Nikon V Sigma

[nigels]

In all honesty folks, how does Sigma compare to the Nikon lenses, particularly their OS models versus the Nikons VR.

Are the extra dollars for the Nikon lenses truly justified. How does the craftmanship and glass of the two compare?

Also how good are the Sigmas in the higher telephoto range, say up to 800mm.

I would be interested to hear any comments, as I personally prefer Nikon, but perhaps my preference is not justified.

Regards
Nige PS Hope to have my photos of the Australian Open processed shortly and will put up for comments and crits

[gstark]

I would be interested to hear any comments, as I personally prefer Nikon, but perhaps my preference is not justified.

It is.

[Glen]

Nigel, it can't be generalised by brand more individual lens. Eg I would prefer a BMW 3 series rather than a Merc C class, but would prefer a Mercedes CLS 5.5 AMG rather than a BMW M5. On average, for Nikon bodies, I beleive Nikon is superior glass, but it needs to be taken on a lens by lens basis. Every range has strong suits. I doubt anyone makes a better 50mm 1.8 for Nikon than Nikon. Same with the 70-200 VR. I see two spots where Sigma is strong. While Nikon makes well regarded 60mm & 200mm macros, the 105 is always described as a compromise lens. Sigma make a very highly regarded 105mm and is getting early good reviews on their 150mm macro. Also in the 12-24 range, Sigma and Nikon have gone different paths, the Nikon can take a filter, is lighter and faster, but has more distortion on straight lines, whereas the Sigma is straighter but cant take a filter. Both have compromises just either side of a fence. Both are excellent lenses. Ideally I would like a Sigma for house interiors and building exteriors and a Nikon with CP filter for landscapes.

Which lenses in particular are you comparing?

[birddog114]

Nigel,
What particular lens are you after?
I know you asked for the lens up to 800mm?
Nikon does have it but believe me it won't be in your range of $$$$
and depend is what do you want, with faster lens as 2.8 instead of f.4
If you minimize your search then I perhaps can provide you few ideas.

[nigels]

Hi,

In reply to Birdy and Glen, this was a very generalised question, not really relating to any particular lens.

I guess I was trying to ascertain the quality of the Sigma lenses with respect to Nikon, which in my humble opinion sets the benchmark, particularly for the primes and VR's.

For example, generally, are the Sigma's manufactured as well, is the glass as good a quality, are they as sharp with good definition and contrast, is the VR as good and is there any compromise as Sigma lenses with different mounts, will fit many different cameras.

Just trying to get a feel for this sort of thing as I can see many of my hard earned dollars satisfying my lens lust.

Regards
Nige

[sirhc55]

Nige - the fact that Sigma or Tamron or even Tokina fit different types of camera has absolutely nothing to do with compromising.

The world would be a sorry place if we only had the choice of Nikon lens for Nikon cameras. The mere fact that the three major independents manufacture lens that can be used on different cameras (with the correct fitting) is part and parcel of us making a choice.

Given that VR is applicable to Nikon then if one requires a VR lens then you buy Nikon (although Sigma does have one lens with the equivalent)

I use both a Sigma macro and super wide angle and both of these lens are superb - why did I buy them over Nikon - simple, price and choice.

[nigels]

Hi sirhc55,

Sorry, I didn't mean compromise in that vein, rather, Nikon make lenses specifically for Nikon cameras, with their idiosyncrasies, types of sensors etc., where say Sigma makes the same lense to fit many different cameras and the compromise may come in where they average their lenses, so that uses achieve the best results possible no matter which camera they use


Nige

[sirhc55]

Nige the one thing that you must remember is this, all Nikon lens (except DX) are made for 35mm cameras and not digital and yet we can use them on digital. The same principles work with other manufacturers lens. They are manufactured not for specific cameras but specific makes of camera.

[Glen]

Nige, here are the specs on the sigma 150mm macro, if you read the specs in the bottom right, you will see the Nikon version is different to all the other lenses by being a G lens (no aperture ring). Nikon and other brands sell enough they can tailor the aftermarket lenses to fit, they don't use things like an "adaptall socket" from a few years back to adopt one lens to different manufactures bodies. The integrated electronics has probably forced this



here are the specs http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses ... avigator=5

[birddog114]

Nigel,
In the early days of Sigma lenses, you can get the "adaptal socket" to work on the body you want, then after Sigma had lot problem with their lens in the earlier series and had to be re-chipped prior to work or use on Nikon D-100, the earlier of Bigma and Its 70-200 were mainly concerning people about the incompatibility between Nikon cameras (SLR + DSLR). Since the new series of Sigma lenses came out early last year, I didn't hear anymore complaining.
Back to the quality of the lenses in between Nikon + Sigma, I have to say, their qualities are quite in par. This is just in few range of lenses not all.
Say Nikon is 10, other side, Sigma also following Nikon at 9 or 10 or sometimes take over Nikon. Sigma doesn't manufacture G lenses, their lenses always with the apeture rings, other side Nikon produces G lens for their camera, and all the abovementioned are in just few lenses not all in their large range.
- Sigma 70-300 APO with Macro/ Nikon 70-300G or ED lens
- Sigma 12-24 APO/ Nikon 12-24Dx Can be only used with DSLR
- Sigma 50-500/ Nikon 80-400VR
- Sigma 70-200 APO, HSM/ Nikon 70-200VR
Pros & cons, all have from both companies, so up to the photogs make their own choice.