DSLRUsers.com

Dear all,

I'm currently using a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 HSM. I'm very pleased with the quality of the bokeh.

However, I was wondering if anyone has any experience with Nikon 50mm (with Nikon to Eos adapter attached) on Canon 5D (or other) body. The Sigma's an absolute cow for manual focusing, with a very rough and tight focus ring which only rotates about 90 degrees from end to end.

I was rather disappointed with the bokeh of the Canon 50mm f/1.4, and I'll be shooting with a Nikon film camera soon.
So I'm considering replacing my Sigma with a Nikon.

Any suggestions or thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

Cheers
i

Reports around the traps(internet if you can believe that) are that the Sigma is better than the Nikon..

I grabbed the nikon because it was the right price and I got a very good price for my old 50 1.4.. I have done a fair bit of manual focus with my D700 ( she's going to the doctor) and it seems no trouble. I just cant rely on my focus indicator though..

Good luck

MATT

I never used Sigma 50/1.4 (don't like Sigma at all) but have EF50/1.4 and a host of other manual focus lenses in same specification including Nikon, Olympus OM, Contax, Yashica ML, Takumars. I use these on my 5D.
Nikon 50/1.4 (Non-AI) is my second best after Contax Zeiss. Optically, there is no difference between AIS and NAI. Sharp and very pleasant bokeh. You will be pleased with Nikon.
However, you cannot use G type Nikon lenses on EOS as they don't have aperture ring.

The Sigma is good, I bought it just for the AF feature. I don't like the 50mm f1.4G because the overall performance isn't as good as the Sigma. And I'm not too sure about the AiS 50mm f1.4, people are saying it's good and possibly similar performance to the G series. I only have the AiS 50mm f1.2 and that thing is pretty damn good.

Just to share my experience. I couldn't find a Ais lens, but managed to pick up a old school nikkor S.C f/1.4 lens up for AUD$225 from Camera Exchange in Melbourne. He even gave me new front cap and a canon rear cap =)

The bokeh is not as smooth and silky as the Sigma... and I have to admit I've tried both canon and nikon (G) f/1.4's and the Sigma's bokeh is superior in quality.

However, the 10m working range (before infinity) of the Nikkor S.C, compared to the recent offerings of 3m, makes it that much more useable! So for manual work, the inferior Nikon has replaced my Sigma.

Does anyone know of a manual lens with a 10m working distance, and the lovely light gathering capabilities of the sigma?

If you can get the AiS 50mm f1.4 cheap then get it, great little things they are, tried one on the 5d2 and was great, pretty much on par with my 50mm f1.2, if not sharper wide open, it's a joy to use, much more so with the adapter that gives you focus confirmation.

Makes me think of acquiring the 5d2 again...

I recently picked up a Nikon 55mm-S.C f/1.2 at a reasonable price... has a tiny bit of fungus which is noticeable above f/2.0. It was mounted on a Nikon F which I was also tempted to buy, but the weight with the TTL viewfinder was enough to deter me and I'll stick to the plan of finding a FM2 in awesome condition cheap... yeah I'm greedy.

But regardless... it's a pleasure to use, very soft at f/1.2, but the raw files sharpen nicely.

MATT wrote:Reports around the traps(internet if you can believe that) are that the Sigma is better than the Nikon.

Grev wrote:I don't like the 50mm f1.4G because the overall performance isn't as good as the Sigma.

Doesn’t appear to be true as a general statement. Of course if you have personal and specific observations on why aspects of one are better than another, that would be different

Thom Hogan wrote:The Sigma is bigger and heavier physically. Optically, the two lenses are close cousins in terms of performance. If central performance and bokeh (e.g. portraits) is most important to you, I'd slightly favor the Sigma. If overall performance is most important to you, I'd slightly favor the Nikkor. Autofocus performance is slightly faster on the Sigma at the expense of manual focus precision.

The only direct empirical comparison I can think of at the moment on the net is on the Photozone.de site which is one of the best for that sort of thing and if anything it favours the Nikon. The Nikon comes out with better central sharpness wide open and with better edge sharpness except wide open. The Sigma shows as slightly better central sharpness at f2 and the Nikon has slightly better central sharpness from f2.8 down. Sigma test and Nikon test, in both cases for DX sensor, which probably makes edge sharpness a bit more important for full frame sensors. Bokeh seems to be better on Sigma and because of the difference in the sorts of shots you are likely to take DX vs FX, I'd expect that to be more important for DX. Autofocus speed is better on the Sigma but I understand that in most circumstances that's not likely to be a practical issue. I think you'd also have to factor in a greater chance of a dud lens with the Sigma.

I've been toying with the idea of perhaps picking up a Nikon 50mm 1.4G, specifically for available light music photography using a D3. Currently I have a 50mm f2 AI and a 35-70mm f2.8D. The 50mm f2 is fine from a distance but when used closer I sometimes find I need autofocus. I don't see the 50mm f1.8 as an alternative because I'd have to stop it down for a sharp shot in which case I probably might as well use the 35-70mm. The question for me is whether an extra two stops is worth $700, especially since I don't expect the 50mm f1.4G to be a stellar lens like the 85mm f1.4 or the 105mm f2.

I just realised that though Photozone don't have a review for the 35-70, they do have one for the (somewhat improved) next model 28-70. On that basis the 50mm 1.4G will have better central sharpness at f2.8, about the same central sharness stopped further down and better edge sharpness generally. (If you have one, the 24-70 shows as considerably sharper than the 50mm f1.4G from f2.8 down so in that case it just becomes an issues of compactness and how much you need the extra two stops). I can calculate what difference the extra two stops would have made to my existing exposures but it's hard to know whether with a faster lens I might find different opportunities. I expect I'll have to work that out for myself.

Regards,
Murray

I find the Sigma sharper because as I've stated in another thread (or maybe this one), the Nikon has got halo around transition edges and might pollute the sharpness, like I see on the AFD 85mm f1.4.

Here is a photo with the AiS 50mm f1.2 anyway, with the D700, straight from the camera's jpeg files, just resized.

Surely that's bokeh, not sharpness. The 50mm f1.2 AIS may still be sold but it still dates back to 1981, before computer optimisation of lens design. An old 1.2 lens design could well be pushing the envelope a lot more than a new 1.4 design. The bokeh examples for the 1.4G in the Photozone review don't seem anywhere near as bad. They do say this problem is "typical of most fast primes" though it doesn't seem to be a problem on the 105mm f2. The Sigma is generally accepted to have better bokeh than the 1.4G but is an image from the 1.2 really an accurate example?

Regards,
Murray

Actually, I'm more for the sharpness and bokeh of the AiS 50mm f1.2 compared to the new AFS 50mm f1.4G (slightly favouring the older lens), don't think it really matters without computer aided design. Compared to the Sigma, I find the Sigma to be more useable wide open and better bokeh, although stopping down the AiS is better from f2 onwards.

But the OP is after AiS information anyway so I posted the image from my f1.2.

Here is the demonstration of bokeh for the f1.2, again, no editing, just resizing camera's jpeg in CS4:

I didn't mean to imply either of the 1.4s were better than the 1.2, however old it may be. After all my venerable and humble 50mm f2 is one of Bjorn Rorslett's favourite lenses. The 1.2 may well have better image quality wide open than the AFS 1.4, after all it costs more, but it doesn't have autofocus which I have recently and somewhat unexpectedly found may be an issue for me. Have you handled and perhaps tested the Sigma, both AF Nikons as well as the 1.2 as your post seems to imply?

What I did mean to imply was that the 1.2 and 1.4 AFS are probably very different lenses so that the bokeh performance of the 1.2 may not translate to the 1.4 AFS, as I perhaps mistakenly inferred from your earlier post.

Bjorn Rorslett wrote:... However, the 50 mm lenses are too short to really throw the background way out of focus unless you shoot fairly close and have the lens nearly wide open. So don't expect the image to "pop" like it often does with a telephoto lens.'''

I can't help but wondering whether the bokeh examples are a little like pixel-peeping for bokeh. My criteria is for real world low-light photography, probably f1.4 to f2.8. My feeling at this stage, though it does not conincide that well with your reports, is that I expect the Nikon G to be sharper than the Sigma and I can probably cope with Bokeh problems OK in post-processing. The Sigma has been reported as inaccurate in autofocus but it is usually not clear whether that sort of thing really is the lens or just cheaper bodies. I'll have to see if there are any copies to check out in Canberra.

Regards,
Murray

Murray Foote wrote:New review for the Nikon AFS50mm f1.4G

That is a very, very comprehensive review! Huge amount of technical information and some good testing. I am going to keep them in mind the next time I need to do some research on lenses. After reading that I would have no problems buying the Nikkor over the Sigma if I was on the market for a 50 f/1.4. Thanks for the link!

It's a new site. They only started less than three weeks ago.

Voigtlander have just announced a 50mm f1.1 in Leica M mount. There's probably a way to use this on a Canon though not on a Nikon. It has some very interesting attributes: wieght is "428g (not including food)" and it includes "mild dementia focus". Could suit a lot of people.

Based on the 58mm f1.4 Nokton, this is likely to be a relatively cheap lens with less than stellar performance, manufactured by Cosina.

Murray Foote wrote:There's probably a way to use this on a Canon though not on a Nikon.

I think they already have models of this lens for Nikon and Canon.

I’ve been thinking some more about 50mm lens choices for Nikon.

I found a review that compares Nikon 50mms f1.2 AIS, f1.4D and f1.8D. While this is an interesting review in it’s own right, one thing that particularly struck me was the resolution tables for near and far focus which could be very different even for the same lens. Another factor why lens reviews can differ and most probably use targets at short distances really only appropriate for tests of macro lenses.

The most obvious choice for me is between the new Nikon and the new Sigma. If I lived in Sydney I’d be able to go to a store and take test shots but there are none of these lenses in stores in Canberra so I’m likely to rely on reviews and images on the web.

The Nikon and the Sigma are quite different lenses with different design aims. The Sigma has a much larger front element and an aspherical element which are probably the reason for its very good bokeh.

For central sharpness, the Nikon has a significant advantage wide open, the Sigma a slight advantage at f2 and f2.8 and the Nikon a slight advantage below that. For edge sharpness, the Sigma has a significant advantage wide open and the Nikon has a significant advantage from f2 down. (Mainly taken from Photozone, both reviews). Any fall-off in edge sharpness is much more marked on full-frame sensors, as shown very clearly in the Lens Tip review of the Nikon. This gives a clear advantage to the Nikon for me because on the D3 I’d be stopping down a bit where possible and taking images of groups of people or bands more often than individual portraits.

Where I really eliminated the Sigma, though was for autofocus. Many of the reviews comment on how quick the Sigma is to autofocus and that the Nikon is relatively slow. What they refer to (and often explicitly test) is the speed of travel from near to far focus. Speed of long-travel autofocus is one thing, accuracy is much more important. All the reviews seem to comment on how well the Nikon maintains focus. However, many reviews and user comments report on focusing problems with the Sigma. This is particularly so for the Digital Picture review which finds severe focusing inaccuracy problems, not merely backfocus or front focus. The reviewer finds that this occurs particularly in poor lighting conditions and I notice that most other reviews appear to have been conducted in relatively good light.

I suspect this divergence may be a consequence of the design. The Nikon has a much longer physical focus travel which may contribute to its relative slowness to move the full distance and also relate to greater ability to “fine-tune”.

The British Journal of Photography has a useful review of the Nikon f1.4G which explains the importance of minimal focus shift in autofocus lenses, something I wasn’t aware of before. It also suggests that going down a quarter stop to f1.6 makes a significant difference.

The earlier Nikon f1.4D is a cheaper alternative and still a good lens. SLRGear suggest the choice is a toss up but both Bjorn and Thom say the 1.4G is significantly improved. I think I’ll go with them.

For a fullframe sensor it’s now clear to me that for me the new Nikon f1.4G is the best choice.

For a DX camera, I think the choice is less clearcut. The bokeh of the Sigma would make it an attractive choice for a portrait lens in reasonably good light. You’d want to thoroughly test the autofocus of your sample in your typical shooting conditions and be able to return it. The Nikon f1.4G would also give very good image quality and may be more reliable. The earlier Nikon f1.4D would be less far behind than for full frame. For most people, though the Nikon f1.8 with very good central sharpness, would probably be all you’d need.

Regards,
Murray

^ Did you read this page? http://www.lenstip.com/162.10-Lens_revi ... focus.html

I find the slow speed of the focusing of the AFS 50mm G is enough for me to not get the photos instead of the alledged focus inconsistencies of the Sigma. I use the Sigma and I haven't gotten any focusing issues with it.

In real photography, the focusing speed of the AFS is quite disappointing, it's not even adequate, slower than the AFD, slower than Canon's EF 50mm f1.4...

Yes I've read that and I'm aware that the AFS is around twice as slow in its total focus travel that the AFD. Thom Hogan said he didn't get as many keepers as he was expecting from a basketball game. However, most the reviews I've read also say it's really good at staying with the focus which is my key consideration. My primary focus is live music rather than sports. From further back I won't even need autofocus, from close they move often and unpredictably but not that much.

If it were feasible for me to get copies in my hands of the different lenses to test in indicative conditions it might be a different matter but at this stage I think I've pretty much decided on the Nikon. I don't think the bokeh will prove an issue, even if suboptimal, because I expect regional control in Lightroom should be easy enough. Better edge definition on full frame is an important factor for me too.

There is a thread on NikonGear you may be interested in. It indicates there may be a significant focus shift issue with the f1.2, probably somewhere in the f2 to f5.6 range. it may be worth testing for and focusing stopped down if necessary.

Regards,
Murray

After shooting Canon for 20ish years its weird talking about Nikon. When shooting the 5D - my two favourite lenses were the 24-70 2.8L, and my 50mm 1.4. Switching to Nikon I recently got the Nikon 50mm 1.4G its pretty good!

Now the "G" series, I don't think would be of any point on a Canon - as on a Canon you can't control it's aperture - so look for a D, AiS or earlier... The 1.4D's a proven lens; and has the manual aperture override.

Sadly can't comment on the previous ones - HOWEVER - pony up (on the 'Bay) for a Zeiss 50mm 1.4 - it is AWESOME... the most amazing out of focus area's I've ever seen. Contemplating selling the 85mm 1.4 for the 85mm version. Buying it here you'd need to take a second or third mortgage, but not too bad on the bay...

Since I'm not registered on Nikon gear, I can't see the thread, can you post something regarding that focus shift issue? I want to see how my lens fare, although this is going off topic...

OK, I'll send you the thread in an email. It doesn't cost anything to subscribe, though (unlike Nikonians).

Regards,
Murray