flowery step [deleted] 5:17pm, 19 July 2009
i have the cheap nikkor and thinking to get sigma 1.4, but is it worth of the money? i think 30mm is too short. camera is d40. i see some grain with nikkor, even at iso 400.
Photostar_1 9 years ago
The problem with any make of f1.4 is that they are generally really soft when wide open. I'd personally stick to an f1.8. I use Canon cameras, but I bet there's very little to chose between them and Sigma are good, on the whole.
BlackMissionGoggles 9 years ago
You are asking about the sigma 30mm vs the nikon 50mm correct? I own the D40 and own both the 50mm 1.8D and the Sigma 30mm. I have shot both at shows and Ive got better shots out of the 50mm. Its super sharp and unless you are really close to the band/performer 50mm is a much better length. The sigma however will autofocus on your D40 which is pretty handy after a few beers and being a wider aperture and a wider focal length performs better in really poor lighting. If you plan to buy the Sigma for shooting gigs I would recomend spending your money elsewhere (maybe a 85 mm?), but if you are interested in buying it to have a fast normal prime that will autofocus on your D40, the Sigma is a good lens. In regards to the lens being soft wide open, I find that the 30mm f/1.4 is reasonably sharp in the center at f/1.4 and good at 1.8. That's assuming you can nail the focus which is another matter.
Cody Molica PRO 9 years ago
hope he knows about the crop factor. multiply 30mm x 1.6 and you get darn close to 50mm in 35mm camera terms. So 30mm is not wide angle at all its much closer to what you really see and if your are pushed up against the stage in a club then your going to need that because a 50mm becomes an 85mm when attached to a d40.

FYI only D700 and D3 are full frame and avoid the crop magnifyer.

And I agree if you cant get sharp images at 1.4 then you didnt focus right.

As for grain use what the pros that shoot 6400 use, Noiseware it works they have a free trial.
Groups Beta