Well, that’s me decided. The Nikon 24-70 f2.8 is going on eBay. It might be within Nikon’s tolerances but its not within mine. When I pay top dollar for a lens I expect it to be a top quality lens. I do not expect it to be given more than a run for its money by a lens that I can purchase for 1/10th of the price.
Sorry Nikon, just not good enough.
It has been suggested that I should return to prime lenses and that is under serious consideration. For the price of the Nikon beast in question I can purchase a Sigma 50mm f1.4 (which I already have), a 20mm f1.8, and a 105mm f2.8 macro. With these three and a little more leg work, I would be able to cover pretty much any eventuality, including lower light levels and reduced depth of field by comparison.
This will probably be the way I go on this one. I might even throw in the 15mm fish-eye too. If you’re going for distortion, then make it designed and deliberate and part of your art – not just there because the lens manufacturer took a shortcut somewhere.
But, enough of the issues with Nikon.
How is that Sigma 50mm f1.4 shaping up?
Well, I have to say that I am pretty darned impressed to be honest. Having the f1.4 available means I can really isolate my focus point and control depth of field to a very extreme level. With a portrait I am able to focus just on the eyes and even throw the nose and ears out of focus (should I choose to).
Its interesting to get back to using a fixed focal length again. Its a discipline that is sadly forgotten with the all encompassing zoom we are so used to. For me, its going back to film, almost. Except I can experiment more as it costs me nothing but time to processing the images (shooting in Raw and editing post production).
I grew up with using a 28mm, a 50mm, and a 105mm. I am going back to what I knew with film, but a little wider as to me 28mm was never quite enough.
I am also thinking about 300mm with a f2.8 as well and looking perhaps at the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 at some point, although that’s one expensive beast!
Something to consider.
But, I digress. The Sigma 50mm f1.4 is a little more expensive that Nikon’s new equivalent and some reviews have Nikon just ahead and some the Sigma. Well, I can’t compare as I haven’t tried the Nikon (and you all know why).
But, I can say that from a technical point of the view, the jury is out on this one. From a handling point of view, I prefer a heftier piece of glass, especially with the D700 as it counter weights in the hand better. I should imagine that if I find this with the D700 then it would be even truer of the D3 or D3X (and if anyone wants to give me one of these babies to try my theory I would be delighted to oblige!)
The handling, in the field so to speak, is superb. The AF/M switch is nicely located and easy to find without looking. I would have preferred a AF-M/M switch and been able to tweak without using the switch (as you can with a Nikon).
The Sigma does not have an aperture ring, which of course is not needed on the D700 or the D200, but does mean that if I wanted to use it with an old manual film camera, I can’t. This isn’t too much of a problem as I’m not actually likely too, but I do think that Sigma should have left me with the option still.
The filter size is the standard pro 77mm which is also an advantage over the Nikon (and Canon) equivalent and should not be ignored especially if you are found of using polarisers and already have a 77mm one.
If you use a slot in Cokin P system then that’s not going to make for much of an issue.
The HSM motor is a blessing, its quick and its quiet. I really can’t understand why Sigma would make anything without a HSM now. There is not image stabilisation, but to be honest, with 50mm do you need it?
We managed for years without image stabilisation, in fact I have never used it, even when its an option. If I want a shutter speed under 1/30th of a second (above that I can handhold anyway) then I’ll use a tripod. Even with OS/IS whatever, I’m going to need a tripod at less than 1/30th anyway!
The results as far as image quality go are superb. Sigma does have a problem with quality control – you get good ones, and you get bad ones. You get a good one, and its superb, you get a bad one and it really will be a lemon.
I don’t think I got a lemon this time.
I have put some test shots here for you to have a look at, these are just a few.
Sigma 50mm 1:1.4 HSM EX DG at f1.4 on Nikon D700
Sigma 50mm 1:1.4 HSM EX DG at f2 on Nikon D700
Sigma 50mm 1:1.4 HSM EX DG at f2.8 on Nikon D700
Sigma 50mm 1:1.4 HSM EX DG at f4 on Nikon D700
And here’s something I produced in the studio
Now, this is not a macro lens. If it was a macro lens as well as being very very fast then it would be perfect. But, its not. It has a 1:4 ratio of reproduction and this is good enough for many situations. A 1:2 or better still a 1:1 would be even better but probably add considerably to the cost.
And while we are talking about price – this beauty will set you back around £350. Which is a lot, for a standard lens. Especially when the f1.8 and especially the f2.8 are SO much cheaper. If you don’t need 1.4 then the 1.8 is a very good buy. But, for my money, I’ll still pay the extra for the 1.4. Its a quality optic, that has superb handling, excellent results and take you back to the days when the bathroom smelt of salt and vinegar crisps most evenings…
