I have checked and re-checked the provided images that are set out side-by-side and at the edges the Sigma is just not as good as the Nikon yet the text states the exact opposite? Very bizarre.
Dont believe me? Take a look for yourself but carefully look at extreme edges.
The Sigma is cheaper but large and heavy and both lenses are good so it may not matter?

One item not mentioned in the comments section is the 77mm filter size for the Sigma vs 72 for the Nikon. Thats a value to some and one on the nudges pushing me towards the Sigma.

i dont know what they mean my the sigma being sharper at 1.8? on my screen, the nikon is sharper everywhere except for the dead center.

I really enjoyed this review of the Sigma 24 mm Art lens.

The bokeh of the Nikon seems much more pleasant when compared to the Sigma. That's even if you stop the Sigma down a bit.

guess I'm out of touch; $750 seems like a lot for this.

After experiencing a few of the other ART Sigma lenses I was expecting it to be clearly better than the 1.8G. It isn't, essentially a toss up and with close inspect each has advantages over the other in some criteria. The sharpness at 1.8 actually looked better at the edges on the Nikon.
I have the 24 1.4G, I bought used and like it but really think I have too much invested in it for the amount that I use it so this review helps me edge closer to selling it and getting the 1.8G, with weight and size being the deciding point. The bag is just too heavy for casual shooting or carry on flights.
I recently bought a new Nikon 85 1.8G while I have an older 85 1.4D that I have liked but after comparing them, I really think the lower cost and much lighter 1.8G is every bit as good and handing flare and contract loss with strong off axis light is better than the 1.4D so that lens goes to sale. I use them on a D800 and D7000, but the D7000 might be a backup soon in favor of a D500.

Informative tools to compare ourselves, which is great. From the samples, I do prefer Nikon. Sigma's bokeh seems busy, and focus transition is abrupt. Bokeh size difference is very interesting. For the LED light bulbs, Sigma shows physical vignetting on edges. Bokeh at 5.6, sigma's rounder aperture seems better. With weight and price, I would probably prefer Nikon.

Hi my friends, I purchase the 24mm 1.8G ED lens, it is one of Nikon absolute sharpest lens on a Nikon full frame camera ever....I did some artwork in Venice that came out superb sharp sharp sharp, I want to share my artwork video taken with this awesome lens from my Niko.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfAyyH0mMSs&feature=youtu.be

you cant compare 1.8 with 1.4? yes you can? not really?

Wow the technical back and forth is impressive. I have the Nikkor 18-35mm G, which I like a lot, and my old 24mm f2.8 AIS. A digital image I shot with that old prime ran six columns, vertical on the cover of the LA Times Sunday Travel section a couple years ago, and the sharpness was pretty darn good. I'm guessing the new Nikkor will run rings around that old lens. Which is a long way of saying that I'm guessing that any of these new 24s will be awesome out in the real world.

I think this review should have considered the Nikkor 24mm 1.4G ED.

For a very long time, I wanted the Sigma art 24mm (but didn't have money saved yet for it). Then when the money was almost there, A deal came for Nikkor: Someone shooting professionaly was moving from D750 to D500, this this focal length became not usefull for him anymore (cropped to 36mm). He sold it to me for 600 euro, including shipping :) (229 euro less then in shop). Waranty still included. To good deal to pass up. AnotherMike (a person posting often comparisons of Nikkor/sigma primes) recommended the Nikkor to me for better corner sharpness. So I bit the bullet and did it. It's a very nice lens and the prime with least weight i have so far. Sometimes I still wonder 'hmm wouldn't Sigma 24mm' have been better? xd

PS I'm still debating if i should buy 20mm prime, and if so wich (Sigma f1.4 art, or Nikkor F1.8g). A similar comparison would be amazing DPR!

I bought the 24 AF-S Nikkor 24mm F1.8G ED last autumn at my dealer Photo Universal in Germany: It was brand new and there was no feedback form any customers at this time. I normally used to work with primes, a heavy tripod and a 800E. When I checked this cheap and light 24 in Aveiro/Portugal, also in wintertime, at a certain f-stop—also in low contrast situations, the lens performed well. From 5,6 to 8 excellent sharpness and a high resolution appeared, also in long term exposures. In my professional use I have to magnify my data often until the maximum, i.e. for printing walls for brands at fairs. So I was never was a real friend of the most wide-angles for DLSR, because of the lack of performance. This 24 provides a high output of quality, and so we became honest “business partners”.

So no advantage then over an old 24mm f2.8 A.I.S? Or the 24-85VR? which also improves as you stop down at 24mm, but is still pretty sharp at f3.5. Bit of a shock to discover that even a 35mm sized sensor is way too difficult , WITH A MIRROR THERE, to be really crisp. Not as good as the 24mm f1.8 on my LG G4, what a shame!! The lens on the LG G4, and the V10 is sharp edge to edge and corner to corner at f1.8, despite the problems of miniaturization with optical stabilization, and the lens on the Pureview 808 Nokia IS as sharp, but hey its only 26MP, albeit on a 38mm sensor!! Yes, folks, it really is sharp, edge to edge and corner to corner, but there's no mirror in the way. Now, all they have to do is to scale it all up to 35mm size, and there you go, problem solved, OIS, sharp wide open, no vibration as no mirror slap, and much less noise, and if anybody else claims 1.8 = 2.7 on APS-C I'll scream. This relates not to aperture, but ONLY to relative depth of field.

"If you're an APS-C shooter the 36mm equivalent focal length with an equivalent aperture of F2.7."

Folks, you're buying a lens having a fast aperture of f/1.8.

Great review.

Not highlighted in this review:
Characteristic flare.

Not highlighted comparison:
Heavy vignetting compared to 24 Art

Still prefer 24 1.8G for balance on the df.

I definitely like the lens reviews. You could say this is really as much a review of the Sigma Art as the Nikkor though. They share the same price point, but you would usually compare the 24 1.4 Nikkor to the Sigma - you wouldn't compare in general a Subaru STi to a lower model Mercedes to match price, you'd compare it to the AMG model where they share performance.
That said a lot of performance in a small package.

DPR seems to want to have a bet each way on bokeh quality compariosn. To my eye the Nikkor is superior to the Sigma full stop in this regard. The sigma has that ugly doubling of lines in it's out of focus transition area.

In conclusion, Sigma rules! :))

I disagree with your final assessment that "The extra 2/3 stop of light that you get with the Sigma can be a big deal if you shoot landscapes....". The difference between maximum apertures of f1.4 and f1.8 would be irrelevant to most landscapes because they are typically shot well stopped down. Even those enjoying the current craze for shallow DOF WA shots don't usually apply it to landscapes. What's probably more of interest to landscape photographers is the huge difference in weight. For two lenses with very similar performance, I'd take the Nikon's 355g over the Sigma's 665g any day I have to lug it over a mountain range.

Have this lens, love it. Focus is nice and fast. I was tempted for Sigma 24/1.4, but end up getting the Nikon 24/1.8 because of weight.

I'm interested to see if you can do video comparison of the AF from infinity to MFD and back (aka, cover your lens and press AF). The current line-up of Sigma Art lens have been very slow in AF (in comparison to Nikon's 1.8 counterpart), especially the 20 and 35 (50 is better, but still no match to 50/1.8G)

The Nikkor 24mm 2.8D... lots of contrasty 3D pop, great colors, compact and light, plenty sharp, and more than fast enough unless one doesn't own a decent flash.

Only $250 on the used lens market compared to spending over $700 for either the Nikon 24 1.8G or Sigma. Just sayin'...

To me Sigma has much nicer bokeh and more 3D look, Nikon's rendering is just good but nothing excited.

Would love to see Sigma Art f/1.8 primes for Fuji X mount.

I wish Nikon would revisit the 45mm 2.8 P lens, but in AF. I'd love some competition to the Canon 40mm 2.8 STM.

Nikon is doing the right thing in updating these primes - finally.

Equivalent focal length of 36mm.... Learn your trade! CROP FACTOR! A 24 is a 24 is a 24. The CROP FACTOR does NOT change reach or focal length. It only impacts WORKING DISTANCE for the same field of view and Depth of Focus because of that change in working distance. Get it straight and don't push the marketing fallacies....

Concrete example to back up the diatribe... put it on a D5, shoot in FX cropping mode then shoot in DX cropping mode... has that changed the lens or what it produces other than the things I mentioned?? NOT!

Sigma should renew its f1.8 line.
I want a 20 1.8 whose IQ is as good as the Nikon one.

I guess without Sigma Art this would've been priced @1200$... nice to have some competition to Canon/Nikon. At least on the important fast primes.

So, now come on Sigma, make a 24-70 f2 and I'm in... ;)

As a street photographer and Nikon d7200 owner - I hope NIKON will produce a DX version of this lens. A 23 or 24 mm 1,8G DX - just like the 35 mm 1,8G DX, which I own and like very much. A have a 24 mm 2,8D but it is not so Sharp like the 20 mm 1,8G, which I sometimes have borrowed. To solve this problem I have to use a zoom lens like my Sigma 17-50 mm 2,8 and fix it on 23 mm, which makes Sharp Photos, but the lens is too heavy compared to a similar DX prime lens. Hope Nikon will think of us street photographers - or else we have to switch to ex Fujifilm

I think it was a mistake not to include APS-C impressions with this. It's pretty expensive- I imagine a DX 24 1.8 would cost close to the $500 of the FX 35 1.8- but it's just about the perfect weight and size. It would balance like or even better than many DX kit zooms.

For someone who doesn't need the width though I think the Sigma 30 1.4, at basically half the price, will probably be a better buy.

If that is considered a "bargain price," I must not be making enough $$.

""The extra 2/3 stop of light that you get with the Sigma can be a big deal if you shoot landscapes (which can often times present you with difficult lighting conditions)""

Astrophotography maybe but seriously how often do you shoot landscapes at F/1.4 on FF ?

Interesting results. IMHO, the Sigma had much better bokeh and the subject had a more 3D appearance.

Not sure why the Nikon primes shows less background blur at the same aperture settings. It almost appears "over-corrected" in some aspects of the lens design as if there is so much emphasis on resolution it has reduced the lens "character".

I've got the 24 1.8 G and really like it. It's much better than the 24-70 G at 24 mm overall on my D800E.

I have a couple of the other "new" Nikkor f1.8G primes and am very happy with those. Besides the quite good optical qualities, these lenses are indeed manageable in weight and size, especially when carrying multiple lenses. Another point is the assurance of the Nikkors' AF accuracy and importantly, consistency.