I'm still working on the review of the Sigma 35 1.4 (
previewed here). Meanwhile, I wanted to show the differences (and similarities) between the Sigma 35 1.4 and the Nikon 28 1.8G (
reviewed here) in terms of their depth of field wide open and their perspective and field of view.
Testing protocol: I put a subject in front of a wall and without moving the subject, I took shots with the 28 and the 35 wide open, at various distances, keeping the subject size in the frame approximately equal (requiring me to move a little closer to the subject when shooting with the 28mm).
Close-up headshot:
|
35 1.4 |
|
28 1.8 |
Both of them have a shallow depth of field, although the 35 is significantly more shallow. In terms of perspective, the subject's face with the 28mm at this distance looks a little narrow. The subject's face with the 35mm at this distance looks like it has normal proportions.
Headshot
|
35 @ f/1.4 |
|
28 @ 1.8 |
Once more the 35 at f/1.4 looks like it has much shallower DOF compared to the 28 at f/1.8 at this distance. In both shots, the subject's face looks more proportional compared to the previous set, though the 35 still looks more normal.
Bust
|
35 @ f/1.4 |
|
28 @ f/1.8 |
At this distance, the difference in DOF looks less apparent and the subject's proportions look about the same.
Upper body:
There is very little difference in the DOF of the shots, and both have normal proportions.
In the following pair of shots, the composition is different, but the size of the subject is about the same:
There is even less of a difference in DOF and the subject's proportions.
Full length:
|
35 @ f/1.4 |
|
28 @ f/1.8 |
Almost identical in DOF and proportions.
I hope this comparison helps you choose between these two primes.
Great comparison. It confirms a couple of things for me. I prefer the 35mm "look" in terms of perspective. Also the DoF difference is greater than I expected. I just wanted to confirm that it is the lenses that are responsible for the colour difference between the shots and not some other factor. The 28 looks warmer and the 35 looks (to me) a more natural rendition. Is the sigma/nikon difference? I only have nikon lenses but your posts on the sigma 35 1.4 so far are tempting me to upgrade my 35 f2!
ReplyDeleteThanks and keep up the good work.
Yes the 35's color is more natural (we had overcast skies and some fog that day). In retrospect I should have fixed the white balance instead of leaving it on auto to make the comparison more scientific. Oh well... :)
DeleteNot sure if it's a Sigma/Nikon thing. I do know that at least some of the newer Nikon lenses are designed to have a warmer look (for example the 24-70G vs. the 28-70D).
I haven't tried the 35 f/2 - how do you like it? Anyway, I will hopefully try to finish the 35 1.4 review this weekend, to give you a better idea of this lens.
Thanks for your support!
Best regards,
Mic
Hi again,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if what i wrote yesterday made it through so I'm trying again. Sorry to take so long to reply!
I like the 35mm f2 mainly for the character of the focal length (wider then "standard" for context without looking wide) but that would be true of any 35mm lens. It is also a bit of a nostalgic look for me as for a while in 1990s I just used a F301 (maybe N3003 in the US) with a series E 35mm.
The f2 is good for being small, light, fairly fast and quite cheap. It's great to just stick on the camera for general use when I don't want to be weighed down.
It is sharp in the central area which is fine for portraits. I'm sure there are better 35mm lenses though. The downsides of the f2 are the colour rendition and contrast are not the best and the edges get soft at wider apertures. The latter is not really a problem except for group shots though. AF is not the fastest but it's good enough for me.
I've not tried other 35mm lenses. Even though the Sigma is very tempting, I'm not sure I can justify the cost. I would like to see an FX AFS 35mm Nikon but it doesn't seem like that's a priority for them at the moment.
Keep up the good work on the blog - seems like you are enjoying getting to know the D7100! I'd love one of these as a second lighter body but as I may have mentioned elsewhere I could only get one as a kit with a divorce...
Hi TeaDad. Thank for reposting your comment. I did not get the previous one. I like the way you describe the 35mm fov. Thanks for letting me know your impressions of the 35 f/2. It sounds like a sensible and economical alternative.
DeleteAs for Nikon, well they do have a 35 1.4G but it's very expensive and optically isn't as good as the Sigma 35 1.4. Who knows, in the future they might create a more reasonably-priced 35 1.8G or 35 f2G to take back the crown from Sigma :)
Lol @ d7100. I would pass and be happy with one camera. :)
Best regards,
Mic
I've looked at the 35mm 1.4 as I saw one second hand but it is just crazily expensive. I feel there is a big gap between the 1.4 (pricey), the f2 (old) and the 1.8 (dx) that could easily be filled. I guess Nikon's view is the 28 1.8 fills that space but I'm not convinced.
DeleteYes I agree. The 28 1.8G is not really a substitute for a full frame 35 1.8. Hopefully they do make one, and it's priced reasonably, with great quality, just like the 28 1.8G and 85 1.8G.
DeleteHi.. this is what the best review for the dof comparison between the lenses.. really useful for me as im also do the same way to compare the lenses dof. Im was wondering whether bro will do a comparison with 24mm 1.4 with 28mm 1.8 ..with the same way...
ReplyDeleteThanks Andy. Sorry I don't have a 24 1.4 so I can't do that comparison. In addition, I already returned the 28 1.8.
DeleteBest regards,
Mic