WHich one?

[jayne]

So I take two types of shot mainly. Portraits of my baby daughter and macro shots of insects etc.

I'm thinking about getting the Nikon 50mm 1.8 but after looking at this forum, I'm now wondering if the Sigma 105mm Macro 1:1 would be a better option?

(I already have the 90mm Macro 1:1 which I use 90% of the time). Hmm.... what do you guys think?

[coffee]

If you already have a 90mm macro, I don't see the 105mm giving you anything for the money except the ability to be a little farther away from the subject to get the same crop, but only by 15mm, which isn't much. I don't know what if any quality difference there is in either len's though.

The 50mm will add to you lens collection though in better low light capabilities, but isn't a macro.

Looking at your collection I would sell the 28-200, because you have that focal length covered already with your 18-105, and I'm guessing that that lens has better quality also. If you are really into macro, I would consider a 150 or 180mm macro if Nikon offers that. That would be a big step forward in macro capabilities.

[jayne]

Thanks Joseph. :)

I think I'm definitely going to get the 50mm because it's an inexpensive lens, yet I've heard it's an essential lens to have. 1.4 or 1.8 though, that is the question. I don't think there's much difference between the two other than price so I'll probably go with the 1.8.

The 90mm is tack sharp,with great bokeh....

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3622/3570556665_39fc822d08.jpg

I'll have to take a look at 150 or 180mm lenses I think.

[coffee]

If you can afford it, I would go with the 1.4. it has much better low light capabilities than the 1.8. I have the canon 1.8 and like it a lot, but the 1.4 has much faster focusing than the 1.8, and wish I would have went with it instead, but it's also over $200.00 where the 1.8 I got for around $80.00. I don't know what the Nikon equivalent costs.

[jayne]

Well...I can get the 1.8 for £100 ($180ish) but the 1.4 is £220 ($400 ish). So I've just gone and bought the 1.8, hurrah!!! :D

[jerryph]

I have had the 50mm F/1.8 for 2 years now. Most I ever used it was at an engagement session last week. Since then, I have rented the Sigma 50mm F/1.4, and in terms of final results, the Sigma is much sharper and clearer. It also focuses faster and gives me richer pictures straight out of the camera than the 50mm F/1.8 Nikon. In comparison, the Nikon seems so tiny placed beside this HUGE and much heavier Sigma.

That said, my use of this focal range is different than yours. You use it to take photos of your family and general photography, whereas I use mine under more strenuous circumstances like weddings and e-sessions and the odd portrait session... more along the lines of professional usage.

For non-professional use, the 50mm F/1.8 is a good lens, and I got some very nice shots from it:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1422/1468021225_c79ca78a98.jpg

That said, after having used the 50mm Sigma F/1.4 on my D700... well, I placed the order for the Sigma about 2 hours ago and since I am in no rush, I took the free (but slower) delivery. For $499.50US, it is still a bargain... if it does what you want it to do. For me, it makes a great match and fits right in with the kinds of photography that I seem to be aligning myself with. :)

My dad has just inherited the Nikon 50mm F/1.8 for his F2A film camera. :D

[doogs8]

hello Jayne I have the 50mm f1.8 for my Nikon d80 and love it - very sharp. I like so many read up on things before making a purchase and I just had to have it.

[jerryph]

I uploaded 2 pictures to the gallery here and cannot find links so that I could insert them into this post... but they are HERE (http://www.proudphotography.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=8652) and HERE. (http://www.proudphotography.com/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/8651)

Basically it is one shot using a D200 and 30mm Sigma at F/1.4 and you can tell that even at F/1.4, it is sharper than the 50mm Nikon F/1.8. Matter of fact, in tests that I did, you need to get the Nikon lens to F/4 to match the Sigma at F/1.4... and by F/2.8, the Sigma is so sharp, that it is sharper than the Nikon at it's sharpest sweet spot. BTW, the Sigma keeps getting better and hits it's sweet spot at between F/8 and F/9.

Also, the colour rendition of the 30mm F/1.4 is very typical Sigma, meaning very warm, vibrant and very contrasty.

In my first pic you can see that I took a shot of the Vagabond battery pack and then in the 2nd, it is a 100% crop of the shot. You can literally see very clearly the threading from this shot taken at F/1.4. This is the same shot taken with the D200 in JPG FINE mode and not retouched in any manner other than resized and cropped.

Now, there is only one thing that I would wish was a touch better, and that was focus speed. In my version, the focus speed is slower than the Nikon 50mm, but it is quiet and VERY accurate. It also suffers from absolutely zero front or rear focus as you can tell from THIS (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerryph/1922999768/sizes/o/in/set-72157603019668755/) test I made. In THIS (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerryph/1936070377/sizes/o/in/set-72157603019668755/) picture, you can see the very good quality bokeh... very creamy. :)