3 replies to this topic

[nova85]

My 2nd and 3rd grandsons are due in the fall. I wasn't into photography with the first when he was born. So I decided I needed a nice prime lens for all the baby shots. From what I read I think I would get agreement that the Sigma Art is better than the Nikon but is it worth the money? $400 vrs $950

[ScottinPollock]

I would go with the Nikkor, or possibly the Tamron 45mm if you think you'll benefit from VR.

All of these are good lenses.

[Ron]

I have the Nikkor AFS 50mm f/1.4 and think it's a really nice lens. I have no regrets about purchasing it. Some people, however, prefer the slightly slower (and cheaper) f/1.8 version better.

 

I've never used the ART lens so I can only guess but it's probably better as well. For that much money it oughta be really special. Whether it's enough better to justify the price difference is another matter. $950 is an awful lot of cash!

 

--Ron

[dcbear78]

When I moved to Nikon, 50mm lens is the one I had to have. You will not find a single review that says the Nikon is better.

And yes the Sigma is THAT good and worth the money. But if it's worth the price difference is entirely up to you. I wanted the best I could get (without going to the 58mm f1.4) and was not willing to compromise as I knew it was a focal length I would often use.

It is sharp from f1.4 and brutally sharp by f2.8. I have found the focus to be quick and accurate, especially after a micro-adjustment.

f1.4 if you'd like to count eyelashes...

Baylee by -Crew One Photography-

f2.8

Nissa by -Crew One Photography-

BUT..... I've never actually used the Nikon myself to give an absolutely fair review. I can only vouch for the Sigma.