Sigma or Nikon?

Discussion in 'Beyond the Basics' started by raphael, Jun 9, 2004.

  1. raphael

    raphael TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Montreal
    hi there,

    I'm wondering which one of these 2 lenses is the best, I hesitate between the Sigma 2.8 /28-70 and the Nikon 3.5 /28-105 D, does anyone know if there is better image quality with the Nikon?
    if I win light with the sigma, will It be as sharp as the nikon lens?

    thanks a lot for your advice,

    Raph.
     
  2. Rainman

    Rainman TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA
    If I were buying this lens for my every day lens I would save up my pennies until I could afford the Nikon. A half stop is hardly even worth taking into consideration. Not that Sigma isn't a very high quality lens.
     
  3. raphael

    raphael TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Montreal
    thanks,

    so you mean that the difference between 2.8 and 3.5 is not a good reason to prefer the sigma?

    raf.
     
  4. voodoocat

    voodoocat ))<>(( Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    5,277
    Likes Received:
    17
    Location:
    Gilbert, AZ
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I think it is. 1 stop is a big difference. I'm not familiar with the lenses so I can't say which one has better contrast and sharpness. But I wanted to comment on the 1 stop difference.
     
  5. tr0gd0o0r

    tr0gd0o0r TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    942
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Shreveport, Louisiana
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I'd agree that that stop of light can make a big difference, but if there is significant quality differnce, i'd go with the nikon also
     
  6. Rainman

    Rainman TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA
    I made my statement based on personal perception/preference. I am saying that the difference between 2.8 and 3.5 is about a half stop. 2.8 to 4.0 would be one full stop. I am saying that personally I would not make a lens purchase decision based on 1/2 stop. A better quality lens can be a half stop brighter than a lower quality lens at the same maximum aperture, and there are not many lenses of higher quality than Nikon. Lens aperture (f-stop) numbers are the product of strictly objective calculations, ratios relating the lens opening to the focal length, and are fixed and calculable regardless of lens quality. However, the quality of the optics can allow a better quality lens to pass more light at the same aperture.

    So, nominally, the Nikon at 3.5 is a half stop "slower" than the Sigma at 2.8. But in terms of actual light that strikes the film there may be no difference. This may not be the case because Sigma is a very high quality lens. In either case, I personally, do not consider a half stop difference that significant.
     
  7. ksmattfish

    ksmattfish Now 100% DC - not as cool as I once was, but still

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2003
    Messages:
    7,021
    Likes Received:
    34
    Location:
    Lawrence, KS
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Besides the 1/2 stop difference, one is a 28-70 and the other is a 28-105. I'll take the 28 to 105 anyday, as this would make it much more useful as a portrait lens for the way I shoot (50mm for full body shots, and 70 to 100+mm for close ups). But cost is a huge consideration; I haven't checked, but I imagine the Sigma is significantly cheaper. You have to weigh all of this together, and decide what is best for you. Both lenses are capable of taking great pics; which one suits you better? Fits into your budget, etc...?
     
  8. raphael

    raphael TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Montreal
  9. voodoocat

    voodoocat ))<>(( Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    5,277
    Likes Received:
    17
    Location:
    Gilbert, AZ
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    That's what I meant, you're right. :D
     
  10. ksmattfish

    ksmattfish Now 100% DC - not as cool as I once was, but still

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2003
    Messages:
    7,021
    Likes Received:
    34
    Location:
    Lawrence, KS
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    For that kind of stuff I'd suggest you look into prime (fixed focal length)lenses. You might be able to get a 50mm f/1.8 and something longer f/2 for what you'd pay for a good zoom. You can get a 50mm f/1.4 for a little more; that's 2 stops faster than the Sigma, and 2.5 to 3.5 stops faster than the Nikon.

    Does that Sigma lens stay at f/2.8 at all focal lengths? That's pretty nice if it does. The Nikon goes to f/4.5 when zoomed out. I'd still try to go with something f/2 or better for low light situations.
     
  11. raphael

    raphael TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Montreal
    ksmattfish, You're right, but I already have the 50mm 1.4 nikon AI, It's a very good lens!!
    I'd like to purchase a zoom, that is the reason why I hesitate between the sigma and the nikon...
     
  12. Rainman

    Rainman TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA
    I knew that you did, 'cat. :wink: I was mainly trying to stress to Raphael that I was stating a personal opinion and the basis for that opinion.
     

Share This Page