The Sports Photo Guy

Reviews, Technique, Portfolio, Prints

The Sports Photo Guy header image 2

Sigma 30/f1.4 vs Nikon 50/f1.4

April 21st, 2008 · 4 Comments

Until recently, the Nikon 50/f1.4 was my old standby in fast glass: sharp, small, and of course, the f1.4 aperture for low-light/fast action shooting.  That was until the Sigma 30/f1.4 came along.

Wanting a slightly wider angle of view when shooting under the basket, I decided to give the Sigma a try. While it is a good 50% more expensive than the Nikon, and about 50% larger, it is worth the added cost and size.

Sigma 30 f/1.4 HSM & Nikon 50/f1.4 AF
Sigma 30/f1.4 HSM (left) and Nikon 50/f1.4 AF

First, some real-world examples showing why I now prefer the 30/f1.4 for sports action. Two major differences are angle of view and flare. As seen below in the two full-frame images from a D2H in the same arena, the 30/f1.4 provides floor-to-rim coverage. In addition, flare is non-existent and ghosting is minimal, while both are present in the 50/f1.4 image (see bluish flare spot in lower right especially):

 Action shot 30/f1.4Action shot 50/f1.4

I have other lenses to provide me with a “tight” perspective. In low-light situations, I can employ my Nikon 85/f1.8D alongside the 30/f1.4 for complementary perspectives, as I similarly use the combination of the Sigma 18-50/f2.8 HSM and Nikon 80-200/f2.8 AF-S. Real-world shooting is my preference; but for you pixel-peepers, I provide the following “test shots” below. In terms of sharpness, I really see little to differentiate these two lenses.

30 f1.4
Center crop from 30/f1.4 image (to match angle of view of 50/f1.4)

50 f1.4
Shallower depth of field from longer 50mm focal length
100% center crops from both lenses @ f1.4

Both lenses exhibit a slightly warm color cast due to the use of B+W KR 1.5 (Skylight 1A) filters and fixed WB (”Flash” setting). Note however, the distinctly “yellower” cast of the 50/f1.4 - this has been a consistent result for me, and not one I find pleasing. Sigma has something of a reputation for “cooler” glass, but in this case I definitely prefer it.

Tags: Uncategorized · lenses

4 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Chris // Apr 28, 2008 at 4:58 pm

    I totally agree, I also have both lenses and ended up using my 30f1.4 the majority of the time on my D300.

    The only thing I didn’t like was the greater DOF on the 30…it caused the background (crowds) to be in focus, more so than the 50f1.4.

    I’m waiting to see more details on the announced Sigma 50f1.4 HSM, as well as the rumored Nikon 50f1.4. Hopefully I’ll one or the other for next season.

  • 2 Steve // Nov 3, 2008 at 4:37 am

    Curious your opinion of using a 30 mm Sigma vs. the Nikon 17-35 f/2.8.

  • 3 The Sports Photo Guy // Nov 3, 2008 at 5:49 am

    The Nikon 17-35/f2.8 is one lens I don’t have any experience with. However, I think it’s probably going to be generally similar to any zoom-prime tradeoff: zoom range for speed (in this case, two full stops). Throw in the fact that pro-level AF-S focus motors beat Sigma’s HSM (in all of my experience) and the 17-35’s huge size and price and you continue to have a split decision.
    If you need the zoom range, and have the wallet, by all means go for the 17-35.

  • 4 Steve // Nov 3, 2008 at 6:08 pm

    Thanks for the insights. I don’t have the money for the Nikon Zoom. Shooting at f/2 with the Sigma, as in many of your posted photos, is appealing.

Leave a Comment