Distinguishing the 50mm - f/1.2 v f/1.4 vs. Sigma 50mm f/1.4

[kgill]

So in researching the Sigma Primes (another thread in lens lust) and their costs, I saw that the new sigma 50mm f/1.4 is slated to cost $499. What will the 50mm f/1.4 offer over the current Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 that would justify the price difference? Something in the autofocus? Is it the same as someone choosing the 50 f/1.8 over the 50 f/1.4 (notwithstanding the price difference)?

Just curious. I was looking for the 50mm f/1.2 AIS the other day and someone told me that optically it's not a great performer, that people rave about it because it's fast, but that a better quality 50 prime is the 50 mm f/1.4 or wait for the new Sigma...

Any thoughts? Hard question, I know, since few people here have first hand experience with the Nikon mount, but I'm always curious to learn about a particular lens's distinguishing characteristics (from an optical point of view).

k

 

[mood]

I guess if you need an AFS type lens for a D40/D60 and a low light prime
Nikon has no answer this for it yet

Sigma has beaten them to the punch so far

I wouldn't think it is worth $200 more than the Nikon, if you have a body to turn it
possibly the bokeh will be "better", ala the Sigma 30 1.4
I prefer the colors from the 35/2 to the 30 1.4, so I'm assuming, I will like the Nikon 50 over the Sigma


guess we will seem some test pictures soon...

the 50 1.2, is a whole other thing
it is manual focus, and has a differnt look all together,IMO

 

[panda81]

I was looking for the 50mm f/1.2 AIS the other day and someone told me that optically it's not a great performer, that people rave about it because it's fast, but that a better quality 50 prime is the 50 mm f/1.4 or wait for the new Sigma...

I completely disagree with your friend stating that the 50mm f/1.2 is not a great performer.

Some of my favorite pictures taken by this lens:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

View attachment 227620

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

View attachment 227621

I may have missed the focus on the last photo, but the image quality is still appreciable.

I'm not going to get into an argument about which is better than what, but I'm definitely opposed to a blanket statement about the 50mm f/1.2 as "poor."

 

[kgill]

Hi Panda, the statement was "not a great performer" and it was made in comparison to the 50 mm f/1.4. It was not a blanket "poor". I appreciate and listen to all opinions, and I find yours as valuable as the one from the person who said he didn't find the 50 f/1.2 to be one of the best optical performers. I also appreciate your photographic samples, particularly the ribs which I wish I could eat right now.

 

[bokehmanedof]

Yummy!

 

[panda81]

Hi Panda, the statement was "not a great performer" and it was made in comparison to the 50 mm f/1.4. It was not a blanket "poor". I appreciate and listen to all opinions, and I find yours as valuable as the one from the person who said he didn't find the 50 f/1.2 to be one of the best optical performers. I also appreciate your photographic samples, particularly the ribs which I wish I could eat right now.

Thanks :smile: Hope I didn't sound too mean, I just wanted to be emphatic that the 50/1.2 is not a "poor" lens And I know you're into food photography too, so I figure those would be more appropriate samples for you to appreciate!

 

[kgill]

no you didn't sound mean and yes i did love your pics!!!!!

 

[tfenne]

I completely disagree with your friend stating that the 50mm f/1.2 is not a great performer.

I have to agree with you Panda! I have the 50/1.2 AIS and I really enjoy it. Sure at 1.2 it's a little soft, but I like it's dreamy rendering. And by f2 it's very sharp and contrasty. A couple of examples:

Headshot at f/1.2

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

White Magnolia at f/2:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Yellow Rose at f/2.8

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Many more at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tfenne/tags/nikkor50mmf12ais/

 

[cotdt]

The old 50/1.4 AIS is the same optically as the current 50/1.4 AF-D. Yes it's a really, really old design.

regarding the 50/1.2 AIS, that's an excellent lens.

 

[Nuteshack]

personally i think the cz 50 f2 produces the most pleasing bokeh of the 50's..fact i like everything about the cz 50 f2 cept it's mf....;-)

 

[Paul.r.lindqvist]

Well hopefully it will offer better performance wide open, and better bokeh. USM is also welcome for those who use D40/60.

Its not out in the Nikon mount yet, so time will tell.

 

[marioni]

I saw that the new sigma 50mm f/1.4 is slated to cost $499. What will the 50mm f/1.4 offer over the current Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 that would justify the price difference?

Bokeh.

 

[cotdt]

Bokeh.

Add to that (based on the Canon version) better wide open sharpness, more contrast, less coma, less purple fringing wide open, less vignetting, and an HSM motor. However, wide open the Sigma does have soft corners on FX, but nobody cares about that when shooting wide open.

 

[panda81]

personally i think the cz 50 f2 produces the most pleasing bokeh of the 50's..fact i like everything about the cz 50 f2 cept it's mf....;-)

I agree...

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

View attachment 227626

View attachment 227627

...but the price is double to triple of the other lenses that were in question...