Lens Choice: Sigma 30mm f1.4 vs Nikon 35mm f1.8?

[Bryan]

I think I've come to the conclusion that I prefer the 35mm focal length over 50mm, so I had kind of gotten my heart set on the Nikon 35mm prime, but I've also heard good things about the Sigma, not the least of which is better bokeh and 2/3 of an f-stop (so even better low-light performance). Unfortunately, the Sigma is twice the price.

Have any of you tried it? Do you think it's worth it?

[f86sabjf]

Hmmm for me the Nikon would be better . I don't know about Sigma but I believe the Nikon has a better warranty .

[Bryan]

For comparison, here are a couple photos:

The Nikon:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3353/3654809466_9c4ba04870_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/daviddelarosa/3654809466/)
A Flower for You (http://www.flickr.com/photos/daviddelarosa/3654809466/) by Photo David (http://www.flickr.com/people/daviddelarosa/), on Flickr

The Sigma:

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6031/6268968630_598bc289f1_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrea72/6268968630/)
You... Living beside Me (http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrea72/6268968630/) by Andrea  LD (http://www.flickr.com/people/andrea72/), on Flickr

[Ronpc]

Some reviews (if you have not seen them)


http://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/30mm-f14.htm

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_35_1p8g_n15

http://www.dpreview.com/products/sigma/lenses/sigma_30_1p4

[Bryan]

Thank you for the review links. I'd watched a couple of videos on DigitalRev:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq08O8ErSic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-eLPEPw4Vk

Based on what I've read (I read Ken Rockwell's reviews of both the Sigma and Nikon) and watched, the Nikon's image quality makes up for the bokeh (which is still not bad). Even though the Sigma does a little better in lower light, it doesn't seem to focus as quickly and has problems with overexposure (one review mentioned a yellow cast on all images). I've kind of got my heart set on it, but I was basically wondering if someone could talk into the Sigma instead :oops:

[smaeda]

I would buy the 1.8, and use the saved cash on a nice flash.

[RotorNutFD3S]

I have the Nikon 35mm and I love it. I tried it and a 50mm out at the same time and found I liked the 35mm more. I have not tried the Sigma so I can't offer a comparison between them.

Have you seen if anyone in your area has equipment that they'd let you borrow?

[Bryan]

I would buy the 1.8, and use the saved cash on a nice flash.That plan makes sense. I was just surprised that the Sigma doesn't lose hands down to the Nikon and, depending on who you ask, is actually better.

[LOL]

If you want the lens for Bokeh, I'd skip the 35mm focal length because you will have to get significantly closer to your subject than a 50 or 100.

[Bryan]

If you want the lens for Bokeh, I'd skip the 35mm focal length because you will have to get significantly closer to your subject than a 50 or 100.
Two considerations for sticking with a < 50mm focal length (for me):

1.) In experimenting with focal lengths on my 18-55 kit lens, I found the 35mm focal length to be more comfortable for shooting things from my son (http://www.flickr.com/photos/39576102@N00/7445282738/in/set-72157630292329472/) (where I'm barely more than arm's length) to cars (http://www.flickr.com/photos/39576102@N00/sets/72157630176063048/) (where I'm a little further back, but still find myself wanting to be a little closer because the lot is crowded) than 50mm.
2.) Since I'm shooting on a DX/crop sensor camera (Nikon D3100), the 35mm is equivalent to a 50. I like it because framing is easier because it's close to what my eyes see.

Does that make sense?

[Ted7]

I took pictures of my son with a 50mm and it turns out great

http://ted7.smugmug.com/photos/i-nPM4Ndm/0/L/i-nPM4Ndm-L.jpg


It was a bit weird at the beginning but once you get used to it, you don't want to come back, well most of the time.

Now if you're not sure why not trying to borrow or rent the lens from someone?

[Bryan]

Now if you're not sure why not trying to borrow or rent the lens from someone?I'm going to borrow a 35mm 1.8 while I'm at MATG later this month. I'll have to make some other arrangements to try out the 50.

[revlimiter]

I've used the Sigma. It's fantastic. I'd not give purchasing it a 2nd thought.

[Bryan]

I've used the Sigma. It's fantastic. I'd not give purchasing it a 2nd thought.Wow...that's an endorsement I wasn't expecting to get! Have you tried the Nikon as well?

[Bryan]

What's now confusing me is that as the little guy gets bigger, I'm suddenly appreciating the fact that I can stand back a little further using a 50mm and get the same shot. So that brings the Nikon 50mm f1.8g and Sigma f1.4 into the equation...

Dang it!

[f86sabjf]

quit out smarting yourself:mrgreen:

[Bryan]

Yeah...I still need to actually have the money to spend.

[f86sabjf]

boy dont i know that feeling . Trying to figure out how to buy a $450 carbon fiber tripod right now:fp:

[Bryan]

boy dont i know that feeling . Trying to figure out how to buy a $450 carbon fiber tripod right now:fp:Yeah...basically, I'm assuming I'm only buying one of these four lenses in the next 5 years or so, so I want the one that I'm going to like.

[Bryan]

One more consideration...is f1.8 max aperture really so much more useful than, say f2.8? The thought of replacing my kit lens with an f2.8 Tamron or Sigma 17-50mm is tempting. Both carry the f2.8 over their entire zoom range, which seems pretty awesome to me as it's something the D3100's kit lens definitely can't do.

[Caoboy]

Yes, yes it is.


While I am not a great person to explain, but the bokeh and DOF of a 1.8 is amazing. It also helps for low light situations as well. All I use is my 50mm and 35m. And now my 28mm Vivitar.


If you want a tele lens, f/2.8 is as good as it's going to get. I have heard good things about the sigma.

[revlimiter]

Sorry, never looked at this thread again after replying. I've not tried the Nikon 35/1.8. I have no doubt it's nice. But I really liked the Sigma that I tried. Super impressive. I can't imagine the Nikkor being that much nicer.

Anyways.

I don't know how to say this in a friendly manner so... I'm just gonna say it. If you're asking a question like you just did, "is f1.8 max aperture really so much more useful than, say f2.8?" you need to fold up your wallet and put it away. Don't even think about buying something before you really understand the gear you're lusting after. You need to make some local photo buddies and try out some of their gear. Or take an online photo class where you have to do assignments every week. You need to really understand what you have before you throw money at it.

I don't mean to offend. I really don't. I just don't wanna see you follow some stray advice (even mine) and pick up a lens that you'll end up not needing or hating. Learn your camera. Take a class. Experience some really good gear that belongs to someone else. Understand forward and backward what all the numbers mean. Then buy a lens. Experience will teach you more than all the forums and books in the world.

I still shoot a lot with my crappy 18-55 kit lens. It's not a glamorous lens, but it works. Sometimes very very well.

[afc2112]

I've got the Nikon 35mm 1.8 and it is an outstanding lens. The price makes it even more attractive.

But I bought it for its speed and low light capability at a great price point.

I don't understand the internet mentality over 'bokeh.' It's like the photography equivalent of being slammed. As long as the lens can throw the background out of focus and not distract from your subject, I'm pretty happy with that. And the lenses you're looking at, they're all capable of providing just that.

[Bryan]

I don't know how to say this in a friendly manner so... I'm just gonna say it. If you're asking a question like you just did, "is f1.8 max aperture really so much more useful than, say f2.8?" you need to fold up your wallet and put it away. Don't even think about buying something before you really understand the gear you're lusting after. You need to make some local photo buddies and try out some of their gear. Or take an online photo class where you have to do assignments every week. You need to really understand what you have before you throw money at it.

I don't mean to offend. I really don't. I just don't wanna see you follow some stray advice (even mine) and pick up a lens that you'll end up not needing or hating. Learn your camera. Take a class. Experience some really good gear that belongs to someone else. Understand forward and backward what all the numbers mean. Then buy a lens. Experience will teach you more than all the forums and books in the world.I'm not offended, Adam. Your criticism is fair.

I should have prefaced my question by suggesting I wanted the 17-50 to become my only lens due to the fact that it has a wider aperture than the 18-55 kit lens and, even more importantly, has it across all focal lengths, thus giving me better low-light performance at a zoom level my kit lens struggles at. I should've also mentioned that I probably won't be buying a lens for at least a year unless my wife gets creative for Christmas or my birthday.

[AHHthatsJDMyo]

If you want the lens for Bokeh, I'd skip the 35mm focal length because you will have to get significantly closer to your subject than a 50 or 100.

on his crop sensor, the 35mm is actually a 52mm

[smaeda]

New vid that just came out.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X17Tba_azxQ&amp;feature=player_embedded

5 reasons to get a 35mm

[Bryan]

Oooooo...another DigitalRev video!

You have my attention :lol:

[f86sabjf]

yep love me some digi rev

[smaeda]

http://www.adorama.com/NK3518UV.html


http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20514355.html

[Bryan]

http://www.adorama.com/NK3518UV.html


http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20514355.html
Thanks for the links!

I'm still torn between the prime vs zoom argument. I think that I would want a prime, but that my wife would appreciate having the convenience of a zoom.

[revlimiter]

Here's a handy list for you...

When do you need a zoom lens?
1: When you can't move relative to your subject.

That concludes the list. :)

Really, a prime lens is superior to a zoom in every way. The only time a zoom shines is when you're stuck in a seat you paid for and your subject is moving around on a stage, track, or court. Zooms can also be nice for things like landscapes and skyscapes, but again, you're somewhat stuck in your seat (where you're standing relative to the heavenly glory you're attempting to capture).

[smaeda]

I guess if you buy the 2.8 and sell the kit lens, you could make some money back. Although you will miss out on the creamy Bokeh of the prime (not that it matters too much). But like Adam said, the prime lens is going to be better in every way. Also judging from the pics you post, I think you can do all of them without zoom. I would buy the 200 dollar prime and buy the cheap but proven Yongnuo flash and call it a day.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Yongnuo-YN-565EX-TTL-Flash-Speedlite-Nikon-D5100-D5000-D90-D3000-D7000-D300-D200-/140663695006?pt=Digital_Camera_Flashes&hash=item20c035a69e#ht_3924wt_1165

[Bryan]

Here's a handy list for you...

When do you need a zoom lens?
1: When you can't move relative to your subject.

That concludes the list. :)

Really, a prime lens is superior to a zoom in every way. The only time a zoom shines is when you're stuck in a seat you paid for and your subject is moving around on a stage, track, or court. Zooms can also be nice for things like landscapes and skyscapes, but again, you're somewhat stuck in your seat (where you're standing relative to the heavenly glory you're attempting to capture).While I agree with you in theory, I don't really think my wife is going to buy that explanation.

That said, having a prime and the kit lens wouldn't be a bad thing. Wish I had money for the Tamron and a prime, too!

[LOL]

Wait, who are you buying this lens for? You or your wife?

[roy obanion]

My dad owns the Nikkor and I love it. I want to buy the Sigma for two reasons: I have been super impressed with my 10-20 sigma, and you can never have enough light. The step from 1.8 to 1.4 makes a more drastic difference than you would think. Not that the Nikkor isn't a fantastic value or a brilliant lens, I think it is both.

[Bryan]

Wait, who are you buying this lens for? You or your wife?Well, I'm presuming that spending $2-400 wouldn't go over well if the lens were just for my exclusive usage. In other words, I should think about what she'd be most comfortable using.

My dad owns the Nikkor and I love it. I want to buy the Sigma for two reasons: I have been super impressed with my 10-20 sigma, and you can never have enough light. The step from 1.8 to 1.4 makes a more drastic difference than you would think. Not that the Nikkor isn't a fantastic value or a brilliant lens, I think it is both.I think if I were picking between the two, I think 30mm might be a little too wide for all-the-time usage.

[smaeda]

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1144037


http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1143713

[roy obanion]

Well, I'm presuming that spending $2-400 wouldn't go over well if the lens were just for my exclusive usage. In other words, I should think about what she'd be most comfortable using.
I think if I were picking between the two, I think 30mm might be a little too wide for all-the-time usage.

Plus it should be cheaper. :D

[Bryan]

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1144037


http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1143713
Dang...wish I had the cash laying around!

[smaeda]

https://www.lensrentals.com/buy/nikon/nikon-50mm-f1.8g-af-s-serial-number-6004390

[Bryan]

https://www.lensrentals.com/buy/nikon/nikon-50mm-f1.8g-af-s-serial-number-6004390
I need to keep an eye on that page. I'm to assume they're pretty reputable?

[revlimiter]

Have you still not bought one?

[smaeda]

I need to keep an eye on that page. I'm to assume they're pretty reputable?

Yep they are good.

[Bryan]

Have you still not bought one?
Nope...haven't won the money battle yet :(

[revlimiter]

Remind the wife that every day that goes past without nice photos is a day that can never be reclaimed.

[Bryan]

Remind the wife that every day that goes past without nice photos is a day that can never be reclaimed.

Sadly, a battle based solely on that is one that can never be won. She's quite happy with what she gets out of the kit lens--considering she can get ones like these (http://www.flickr.com/photos/39576102@N00/sets/72157632056162308/) (not earth-shatteringly awesome, but still more than enough to convey that my son is awesome :oops: ), I can't really come up with a good enough counter-argument.

[roy obanion]

Find her some nice shallow DOF shots of childrens...

[smaeda]

Do it for the childrenz.

[revlimiter]

http://www.adorama.com/SG3014NKAF.html?utm_term=Other&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_campaign=Other&utm_source=rflaid67901

You're not gonna beat that price.

[Bryan]

http://www.adorama.com/SG3014NKAF.html?utm_term=Other&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_campaign=Other&utm_source=rflaid67901

You're not gonna beat that price.
Dang it, Adam... :lol:

Thank you for the head's up!

[smaeda]

Wow super price.

[roy obanion]

Holy moly. I need it, and my birthday is coming up :)

[roy obanion]

Hrmmm, new version inbound:

http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2013/01/new-gear-sigma-30mm-f14-dc-hsm-lens-canon-and-nikon

http://www.popphoto.com/files/imagecache/article_main_photo/_images/201301/sigma_30mm_f14.jpg


How much do we want to bet nothing new besides the 11.8in focusing distance? (old one is 15.7in)

[Bryan]

Pick up the old one...at least one of us should be happy :lol:

[roy obanion]

Just for you, Bryan:
(not my work)


I Like Big Glass

Oh my gawd, Nikon.
Look at that glass.
Its sooo big and chunky.
It looks like one of FroKnow's lenses.
I mean that glass, its just so big.
I can't believe it's so round.
It's just out there.
I mean, it's crazy.
I mean.. that lens.. is just so.. big.. and black.

*rap*

I like big glass; i cannot lie.
You pancake users can't deny.
That when glass walks in with an itty bitty f'stop and wide aperture in your face -- you wallet gets sprung.
Wanna shoot that wide open.
Cuz you notice that bokeh be invokin'!
Deep in that lens elements be glaring,
I'm hooked and can't stop staring.
Oh, baby, I wanna just use ya's,
To take a lot of pictures.
Yeah.. my homeboys tried to warn me....
But, baby, that big ol' glass -- oh god..
Just makes "me sooo horny."

Thats right, your smooth focus ring,
I want you.. on MY machine.
So, do your hocus pocus,
Cuz you aint got just the average depth of focus!

Big lenses (Yeah), Big lenses (Yeah).
Do you wanna screw on my machine? (Yeah).
Then turn about, stick it out -- I mean...
Even Ken Rockwell's got to shout:
"Baby's got glass!"

Well, cheap lens users may dismiss you as fine,
Saying glass never needs gold lines...
And they just ignore you...
But, baby.. I'd never leave without you!

And so what?
Dpreview says youre too heavy,
And you cost as much as a used Chevy..
But that's cuz your f/ is small...
And your aperture is kickin'!

Yeah, baby --
When it comes to phat glass,
Pocketability ain't got nothin' to do with my selection,
A tiny 3.4 by 2.6 inch?
Only if its a 50mm!

To the all-in-ones in the magazines,
No - you aint got "it", no, not even for traveling.
Just give me a phat prime lens,
I can't resist it.
And DX pretty much misses it!
Some dark lens users may try to dis,
Bus their crappy plastic elements ain't on my list,
They think going cheap is just so bright,
But, bro -- how you gonna shoot at night!?

So, lenses, if your front element is big n' round,
And you exponentially give bigger stop down,
Dial 1-800-NIKONRUMORS --
And let's snap some kick-ass shots!

Baby's got glass.
Baby's got glass.

[Bryan]

:lol:

For a second there, I thought you'd written something to the tune of "Baby's Got Sauce" (awesome song, btw). G Love and Special Sauce is kind of an obscure reference these days!

[Bryan]

Looks like the question is settled (http://mazdaroadster.net/showthread.php?200-DSLR-SLR-Post-Your-Photos-amp-Discussion-Thread&p=78722&viewfull=1#post78722) :)

[smaeda]

Congrats!