Sigma Art 50mm vs Nikon 58mm f/1.4

[TracyB]

Hi!  I wanted to pick your brain about a couple of lenses.  I think I may be in the market soon for a new one - always have that wandering eye!

I"m shooting on a Nikon D750 and have a variety of primes & 1 long zoom.  It seems like the only 2 that come out of my bag are my 105mm f/1.4 for portraits and 35mm Sigma Art for lifestyle, indoor groups and day-to-day shots of my kids.  I would like something in the middle that can be used for portraits (sibling groups or family groups) where I don't have a ton of room to maneuver.  I adore my 105mm and would use that all the time but sometimes I just don't have enough space and/or I would like to include more background in my shot.  I would love something fast (and of course accurate) focusing with pretty bokeh.  I mostly photograph wiggly kids.

I also have a nifty fifty (f/1.8) and an 85mm (f/1.8) both from Nikon.  I could probably get by with using my 85mm but curious to know your thoughts on other options.  I think I would like to upgrade my 50mm to either a Sigma Art or Nikkon's 58mm f/1.4.  Do you have any thoughts on either of those lenses or suggestions for other lenses to check out?

Thanks!

[Brian]

The Nikon 58mm 1.4 is a great lens. It’s nice and sharp and the bokeh is also very nice. Not legendary nice like a 85 f/1.4, but very decent. I like the images that come out of that lens. The main downside to that lens is that it’s extremely slow when it comes to autofocusing. I mean like old-man-just-woke-up from a nap slow. I wouldn’t shoot wiggly kids with it. Awesome for video though  

The Sigma Art is well regarded, but as with 3rd party lenses, QC can be an issue, so be sure to test it thoroughly if you go that route. I’ve never personally shot with that lens so I can’t give you a 1st person review but people seem to like it  it’s way better than Nikon’s 50mm lenses, especially the 50 1.4G lens, that lens just sucks. Whatever you do, skip the AF-S 50 1.4G  I hate that stupid lens and I’m a Nikon OEM Snob   

In addition, and I don’t care what others might say, third party lenses do not hold their value, no matter what the DxO score is, no matter how sharp it is, or how much people in a FB group swoon over it, etc. it’s still a ____________ (insert brand name that’s not Nikon here) lens. “I’ll give you $________, since it’s a Sigma...” (or whatever) when you try to sell it.  

Alternatives: 

Nikon 70-200 f/4 or my beloved 70-200 f/2.8 lens? Even though it’s only f/2.8, you get the added benefit of compression at the longer focal lengths. It just sucks the background in. 

[TracyB]

Thanks for your input!  Oh those wiggly kids, I wish that Nikon lens would work for me but it doesn't sound like it suits my situation well.  Maybe in the future ?!  

I'm not in a rush to make a purchase so I'll just think on it for awhile, it's probably far better for my wallet anyways!  Have a nice evening and thanks for the quick response.

[Brian]

Seriously, invest in a 70-200 lens. Even though you might be a "Prime Person," both the 70-200 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8 versions are totally worth it.