.

Once I had an 85mm for portraits I never really bothered with 50mm much.

Usually shooting around F2 (1.4 is nice, but the dof is usually a little too thin unless I have a decent amount of distance between me and the subject), would that still be enough to make the swap worth it?

 

[Laudrup]

If you can get it at no real price difference then I'd pick up the Sigma version. Just make sure it is sharp.

 

[Ozei]

If weight is important to you - the Sigma is a lot heavier than the Nikon (505g vs 290g). I've only got the Nikon so can't comment on the Sigma, but here are some folk who have owned/used both - http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&message=30263506&changemode=1

 

[Ozei]

And here are two reviews from the same writer (the Nikon review is the most recent):

• http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_50_1p4_c16/page6.asp
• http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_50_1p4g_n15/page5.asp (see the last two paragraphs under 'Overall Conclusion')

 

[Damnations Fury]

And here are two reviews from the same writer (the Nikon review is the most recent):

• http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_50_1p4_c16/page6.asp
• http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_50_1p4g_n15/page5.asp (see the last two paragraphs under 'Overall Conclusion')

Much appreciated. Think I will go for one if I can pick one up at reasonable enough price, otherwise I will just stay with what i've got.