This one works.

All credit to the nice people at BorrowLenses who had earlier provided the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens on loan. I returned it early as it was incapable of delivering consistently accurate AF on Nikon bodies of known AF accuracy, and after explaining the issues to them asked if I might upgrade to the Nikon optic for the remainder of my rental period.

“No problem”, their man said, “and we will not charge you extra. Also, we would like to add one free day to your rental. And you will not have any problems with the Nikon!”

Now that’s the way to get customer loyalty. Thank you! Compare this to the communication from the arrogant dipstick at Sigma in yesterday’s piece.

I immediately gave the Nikkor the bookshelf test and confirmed that AF was dead on. There’s no need to create an ACR lens correction profile in this case as LR and PS come with a tailored, Adobe-made, profile for the lens which works well. The lens has a similar modest level of barrel distortion to the Sigma and also vignettes at large apertures, though much less than the Sigma. All of these issues are corrected by the lens profile.

Compared with the Sigma, the Nikkor’s plastic casing (ugh!) makes the lens 3 ounces lighter and while that’s welcome, tapping the plastic on the rear with a fingernail speaks to a chintzy hollowness I did not expect from a $1,600 lens. Judging from the shiney finish on the rubberised focus collar, my loaner had seen a lot of use but there were no issues with structural integrity. The s/n was US602465.

Real world snapping disclosed a few comparisons with the Sigma:

• The Nikkor AF nails focus every time. The Sigma needs fixing by the factory – something is wrong in there, causing random AF errors. 50% of images are not in focus using AF at any aperture between f/1.4 and f/4. Back focus, front focus, lousy focus, you name it.
• The Sigma resolves detail noticeably better at f/1.4 and f/2 on the occasions the AF works. After that the two are much the same.
• The Sigma’s AF is noticeably faster. Neither lens is stellar in this regard. The 400mmf/5.6 Canon ‘L’ – that is stellar.
• The Sigma has that electric rendition of colors missing from the Nikkor. Nikon’s 16-35 VR AF-S has that quality in spades.
• The Nikkor’s AF motor is dead silent; the Sigma’s can just be heard by the operator. Insignificant in practice.

I do believe that Sigma will fix what ails it as they have a lot of reputational risk riding on their newest lens. Indeed the resolution and color rendering of the Sigma are so good that I cannot see paying a $700 premium for the Nikkor. You buy lenses like this to use at or near full aperture and the Sigma is better than the Nikkor there. The Nikkor has been on the market for some 2 years now, and there are no known issues. It may also hold resale value better with lightly used samples selling for $1,250-$1,350. But optically, when focused correctly, the Sigma is so good that I, for one, will wait for Sigma to resolve their AF and Quality Control issues before buying one. Let’s hope they do. The Nikon is not worth the money asked, in my opinion. However, if Sigma blows it, the Nikon is the logical recourse.

Meanwhile, here are some snaps from that very costly Nikon optic; there’s not much wrong here:

“And you will not have any problems with the Nikon!” Yup.