Nikon @ f1.4
Sigma @ f1.4
For lovers of fast glass, it’s tough to choose between these new, $500 titans of standard lenses. I have long felt that Nikon’s $300 50/f1.4D traditional AF design has been showing its age, and that we were due for an electronically-focused modern optical design. Sigma was first out of the gate, first with a 30/f1.4G DX-only design, followed by the full-frame 50/f1.4G described here. Nikon followed with their 50/f1.4G a few months later.
Physically, the two lenses couldn’t be more different. Sigma’s entry is a relative behemoth, while Nikon’s looks like the unassuming standard lens it purports to be.
| Characteristic |
Nikon
|
Sigma
|
| Construction |
8 elements / 7 groups
|
8 elements / 6 groups
|
| Special elements |
None
|
Aspherical
|
| Close focus |
18 in
|
18 in
|
| Weight |
9.9 oz
|
17.8 oz
|
| Filter size |
58mm
|
77mm
|
| Length |
2.1 in
|
2.7 in
|
| Diameter |
2.9 in
|
3.3 in
|
| Street price |
$485
|
$499
|
| Aperture blades |
9
|
9
|
The Nikon, originally introduced with a street price of $435 (the price at which I bought mine on pre-order), soon saw the price jacked up by 10%.
I’ve been shooting with the Sigma for some time, and am extremely impressed with its overall performance. But the Nikon is certainly no slouch, either, and my initial reaction is that for all the Sigma’s extra bulk, the Nikon might be a touch better as a sports action lens.
Both lenses are well-corrected for common issues for fast glass: chromatic aberration, flare, and ghosting. The bright lights in the two sample shots above would often cause flare sports with the old Nikon 50/f1.4D AF, while ghosting is reasonably well controlled. (The color differences in the lights is attributable to the fluctuation inherent in tri-phase lighting and not the glass; auto WB was used on both bodies.) Contrast and color are excellent in both lenses.
In this first outing, the Nikon turned in a better AF performance with a higher proportion of keepers, particularly at f1.4. This pair of 100% crops (click for 100% views), Nikon on the left, shows both lenses are extremely capable.
100% crops @ f1.4
Stopped down to f2, which still allowed for a respectable ISO 640 at 1/400 in VMI’s well-lit Cameron Hall, brought increased performance, especially from the Sigma. One is hard-pressed to choose a winner here.
100% crops at f2.0
Of course, sports isn’t the only thing these lenses are useful for, and I’ll certainly be looking at their viability as portrait glass.
Buying Resources
| Vendor/Mount |
Nikon 50/f1.4G AF-S
|
Sigma 50/f1.4G EX DG HSM
|
| Adorama / Nikon | ||
| Adorama / Canon |
N/A
|
|
| B&H / Nikon | ||
| B&H / Canon |
N/A
|
|
| Abe’s / Nikon | ||
| Abe’s / Canon |
N/A
|
7 responses so far ↓
1 Steve // Feb 22, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Good review. I have to agree, I have not tested the new lenses, but the 50 mm f/1.4D is not a fast focusser for moving objects. Well it moves fast into focu initially, but small adjustments on moving objects are not so fast. I have to tap the AF-On button a lot, oprepare earlier than normal for shots, etc. My 18-200 VR is a faster focusser for moving objects than the 50 mm f/1.4D. I still love it though.
2 Stephen // Feb 22, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Cool. Glad I sprang for the Nikkor then, although I’ve read that the Sigma has more fans of its bokeh. Otherwise would it seem like Sigma has overengineered their version?
3 Chris // Feb 24, 2009 at 10:07 am
Glad I got the Nikon at the lower price (for once)….paid $399 from Roberts. I have my 85f1.4 or 70-200 for portrait work so the bokeh is of no concern.
I’ve been pleased w/ the lens, pretty much shooting with it about 85% of the time for hoops. For BB, I do have to consciously pre-focus as much as I can as it’s (Nikon G) about 0.3 seconds slower (per Jason Odell’s test). But, I have found it tracks action better than my 50D.
4 Steve // Feb 25, 2009 at 3:40 am
Chris, interesting. My 50 D is also fast initially, but as the action moves it is not so good at keeping up. I only have the 18-200 VR to compare to. Will be getting a 70-200 soon, but darn – the prices these days.
5 The Sports Photo Guy // Feb 25, 2009 at 6:38 am
This is very similar to something I noticed years ago when comparing the Sigma 70-200/f2.8 HSM to the old push-pull Nikon 80-200/f2.8 AF (on film, no less!). Initial AF speed was about the same but the electronic focusing was better at tracking moving subjects than the screw drive. Probably something to do with friction and momentum and all that science stuff.
6 Steve // Feb 25, 2009 at 7:54 am
Well, I have to anticipate and get the first 2-3 shots and be sure they are composed well. I get enough keepers to be happy. Just have to keep the relatives in the USA happy. I have no desire to lose this lens. I really like the flare for nightscapes on street lights. It adds some pizzazz to the shots. However, I am certain the first time flare causes problems at an indoor sport I will buy the 50 1.4/G also. LOL. The 1.4/D is teaching me to have good sports sense and to compose well. I pick my spot on the court well, know the region of the court where I will get the best shots, know the habits of the players – such as they are. I still think a D90 with that Sigma 30 mm would be wonderful so I could get the close in shots and the basket in the frame.
7 Chris // Feb 26, 2009 at 12:47 pm
The Sigma 30 is a good lens, I use it right under the basket. I also use it in really dark gyms as its “AFS” performance is better than either of my 50s.
Leave a Comment