Originally Posted by Godfrey
I dunno. I've seen a lot of work with the Nikon 50/1.8G, had one myself, and was not impressed with it. It seemed to me a fairly mediocre performer, decent for the money as a standard normal kit lens but no challenge to the higher end quality lenses.
What I've seen of the output from the Sigma 45mm f/2.8 looks to be in a different class. I haven't seen the lens in person yet, but I'll make the trip up to a camera shop sometime soon and try it out.
Iíve had no performance issues with mine, it is an excellent performer. Itís why Nikon issued it as the package lens with the DF. It outperforms their 1.4 version and I have no problem shooting it alongside my Sigma Art 50 1.4. Especially if I donít need 1.4 and appreciate the size!
I find Nasimís reviews to be on the money:
ďThe Nikon 50mm f/1.8G sets new standards in 50mm fixed lens performance for Nikon mount Ė it is sharper than all of the predecessors, including the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G at largest apertures. I was quite surprised to see such results in my lab tests.Ē
One thing I really like about lenses like this is they are so cheap (I buy them used) that I just use them w/o protective filters and just go for it. With my Leica and Zeiss glass I always have a level of apprehension depending on the environment that they will be used in.
I think that the main reason that lenses like this Sigma have become so expensive is that it is now hard to make money in the photo business as the market size has sunk so much due to smartphones. Newly introduced gear has to have a higher price point in order to make them sustainable due to the ever smaller volume of sales.