Nikon 35/1.4 vs Sigma ART anybody?

[Paratom]

I wondered if there are any users of the 35/1.4G Nikon here and if they would like to tell me there experience and opinion on the lens.
I am interested in either a 35/1.8G, 35/1.4 G or Sigma ART 35mm.

I have read many of the Sigma reviews and used the Sigma on a 5dIII and did like it.
Still when seeing images form the 35/1.4G Nikon in the internet (and some quick test shots I took with a borrowed lens) the Nikon seems to give very nice, warm color and bokeh and a certain appearance in the images.
I plan to use this lens a lot in the 1-3m distance.
So anyone here using or prefering the Nikon and why?

Lets forge the price difference for a moment.

 

[Jack]

First off, I owned the Nikkor and sold it, and do not currently own the ART but have shot with it -- mainly because 35 is not a focal I gravitate to very often. That said, the Nikkor is excellent, but gives a softer look, where to my thinking the Art is amazing. If I were in the market for a 35, I would grab the ART and not look back...

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Agree with Jack. I had the Sigma 35 both in Nikon and Sony mounts and it is a sharper lens than Nikons. Cheaper too

 

[Bob]

I have the Sigma and have sold the Nikkor,
35 is generally a focal length I use mainly for street and prefer a harder, crisper image for that purpose.
-bob

 

[Paratom]

Well, I plan to use it more for people/family in the closer range indoors. Which one would you have prefered for that subjects?

 

[Bob]

Probably the sigma if you intend to shoot multiple subjects or group shots.
-bob

 

[cerett]

I have done some landscape work with the Sigma 35mm. It is an incredible lens. I have never used the Nikon 35mm, but cannot think of a reason why I would want to.

 

[Deleted member 7792]

I've owned both and prefer the Sigma. The Art is sharper and is ideally matched to the 36MP sensor of the D810. I'm not a fan of choosing lenses because they're soft or render warm images. That's easily accomplished in processing. I like to start with the sharpest, most detailed capture I can achieve. I'm not a Bokeh King either. Buy the Sigma. You won't regret it.

Joe

 

[Paratom]

Thanks for all the feedback! If possible I will try to compare and handle boths. It looks like there is general very good experience with the Sigma!
I also have looked again at the 1.8G...and have to say the size/weight difference is quite obvious, specially when combining the lens with a DF-body.
So the 1.8G is not totally out either.

 

[Paratom]

I finally decided for the Nikon 35/1.4. I appreciate all the recommendations for the ART and I am sure it is a very good lens (and in some aspects probably better than the Nikon) but for some reason my stomach feeling was still the Nikon could be the better lens for my applications/taste.
I will give feedback about the Nikon when I know more.

 

[bensonga]

Lloyd Chambers' conclusion after testing both lenses: "This is an easy one—the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM A is so easily superior it’s not even a contest. At slightly more than half the price of the Nikon 35/1.4G, it gets the nod easily." But perhaps for your personal tastes, the Nikon will be a better choice. Only you can know.

 

[Swissblad]

Tom,

thanks for starting this thread and I hope you are happy with your choice…. I decided to go the other route … as all this talk on the Sigma 35mm f1.4 ART encouraged me to try out one as well…. order is placed… hope to receive it soon……. thanks for the input guys….

 

[Paratom]

Lloyd Chambers' conclusion after testing both lenses: "This is an easy one—the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM A is so easily superior it’s not even a contest. At slightly more than half the price of the Nikon 35/1.4G, it gets the nod easily." But perhaps for your personal tastes, the Nikon will be a better choice. Only you can know.

I had the Sigma with a 5diii and it worked very well.

I read Lloyds site sometimes but do not allways agree with his conclusion. For example he wrote he wasnt able to focus the Nikon 35/1.4 reliable. So far my sample seems to focus fine on my df ( and no need for fine adjustment).
The problem of many reviews is that they discuss a lot resolution basedon 2-3 sample images at 1 or 2 distances.

the reason why I bought the Nikon were.
I saw some images with reallyy nice bokeh
I want to make sure it fits to some other Nikon lenses which are not on the supersharp side (105dc), maybe later a 58/1.4. In regards of look and color
It is said to has good flare resistance
Its heavy but atill slightly lighter than the Sigma
For daylight and landscape I have a supersharp Leica S45. so I wanted something different.
Images I saw were plenty sharp.

No question the Sigma should be better bang for the buck and maybe even the better lens for many without looking on price.

 

[ptomsu]

I had the Sigma with a 5diii and it worked very well.

I read Lloyds site sometimes but do not allways agree with his conclusion. For example he wrote he wasnt able to focus the Nikon 35/1.4 reliable. So far my sample seems to focus fine on my df ( and no need for fine adjustment).
The problem of many reviews is that they discuss a lot resolution basedon 2-3 sample images at 1 or 2 distances.

I also meanwhile do no longer agree with many of the findings of Lloyd. I liked his reviews originally and agreed with many of his conclusions a few years back, but meanwhile he became too abstract and technically oriented for me. For example sharpness is not everything, sure it is important but in general use it is more the sum of a lot of parameters like bokeh, color, contrast, ease of use, AF speed etc. which make up a good or excellent lens. And this sum is a very individual thing.

And for sure it is not always price!

 

[bensonga]

I actually find Lloyd Chambers reviews and examples very useful. He often shoots a variety of subjects at various distances, many apertures, posts high resolution images and makes it very easy to quickly compare results from the various lenses he is testing.

Re price...that is certainly not the only important factor, often not even in the top five for me. But when a company like Sigma offers a better lens for half the price (or even much less) than the competition, I think that is a good thing.

Gary

 

[Paratom]

I actually find Lloyd Chambers reviews and examples very useful. He often shoots a variety of subjects at various distances, many apertures, posts high resolution images and makes it very easy to quickly compare results from the various lenses he is testing.

Re price...that is certainly not the only important factor, often not even in the top five for me. But when a company like Sigma offers a better lens for half the price (or even much less) than the competition, I think that is a good thing.

Gary

I agree about the aperture comparison series are quite useful and I also read some of his reviews. I just became careful about the conclusions.
Years back he criticized the Leica S2 system for inaccurate focus (I dont doubt he had some issues) and without saying its AF is perfect it is far better than what I read in the review. The next thing is sample variation, we all say there is sample variation and then we make conclusions based on one lens-camera combination.

Can one say that the Sigma is better in general?
The user experience indicates it is sharper/shows more resolution. And i understand it has less distorsion. So 2 important factors for the Sigma.
On the other side the Nikon 35/1.4G is far from being soft.
Some say Bokeh is not important for a 35mm lens and they use a 85mm lens for bokeh. A 85mm lens doesnt help me in rooms where I can not have a long distance, and it doesnt help me if I want a less compressed image and include the environment in the image. So for me Bokeh is important also in a 35mm lens. From what I see I might slightly prefer the Nikon in Regards of bokeh (even though I dont think the Sigma is bad in regards of bokeh).
Flare resistance is also an area where the Nikon has the better reputation and shooting into/vs the light can be quite interesting.
Another reason why I believe the Nikon could be the better lens for me: I expect it to be consistent in color and "look" with other Nikon lenses I own, plan to own.

Remember how many people do like the Leica M pre-asph Summilux 35/50/75 lenses? (Even though I admit to not own them anymore because of too much focus shift for my taste)

As soon as I will have more experience with the Nikon I will post back and let you know if and how happy I am with the lens and if it fulfills my expectations (or if it doesnt).

Regarding review sites...it is one factor influenceing my decision but just one factor of many and I might repeat myself but I find they forget many factors when looking at a lens. Still it helps a lot to have them and to look at sample images and to be warned about some weak sides.

Last word regarding the Sigma: I understand it is a very good lens and for a good price too and I appreciate the recommendations for the Sigma. Sometimes you still have to follow your stomach (and eyes)