[ElJamoquio]

This is a tough decision for me.

Sigma: cheaper, sharper, probably can fine tune with dock (?)
Nikon: better bokeh (?), WR, lighter, probably better interface with camera

Anybody have links to comparison shots between the two? I've seen some 'somewhat' harsh bokeh on some Sigma shots, and have heard that the Nikon is better, but in the pics I've seen I couldn't tell much difference.

Sharper is important to me but if the Nikon really has appreciably better bokeh I'd probably get it instead.

[DSims]

I haven't seen shots with harsh or busy bokeh with the Nikon, but I saw them with the Sigma the first time DPR published samples.

However, if you don't see it - or it doesn't bother you - then it may not matter.


The Nikon has been maligned because it doesn't fit the into the modern mold of test charts and "digital sharpness." Zeiss actually managed to walk the fine line between the two camps by building a $4000 lens.

I'd be happier with the Nikon myself. But I'd be much more likely to get the DA*55 than either of them (despite the fact that it definitely does show harsh backgrounds in some situations). The overall character (and price) of that lens is really nice.

[Adam]

This is a tough decision for me.

Sigma: cheaper, sharper, probably can fine tune with dock (?)
Nikon: better bokeh (?), WR, lighter, probably better interface with camera

Anybody have links to comparison shots between the two? I've seen some 'somewhat' harsh bokeh on some Sigma shots, and have heard that the Nikon is better, but in the pics I've seen I couldn't tell much difference.

Sharper is important to me but if the Nikon really has appreciably better bokeh I'd probably get it instead.

I compared the 58mm to the 50mm F1.4G and opted against getting it because of the tighter FOV and the fact that it wasn't the best for close-ups due to spherochromatism. The bokeh itself is fine IMO. Here's my quick review of the lens:

AF-S Nikkor 58mm F1.4G Review - Lens Reviews - News - Front Page Posts - NikonForums.com

Based on what I've read I think the Sigma is the way to go if you want the best possible premium fifty, but it's also a huge lens!

[bibz]

I think the 58 is a character lens. The siggy just a premium digital flatty. I prefer the former much more. One makes pleasing pixels, the other lovely images. Depends what your after in terms of output.

[Digitalis]

I have always had a rather troubled history with 55~60mm lenses, generally speaking I don't like them because of their FOV. I don't have any experience beyond casual use of the Nikkor 58mm f/1.4 - but I do work commercially with a Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 SLII on a Nikon D4s and D800E. The voigtlander Nokton is an excellent lens, purely for optical considerations I think it would be very interesting to compare the Nikkor 58 and Nocton 58.

I might have to borrow a Nikkor 58 to do this sometime...just add that to the already mounting lens review line up I have going.

[osv]

what camera?

fwiw, here is the art50, in a 50mm shootout, on the a7r:

Most adorable 50s - UPDATED: Sigma Art 50/1.4 DG HSM Review - Conclusion

[ElJamoquio]

Thanks, everybody, for the responses.

I haven't seen shots with harsh or busy bokeh with the Nikon, but I saw them with the Sigma the first time DPR published samples.

However, if you don't see it - or it doesn't bother you - then it may not matter.

I've seen some 'moderate' bokeh out of the Sigma. I was hoping for some back-to-back shots, because I think I could make almost any lens' bokeh look bad if I tried hard enough. I wanted to see how much better the Nikon was in the same situation.

what camera?

fwiw, here is the art50, in a 50mm shootout, on the a7r:

Most adorable 50s - UPDATED: Sigma Art 50/1.4 DG HSM Review - Conclusion

Thanks. Both would be on a Nikon D600. I'll probably get a higher resolution replacement in a year or two, maybe a D810 or the D620 or something.