Why is the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art much larger and pricier than Nikon’s 50mm f/1.4G?

Asked 8/14/2020

4 views

2 answers

0

I’m comparing two Nikon F-mount 50mm f/1.4 primes for possible used purchase: the Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.4G and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art. The Nikon is compact and light, while the Sigma is much larger, heavier, and more expensive. In practical terms, what do you gain with the Sigma, and why would someone choose it over the smaller Nikon?

Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

Photography Stack Exchange contributor

5y ago

2 Answers

5

You've already identified some of the most striking and significant differences:

  • Size/weight
  • Price

Not so obvious is that the Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.4G is a 2008 design with nine optical elements in six groups based on far older previous lenses¹ while the Sigma 50/1.4 ART is a 2014 design with thirteen optical elements in eight groups. Nikon's more recent 2018 Z-mount Nikkor Z 50mm f/1.8 S with twelve elements in nine groups is more similar in design philosophy to the Sigma 50/1.4 ART.

  • Number of optical elements/groups
  • Age of design
  • Design decisions about what is most important to the lens' performance characteristics

Not only has the state of the art (no pun intended) moved forward during this time period, but what potential buyers want and expect in a lens has also seemed to shift during that relatively short time interval.

What is the difference and for what purpose would anyone buy the more expensive heavier lens?

For most of those who are willing to pay much more for a heavier lens like the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM ART, it's so they can have the lens that is one of the best at taking sharp photos of the corners of flat test charts at close distances.

There are times and places, such as flat document archiving or art reproduction, where this is a legitimate reason but for the most part those who buy such lenses do so because they think "sharpest (on the edges and in the corners as well as in the center)" always means "best" for whatever purpose to which they may be intending to put the lens to use. Such is not always the case.

Portraitists, for example, have typically been more concerned with the characteristics of the out of focus areas in the background behind their subjects than with the lens' ability with regard to absolute "sharpness" at the edges of the frame when those edges are generally well outside the depth of field anyway. The same design considerations that give the best flat field performance making those edges and corners of flat test charts sharper also can make out of focus areas look "busy" or "harsh" compared to lenses with less corrected or even uncorrected field curvature that can make the out of focus areas in the background "smooth" and "creamy".

Then there are use cases where compact size and light weight may be more important than ultimate optical performance, such as street photography or landscape photography done at locations difficult to access without hiking for miles or only after climbing a mountain.

For more here at Photography SE about how different lens designs can lead to different characteristics when using them, please see:
What is the advantage of a lens with a curved focal plane?
Why do prime lenses have multiple lens elements?
Why is the Tamron 90mm 2.8 marketed as Macro and not as a "portrait" lens?
In photo taken with a prime lens, what is the cause of the "zoomed" bokeh appearance?
Is Canon 50mm f/1.2 with Canon EOS 80D suitable for portraits, landscapes, travel/nightlife photography?
What are some tips for using a macro lens for non-macro photography?

For more about the history of lens design, please see several excellent entries at Roger Cicala's blog. Roger is the founder and Chief Lens Guru at lensrentals.com:

Lens Genealogy Part 1
Lens Genealogy – Part 2
Fun with Field of Focus Part 1
Fun with Field of Focus II: Copy-to-Copy Variation and Lens Testing

As to whether minor but measurable differences in "sharpness" will make a significant impact on real world photos, please see:
What are the differences between these lenses and how will they affect a beginner?
What should I expect from Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM?
Will I see enough improvement moving from EF-S to "L" lenses to warrant the cost?
Will a lens upgrade from the kit lens give me better colors on my backpacking travels?
is there a real difference between "digital" and "film" lenses?
Is replacing all my Fujifilm gear with this Canon zoom lens an upgrade?

For when those differences might only be noticeable, please see:
What is pixel peeping and why do some people say should I avoid it?
Why do some people say to use 0.007 mm (approximate pixel size) for the CoC on a Canon 5DM2?

And, finally, for why most blurry pictures are blurry (hint: it usually isn't the lens' fault) and the best way to improve your images:
How do I diagnose the source of focus problem in a camera?
Focus problem vs. motion blur vs. camera shake - how to tell the difference?

How to improve image sharpness on Canon 700D?

¹ Any 50mm lens with six groups is more likely than not to be based on the 1920 modifications by Taylor, Taylor, and Hobson to the classic double Gauss design pioneered in 1817 by Carl Friedrich Gauss for use in telescopes before photography even existed.

Originally by user15871. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

user15871

5y ago

0

AI Answer

Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.

The main difference is design priority. The Nikon 50mm f/1.4G is an older, compact “classic 50” design that balances size, cost, and pleasing rendering. The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art is a newer, much more complex optical design built to maximize image quality, especially wide open.

In practice, the Sigma is generally sharper across the frame, with better edge performance and better correction of optical flaws such as coma, astigmatism, and distortion. That’s why it is bigger, heavier, and more expensive: more glass and a more ambitious design.

Why choose the Nikon? Smaller size, lower weight, lower cost, and a rendering many people like for shallow-depth-of-field portraits.

Why choose the Sigma? If you want stronger technical performance at f/1.4—especially for critical sharpness, low-light work, or subjects where edge quality matters—the extra bulk can be worth it.

So neither lens is “for no reason” larger: they’re optimized differently. The Nikon prioritizes portability and character; the Sigma prioritizes correction and sharpness.

UniqueBot

AI

5y ago

Your Answer