Is this lens as sharp as the Nikon 35mm f1.8g?
862650
Cant answer your question because I've never tried that Nikon lens you're referring to however, I'm extremely pleased with my Sigma lens and use it 90% of the time for all situations currently.
862651
I've only had this lens for about 1 month and taken approximately 500 shots with it, so my expertise is limited. This is a very sharp lens, picture quality is excellent and its performance has been flawless. My only complaint, if you want to call it that, is its weight. It is a beefy lens, due to the f/2.8 speed over the entire range of focal lengths which is remarkable. I considered a Nikon lens, however I had a hard time justifying more than double the cost. I would highly recommend this lens to anyone desiring a medium range zoom lens. It, I think, will be my workhorse.
2074843
I'm not familiar with the lens you are using but the 16-35 is pretty fast. I prefer the 24 mm 1.4 for low light though
1316179
no, but an amazing lens - sharpness and color rendition is as good or better than any pro lens out there. i am a pro for 35yrs, this is a great lens.
1150052
Yes, it worth it. Have far less chromatic aberrations, more definition across all the frame, and weights far less. This lens is very good starting F1.8, but at the range F4-F8 it shines, even better than Nikkor 105 mm F1.8, which was my previous sharper lens
1566532
The lens is quite sharp at f2.8, I have no hesitation to use it wide open. If it will work for your purposes will depend more on your lighting conditions and the maximum ISO you feel comfortable using on your camera gear. If the light level is really low, you might be better off with the Olympus 75mm f1.8, but the cost of that lens is much higher. The other question that only you can answer: Is this focal length long enough, at 120mm equivalent for 35mm, long enough for your sports needs? The Sigma is a terrific value for this focal length, very happy with mine.
2193894
I have no idea if it is as fast as the 35mm lenses, but the performance has been excellent. My husband and I got into bird feeding in the last couple of years, and with this lens I've been able to capture some amazing shots.
2253130
The lens is extremely sharp in all light. The F2.8 lens is only marginally sharper but 1 stop faster and if low light and not cost or weight is important, then for low light get a "faster" lens. I use a D800 and am amazed at the performance. I got the F4 after trading in my 2.8 lens to reduce the weight of my gear (and size of lens).
933399
This is one of the best lenses I have ever owned. I am not sure about the 35-70 2.8 version because there is no macro application on the 24-70. I use this lens for both fx and dx cameras how ever I would assume that it is a little sharper than the 35-70 due to the fact that it is newer technology. I can't find any current reviews for your lens. I agree with Marty in LA, buy the Nikon 105mm or 200mm if you want macro and if you need a versatile wide angle buy the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 in either F2.8 or F4...
1705909
I think this is a wonderful lens for sports. Same as Nikon only better build quality and smaller body.
1260901
Yes it is ... But you will have a crop factor of 1.5 or 1.6 I believe ... Instead of having a 35 mm it will be as viewing through a 52.5 mm lens
1312084
get the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Pancake Lens - sharper, cheaper, betterThe Nikon 35mm 1.8 is not sharp until f2.8 anyway
1838719
Yea, the 35 1.4 is very sharp and also a "cannot love without it" lens. Definitely worth it.
1114827
The Macro is better optically and sharper at f2.8. The bokeh might be softer at 2.4 but at a cost of sharpness especially at the corners. The macro 2.8 has quickshift and is metal but larger and heavier and of course much more expensive with the huge added versatility of macro. If you want a macro at this short length and a sharp lens this is the ideal all in one solution. Otherwise, there are longer lengths for macro that are to many more useful and faster as sharp and w/ better bokeh 35mm lenses such as the Sigma 35 DG HSM 1.4. I don't get it only because I have a Tamron 90mm macro AND the sigma 35 for the best of both worlds at twice the cost though =/ The Macro is better optically and sharper at f2.8. The bokeh might be softer at 2.4 but at a cost of sharpness especially at the corners. The macro 2.8 has quickshift and is metal but larger and heavier and of course much more expensive with the huge added versatility of macro. If you want a macro at this short length and a sharp lens this is the ideal all in one solution. Otherwise, there are longer lengths for macro that are to many more useful and faster as sharp and w/ better bokeh 35mm lenses such as the Sigma 35 DG HSM 1.4. I don't get it only because I have a Tamron 90mm macro AND... » Read More The Macro is better optically and sharper at f2.8. The bokeh might be softer at 2.4 but at a cost of sharpness especially at the corners. The macro 2.8 has quickshift and is metal but larger and heavier and of course much more expensive with the huge added versatility of macro. If you want a macro at this short length and a sharp lens this is the ideal all in one solution. Otherwise, there are longer lengths for macro that are to many more useful and faster as sharp and w/ better bokeh 35mm lenses such as the Sigma 35 DG HSM 1.4. I don't get it only because I have a Tamron 90mm macro AND the sigma 35 for the best of both worlds at twice the cost though =/ « Show Less
726629
Yes, but lenses wider than 35mm are a little soft in the corners. That's more of a sensor issue though.
320075
I say yes... since it will give you wider apertures than your zoom (f/3.5 @ 28mm, probably closer to f/4 [maybe f/3.7-3.9] when zoomed to 35mm). Check out the review of the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 at photographyLife dot com. This lens is very nice.
79946
Sharp! Could be the best lens you can get for the a6000 but very expensive. My favorite lens along with Zeiss Touit 32mm. Ask yourself if you like this 35mm angle of view and is it worth the price.
725613
Yes, it's as sharp and contrasty as the Canon. However, don't expect it to last quite as long. I've been using some of my Canon L glass since 1990. I'm rough on gear and suspect the build quality of Sigma lenses isn't as good as Canon. I have 24, 35, 50 and 85 Sigmas and all are good.