Nikon 35mm 1.8 or sigma art

I am looking at getting rid of my old 24 - 70 mm Sigma D series lens. Would you go with the Nikon 35 mm 1.8 FX lens or spend the extra $400 for the Sigma part 1.4? Does anyone have experiences using both the Nikon 35 1.8 vs the Sigma art ?

I read great things about the ART series by Sigma.
No personal experience here however.

Ya me too. Have you used the 35 mm 1.8 fx lens. Looking at cost perspective right now and wondering if i should wait and pay the extra money on the ART 35

I have the 18-35 ART and it is a truly amazing lens.

I've read reviews which very favourably compared the 35/1.8 G FX against the 1.4G. I would say the Art would still be a bit better but would be heavier and as you note more expensive. I don't know that it would be twice as good as the 1.8G FX though

I agree, through reading I think I am leaning more towards the 1.8G FX over the Nikon 1.4 .. just haven't used the sigma art series but am hearing good things just wondering if there's a big difference between the 1.4 and 1.8 aperatures ...

The sigma 18-35 is for crop sensor cameras? or is there an FX version?

kma16 wrote in post #17773107
I agree, through reading I think I am leaning more towards the 1.8G FX over the Nikon 1.4 .. just haven't used the sigma art series but am hearing good things just wondering if there's a big difference between the 1.4 and 1.8 aperatures ...

Read this earlier today from Thom Hogan "The 35mm f/1.8 is getting down near the US$500 mark, while the 85mm f/1.8 drops below it, and both are excellent lenses. Frankly, I’d tend to buy them before their f/1.4 siblings, anyway, and the new prices make them even more tempting."

kma16 wrote in post #17773113
The sigma 18-35 is for crop sensor cameras? or is there an FX version?

It is DX only. The closest for FX from Sigma is the 24-35 f/2 Art (another very good lens).

No shame in using the 1.8G FX series of lenses for weddings though

kma16 wrote in post #17772152
I am looking at getting rid of my old 24 - 70 mm Sigma D series lens. Would you go with the Nikon 35 mm 1.8 FX lens or spend the extra $400 for the Sigma part 1.4? Does anyone have experiences using both the Nikon 35 1.8 vs the Sigma art ?

I have both! The Nikkor is good, no doubt. The Siggy Art is great.
That is the difference. Do you need the best?

haha, ok, thanks good to know. I do not need the best but good for the price is what I want. Is the sigma 1.4 worth the few extra hundred dollars from the nikon 1.8? or is there minimal difference?

That's a personal question. For me I need the brighter aperture and so the cost is worth it. The better sharpness is a nice addition.

kma16 wrote in post #17785887
haha, ok, thanks good to know. I do not need the best but good for the price is what I want. Is the sigma 1.4 worth the few extra hundred dollars from the nikon 1.8? or is there minimal difference?

The fact is most 35mm lenses are sharp. Some better than others of course. Whether you need or will benefit from the extra IQ is up to you. Not anyone here. What are you going to use the lens for? That is the standard to judge which will work for your needs.
If you have to have the best there is, right now it is the Sigma.

The slightly larger f-ratio shouldn't be an issue. It isn't even one stop difference. That isn't a deal breaker in anybodies book. I have both because I am crazy as evidenced from statements by my wife!

Although I know technically the Nikon 35 1.8 is a better bang for buck... for me I MISS my Sigma Sigma 18-35 1.8 Art, and not just for the focal zoom range but there was some magic fairy dust in that lens. (Or I believe some call it micro contrast?). Pictures from that lens had a different look and feel... and from what I understand similar is said about the other Art lenses...

So for me based on how I loved the look of the last Art lens I owned... if I had the money I would pony up for the Sigma 35 1.4 Art myself... even knowing that for all other technical reasons the Nikon holds it's own... it just doesn't create the same "feeeeeeels" when you look at the resulting images...or more so the Sigma Art series has an alluring look to their images...

I reviewed both the Sigma 35 1.4 and the Nikon 35 1.8, and I gotta say, other than the compact size / weight and general sharpness of the Nikon, I wasn't really impressed. In fact the Nikon 24-70 2.8 has prettier bokeh at 35mm and f/2.8 than the Nikon 35 1.8 has at 1.8, by the time you get just a little bit off-center towards the rule-of-thirds areas. Nikon's 1.8 G primes just weren't optimized for much other than sharpness and similarly basic, consumer-oriented things.

If you're on a budget and want to save space / weight, and especially if you shoot at f/2 or f/2.8 most of the time, I'd just get the Nikon 35 f/2 D, it's a great lens for general photography, and tiny.

Otherwise, if 35mm is your favorite focal length, then pony up for the Sigma; it's a dream to shoot with wide open at 1.4, the sharpness is just amazing. It does need incessant focus microadjusting, but then again most Nikon 1.8 G primes aren't that consistent either so I dunno why everybody is whining about Sigma AF; really the only lenses I've ever had an amazing track record with have been Nikon f/2.8 and f/4 pro zooms.