Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 31 of 31

Thread: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

  1. #1
    Member Harry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Posts
    150
    Post Thanks / Like

    Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    I am reading some really good stuff on the Art lenses.
    Is it true? Better than Nikon counterparts? or just different

  2. #2
    Senior Member Hulyss Bowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,085
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    Hello,

    My personal opinion is "it is different". The charts are better but the drawing signatures of those lenses are not my cup of tee at all. Sharpness of the Sigma lenses is maxed out but imo they lack of personality.

    My best 35 : the Zeiss (f2)

    My best 50 : Not found yet.

    Nikon now provide a big range of lenses. If your on a budget you have very serious alternatives to the expensive 1.4 line. 20f1.8G - 28f1.8G - 35f1.8g - 50f1.8G - 85f1.8G all are very good to excellent (period).

    I never plugged third party lenses on my Nikon body's and, especially with today Nikkor choice, I do not see any reason to plug any third party lenses, at all.
    Kind regards - Hulyss - hulyssbowman.com

  3. #3
    Senior Member RVB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    807
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    I have the 35 & 50 in F mount,I think they're better than anything Nikon has to offer in these focal lengths,the 50 is very good and offers near Otus performance for a lot less,the nikon 35 1.4G is a good lens but not as good wide open as the Sigma which is sharp and contrasty at 1.4.

    The rendering or draw of the lens is subjective,you won't know for sure unless you try them,the Zeiss glass is really nice but you won't have autofocus and for some of us thats a deal breaker.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    311
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    The Sigma 35 is great, I like mine. The 50mm 1.4 is a great lens in a way, but it really depends on what you want out of a 50. I shoot a lot of portraits with that focal length so I went with the 58mm 1.4G. The 58mm has a lot of character to it and it's all about the rendering with a clear dip in the sharpness wide open. I think the 58 pairs with the 35 better than a 50 does too. But it's all about what you're going for.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    i keep telling myself no, they are not... but then I just bought one tonight
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  6. #6
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    My best 50 ever is my ART. I had a 50/1.2 Nikkor that was very nice, and I sold it as soon as I got the ART cause I knew I'd never use it again if the ART was nearby. It is a stunning lens. It is also a massively large lens -- it's main shortcoming. But the results it produces are well worth the size for me.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  7. #7
    Senior Member Hulyss Bowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,085
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    Quote Originally Posted by Speedgraphic View Post
    The Sigma 35 is great, I like mine. The 50mm 1.4 is a great lens in a way, but it really depends on what you want out of a 50. I shoot a lot of portraits with that focal length so I went with the 58mm 1.4G. The 58mm has a lot of character to it and it's all about the rendering with a clear dip in the sharpness wide open. I think the 58 pairs with the 35 better than a 50 does too. But it's all about what you're going for.
    I completely agree, even thought there is a visual delta between the 35 Art and 58f1.4G probably because of the coating (at a rendering level I mean). It translate by a tonal tweaking in PP on the file taken with the Sigma.

    Anyway, the SIGMA lenses are very good but they belong to a fashion I'm not sold for. This fashion is superduper clarity at 100%, PP for forums (only). In my professional point of view, this is waste of energy and money. Why ? Because clients never see the full res picture, ever. For weeding, clients buy a service based on HD photos (1920x1440) and prints who often never exceed A3. If they want bigger print they ask you, and if you have a minimal PP background you can print A0 with 12MP and even below (period).

    So ok the A0 out of D810 will appear more detailed, appealing, but at the end you can't really sell a weeding based on this because clients freaking do not know nor care. They will when 4K will be common with screens and even then ( ) 12MP are sufficient (it is 4K... see Sony Alpha 7S).

    Clients care about what tell the picture and this rely on the photographer eye, not the material.

    Industrial clients ? They want pics for catalogues, web site ! If they want big files for billboard prints, 90% of the time they ask you on the negotiation or contract. Then you rent the proper tool and often you go direct MF's way.

    So, apart if ppl really want it, there is no need of such tools in professional industry apart if you print big (over than A2) or lost the magic of composition (cropping). So at the end what really happen ? You shoot a weeding with D810, 37Mp, and furnish a file to the clients at HD or 4K size. Waste of time, money, energy and common sense. That mean that today, a guy with a D3 or a D4 is good for at least 5 to 8 years for almost all his work and can rent UHD camera IF needed/asked. On top of that, he do not need those lenses at all. The standard lens provided by Nikon are largely sufficient; largely.

    I would understand this fashion if humans had bi-annual ocular mutation, unleashing new bizarre plans of perception ... but it is not the case.
    There is no market evolution for those pixels. A print is a print. So either I'm very wrong and clients (weeding, portraits ...) start to ask for billboard prints and A0 photo albums, or either I'm right: this market have reached a climax. That mean that it is fixed almost forever, ruled by the size of the final media and the place you need to store this media, the print.

    So, apart pleasure of owning a modern gear, I see only one reason of owning a more than 20 MP camera and superduper sharp lenses: Landscape photographers, architectural photographers who sell very big prints and make a leaving out of it. That's all, and they are not legion at all.

    Friday ranting

    This is why I would tell that the best 50 is the Nikkor 58 f1.4G and that most ppl failed to see why it is a superb lens. They judge lens only on sharpness and charts and this is VERY WRONG, VERY VERY WRONG AND BAD !
    Kind regards - Hulyss - hulyssbowman.com
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    523
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    Just as the EF 50mm f1.2 L has excited me more than any other 50mm I have owned (including a black paint MP3 50mm Summilux asph). This is because it is gorgeous for people photos. It is not the sharpest, but its surprisingly good... but the images just have such a gentle, organic rendering.

    I suppose it all depends on the look you want. The 50 ART is incredible, but not every portrait subject would thank you for it. Landscapes are another matter.

  9. #9
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    I should add that I got to shoot Bob's 35 ART on our last workshop, and was all set to order one except for the 24 ART announcement. I personally do not use 35 all that often, and I have the Nikkor 28 ASPH (which I love) and which is also closer to about a 30mm true focal than it is 28 -- so pretty close to 35 already. A matching 24 would round me out nicely
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    311
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hulyss Bowman View Post
    I completely agree, even thought there is a visual delta between the 35 Art and 58f1.4G probably because of the coating (at a rendering level I mean). It translate by a tonal tweaking in PP on the file taken with the Sigma.

    Anyway, the SIGMA lenses are very good but they belong to a fashion I'm not sold for. This fashion is superduper clarity at 100%, PP for forums (only). In my professional point of view, this is waste of energy and money. Why ? Because clients never see the full res picture, ever. For weeding, clients buy a service based on HD photos (1920x1440) and prints who often never exceed A3. If they want bigger print they ask you, and if you have a minimal PP background you can print A0 with 12MP and even below (period).

    So ok the A0 out of D810 will appear more detailed, appealing, but at the end you can't really sell a weeding based on this because clients freaking do not know nor care. They will when 4K will be common with screens and even then ( ) 12MP are sufficient (it is 4K... see Sony Alpha 7S).

    Clients care about what tell the picture and this rely on the photographer eye, not the material.

    Industrial clients ? They want pics for catalogues, web site ! If they want big files for billboard prints, 90% of the time they ask you on the negotiation or contract. Then you rent the proper tool and often you go direct MF's way.

    So, apart if ppl really want it, there is no need of such tools in professional industry apart if you print big (over than A2) or lost the magic of composition (cropping). So at the end what really happen ? You shoot a weeding with D810, 37Mp, and furnish a file to the clients at HD or 4K size. Waste of time, money, energy and common sense. That mean that today, a guy with a D3 or a D4 is good for at least 5 to 8 years for almost all his work and can rent UHD camera IF needed/asked. On top of that, he do not need those lenses at all. The standard lens provided by Nikon are largely sufficient; largely.

    I would understand this fashion if humans had bi-annual ocular mutation, unleashing new bizarre plans of perception ... but it is not the case.
    There is no market evolution for those pixels. A print is a print. So either I'm very wrong and clients (weeding, portraits ...) start to ask for billboard prints and A0 photo albums, or either I'm right: this market have reached a climax. That mean that it is fixed almost forever, ruled by the size of the final media and the place you need to store this media, the print.

    So, apart pleasure of owning a modern gear, I see only one reason of owning a more than 20 MP camera and superduper sharp lenses: Landscape photographers, architectural photographers who sell very big prints and make a leaving out of it. That's all, and they are not legion at all.

    Friday ranting

    This is why I would tell that the best 50 is the Nikkor 58 f1.4G and that most ppl failed to see why it is a superb lens. They judge lens only on sharpness and charts and this is VERY WRONG, VERY VERY WRONG AND BAD !
    This is why I still shoot film and don't care that my film scans are anywhere from 6-15mp. And my dream camera is a 20mp 645z. I know there is a place for very high resolution, technically corrected images, but most people aren't actually looking for that, even though they think they are.

    I have a an R3000 and my prints look spectacular, especially at viewing distance. I'm not making murals, and my clients hardly EVER ask for a giant sized image. Plus, the slight softening that the 58mm gives my subjects is to their advantage, same with a 400 speed film.

    Side note - I've often wondered why product/architectural photographers don't gravitate toward smaller sensors like APS-C. Usually everything needs to be in focus and having the shorter lenses only helps maximize depth of field. They can keep their ISO down to keep resolution high. Seems to me like a mistake to go for the largest sensor possible, which just makes things more difficult.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  11. #11
    Member Harry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Posts
    150
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    Renting the 50 ART tomorrow

    Got the 24 ART on back order from B+H.
    Jack you can try it out when I get it in since your so close

  12. #12
    Senior Member Swissblad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    I'm keenly awaiting the 24mm f1.4 ART.

    May also indulge in the 35mm.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    523
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    I've got a Canon EF 24mm f1.4 L II, but if I did not would be very interested in the new 24mm ART. I'm also pondering whether the 35mm ART would be a better bet than the Canon 35mm f1.4 L II that seems likely to be released later this year. For people photos, the 35mm f2 IS looks interesting, as it is sharp but not scalpel sharp wide open, looks to have good bokeh and IS is never a bad thing.

  14. #14
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry View Post
    Renting the 50 ART tomorrow

    Got the 24 ART on back order from B+H.
    Jack you can try it out when I get it in since your so close
    Sounds like a plan!!!
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  15. #15
    Member Harry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Posts
    150
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    Tried out the Sigma 50 1.4 Art side by side with the Nikon 50 1.4

    Both lenses
    Similar resolution

    Nikon
    Fairly horrific barrel distortion...mostly corrected in lens correction
    Color much better, especially in the green range.

    Sigma
    Virtually no distortion
    Greens were toward the yellow side
    Some loss in overall color resolution
    1 Corner vignetting wide open


    The color difference is enough for me to keep the Nikon and cancel my order on the Sigma 24 till I can rent one for further testing.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    112
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    that's brutal
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  17. #17
    Senior Member Hulyss Bowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,085
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    Quote Originally Posted by trioderob View Post
    that's brutal
    Brutal but real.
    Kind regards - Hulyss - hulyssbowman.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  18. #18
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry View Post
    Tried out the Sigma 50 1.4 Art side by side with the Nikon 50 1.4

    Both lenses
    Similar resolution

    Nikon
    Fairly horrific barrel distortion...mostly corrected in lens correction
    Color much better, especially in the green range.

    Sigma
    Virtually no distortion
    Greens were toward the yellow side
    Some loss in overall color resolution
    1 Corner vignetting wide open


    The color difference is enough for me to keep the Nikon and cancel my order on the Sigma 24 till I can rent one for further testing.
    I am going to disagree re color. Are you sure you compared the 50 ART and not the older Sigma 50/1.4? I've owned both, and see good greens with my Art, though I did note yellow tints in the older Sigma 50. Or perhaps you use LR -- HORRID color and why I pass on it to this day -- and not C1 or NX? I've also owned the Nikon 50/1.4G and my copy was nowhere near as sharp as my ART -- why I sold it -- and had significantly "busier" bokeh than the ART. The Nikkor G was smaller though
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  19. #19
    Senior Member Swissblad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    Never had an issue with Sigma colour rendition either …… in fact I love the colours from my 150mm macro….

  20. #20
    Member Harry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Posts
    150
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    It was an Art lens viewed in NX2

    Maybe I have a good copy of the Nikon and a bad copy of the Sigma.

  21. #21
    Member Harry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Posts
    150
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    Finally got Capture One up and running.
    Wow... what a difference! Bye Bye NX2
    Now the colors are very close with no edge to the Nikon or Sigma.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  22. #22
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry View Post
    Finally got Capture One up and running.
    Wow... what a difference! Bye Bye NX2
    Now the colors are very close with no edge to the Nikon or Sigma.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  23. #23
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    I also would be interested in overall color and character of the Sigma 35mm ( I had one for Canon and did like it).

    I might get a Nikon DF and some / few primes:
    The plan is the 58/1.4G and a 35mm, probably the Sigma 35 or the 35/1.8G.
    I plan to use it a lot at shorter to medium distance (kids).
    I understand the 35 Sigma would be more a "sharp" lens and the 58 more a "character" lens, but would you expect the color matches?
    The 35/1.4G might fit the 58 even better but I am not sure I want to rule out so much money and reports on AF-accurancy of the 35/1.4 are mixed.

    I like shooting in the f1.8-4.0 range most of the times, therefore a good Bokeh is important for me as well.

  24. #24
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    Paratom,

    For the money (about $300), the little 50/1.8 special edition Df kit included lens, is pretty darn good. That and a 28/1.8 or 35/1.8 might be a pretty sweet little kit. Personally, I use my 17-35/2.8 the most, and now carry the kit 50 as well as the 105DC. The 105 is a little big, but I love the way it renders. If I know I want the faster 50 and/or wide, I'll swap in the 50 ART for the kit 50 and the 28ASPH for the zoom -- but that doesn't happen very often since the extra couple stops don't mean much with the Df ISO performance.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  25. #25
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    Paratom,

    For the money (about $300), the little 50/1.8 special edition Df kit included lens, is pretty darn good. That and a 28/1.8 or 35/1.8 might be a pretty sweet little kit. Personally, I use my 17-35/2.8 the most, and now carry the kit 50 as well as the 105DC. The 105 is a little big, but I love the way it renders. If I know I want the faster 50 and/or wide, I'll swap in the 50 ART for the kit 50 and the 28ASPH for the zoom -- but that doesn't happen very often since the extra couple stops don't mean much with the Df ISO performance.
    Thank you Jack,
    from the 2 days when I had the DF with the kit lens I found the bokeh very busy in some of the images, but it might have been the subject as well.
    Have you tried the 35/1.8? And how you like the 28/1.8 in regards of bokeh etc?

  26. #26
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    For the record:

    1) I do not own either the 35 or 28 f1.8 lenses, so cannot comment.

    2) Yes, the 50/1.8 bokeh can be a little busy in certain situations. But for me in most cases, it's subject-specific and rather trivial, at least what I've noted so far. Of course, YMMV, so test before you spend
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  27. #27
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    For the record:

    1) I do not own either the 35 or 28 f1.8 lenses, so cannot comment.

    2) Yes, the 50/1.8 bokeh can be a little busy in certain situations. But for me in most cases, it's subject-specific and rather trivial, at least what I've noted so far. Of course, YMMV, so test before you spend
    Thanks!
    I know you use the 50 Sigma which must be great but is not an option for me because of its weight. This might look different if I wanted to use it on a D810, or if I didnt have my S-70mm.

  28. #28
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    One other outstanding option if you can deal with manual focus is the Nikkor 50/1.2 AIS. It is a stellar lens at a reasonable price, is compact and lightweight, and is still available new. Note that the older 55mm version has a different look, but still very pleasing and very reasonably priced on the used market. The older 50/1.4 manual focus are also excellent values and very reasonably priced. Finally, if you want really compact, the older 45mm pancake is a really cool lens. Tiny Tessar design, it has a very unique look, though not great in the corners it's very good centrally.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  29. #29
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,672
    Post Thanks / Like

    Lightbulb Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    Quite agree with Jack. The Df kit SE 50 f1.8 is a excellent lens for what it is. I'd like to think that maybe because it was designated SE and made in Japan along with the Df, that better QC was applied in manufacture of each sample. For its relaitive size and price it does well for most subjects and falls in line with some of the other very good Nikon f1.8 lenses.

    Dave (D&A)
    Last edited by D&A; 2nd April 2015 at 10:47.

  30. #30
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    thank you for all the feedback.

    I think I would for sure start withthe 50 df kit lens.

    I took some shots with 35 1.8g and 1.4 g today in the store.
    Besides the 35/1.4 has a little longer focal lengths, the 1.8 seems good, the 1.4 however slightly nicer bokeh, and slightly warmer color and images slightly more "appearance". The 1.4 balances very nice.
    They didnt have the Sigma there, which I know from Canon ( which is a very good lens)

  31. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    235
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    31

    Re: Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?

    Between the f1.8g primes and the Sigma Art series, you've got to wonder how many of the pro spec. f1.4 Nikkors they're selling nowadays. They've always been expensive but at current prices they're looking like a rip-off in the context of today's market. You'd expect to pay a premium for superior build, coatings and weather resistance but it's hard to justify the size of the difference now they're no longer the only game in town.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •