Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
Note: This is not a real world comparison with all the inaccuracies such a comparison would produce. Instead, I have conducted a fair, accurate and repeatable set of tests between the two lenses. If this isn't 'real world' enough, or you don't see the point, then this isn't the thread for you. I hope posters will see this for what it is, and not try to bicker needlessly.
This thread is for people who are in the same situation I was in 6 months ago. People who are looking to get an 1.4 85mm but are unsure whether to buy a Sigma now, or wait and save for a Nikon, or people who already have the Sigma and are unsure whether to upgrade or not.
With that said, I'll get on with the review...
First I'll give some feedback into some subjective aspects, or aspects that are not visible in these tests.
The Nikon is more ergonomic, slightly lighter, better balanced and weather sealed. The Nikon has slower AF, but it is extremely consistent and accurate compared to the Sigma in these tests.
The Sigma is plenty accurate most of the time, however the DOF in these tests was incredibly thin. The Sigma would show 'some' variation occasionally and not achieve critical focus. While 'critical' focus was not always achieved, I would say the images were still usable. There was just occasionally some slight softening. This hasn't been much of an issue in the 'real world' for me, although it did occasionally miss focus slightly.
Another thing to note is that the Sigma lens is a fraction wider than the Nikon (I'd say maybe it's actually an 82mm or something lens).
For the test, each lens has been calibrated using AF fine tune to achieve the sharpest possible results.
Camera used was a D700, on manual settings at ISO 200, 1/200 @ 1.4 with auto WB.
A tripod was used along with a remote shutter release.
My 35mm lens was used as a test subject to determine centre image quality, my 14-24 was used to show image quality towards the edge of the frame.
A line of wine glasses was used to highlight any difference in bokeh quality, both in front and behind, on mid tones as well as specular highlights. CA is also more visible on specular highlights.
Test setup
Subjects
Physical differences between the lenses
Sigma
Nikon
Sigma
Nikon
From the above samples (at lower resolution) it can be seen that there isn't a great deal of difference, at least not a difference that a non-photographer could pick-up on imo.
There are some differences however, first the Sigma produces a slightly cooler image while the Nikon produces a VERY lightly warmer image.
The Nikon vignettes more at 1.4.
The Nikon looks to have slightly smoother bokeh and a larger 'blur circle' (circle of confusion). This would indicate that the Nikon has a shallower DOF. Maybe this is caused by the Sigma being a slightly wider lens and/or maybe the lenses have slightly different sized apertures at their 1.4 setting?
I haven't looked at the crops yet, so they will be on post No.2 shortly.
This thread is for people who are in the same situation I was in 6 months ago. People who are looking to get an 1.4 85mm but are unsure whether to buy a Sigma now, or wait and save for a Nikon, or people who already have the Sigma and are unsure whether to upgrade or not.
With that said, I'll get on with the review...
First I'll give some feedback into some subjective aspects, or aspects that are not visible in these tests.
The Nikon is more ergonomic, slightly lighter, better balanced and weather sealed. The Nikon has slower AF, but it is extremely consistent and accurate compared to the Sigma in these tests.
The Sigma is plenty accurate most of the time, however the DOF in these tests was incredibly thin. The Sigma would show 'some' variation occasionally and not achieve critical focus. While 'critical' focus was not always achieved, I would say the images were still usable. There was just occasionally some slight softening. This hasn't been much of an issue in the 'real world' for me, although it did occasionally miss focus slightly.
Another thing to note is that the Sigma lens is a fraction wider than the Nikon (I'd say maybe it's actually an 82mm or something lens).
For the test, each lens has been calibrated using AF fine tune to achieve the sharpest possible results.
Camera used was a D700, on manual settings at ISO 200, 1/200 @ 1.4 with auto WB.
A tripod was used along with a remote shutter release.
My 35mm lens was used as a test subject to determine centre image quality, my 14-24 was used to show image quality towards the edge of the frame.
A line of wine glasses was used to highlight any difference in bokeh quality, both in front and behind, on mid tones as well as specular highlights. CA is also more visible on specular highlights.
Test setup
Subjects
Physical differences between the lenses
Sigma
Nikon
Sigma
Nikon
From the above samples (at lower resolution) it can be seen that there isn't a great deal of difference, at least not a difference that a non-photographer could pick-up on imo.
There are some differences however, first the Sigma produces a slightly cooler image while the Nikon produces a VERY lightly warmer image.
The Nikon vignettes more at 1.4.
The Nikon looks to have slightly smoother bokeh and a larger 'blur circle' (circle of confusion). This would indicate that the Nikon has a shallower DOF. Maybe this is caused by the Sigma being a slightly wider lens and/or maybe the lenses have slightly different sized apertures at their 1.4 setting?
I haven't looked at the crops yet, so they will be on post No.2 shortly.
Last edited:
