Are Sigma Lenses any good

photo girl · Sep 9, 2004

I am debating on purchasing a lens. There are two that intrest me but I'm not sure wich one would be better for portraits.

One is a Sigma its zoom range 20-44. It has been digitally enhanced and the f-stop is lower then the Nikon I think it is 2.5 or so.

The Nikon lens has a zoom range of 24-120. It has vibration reduction and the f-stop is 3.5-5.6.

I am not sure wich one would be better and the price diffrence is only $50.00.

Any ideas?

Varthlokkur · Sep 10, 2004

see if they will let you try them out. Traditionally Nikon would be better. Sigma makes some good lenses but nikon is usually much better.

ksmattfish · Sep 10, 2004

Sigma makes perfectly fine lenses. The Nikon lens may be better for you, but there is nothing wrong with a Sigma lens if used properly.

molested_cow · Sep 10, 2004

I think Nikkor are more expensive just because they are Nikkon.... of course I do hear that Nikkor lens are better than Sigma. Haven't heard any complain about sigma though.

I know of someone who uses Canon camera and sigma lenses. He seems to be very happy with them. Sigma lenses are much cheaper too.

Digital Matt · Sep 11, 2004

I have a Sigma 70-300mm lens, and it performs pretty well, especially considering it's price, only $170. I also have a Tamron 17-55mm wide angle that I payed $460 which I love. Do lots of research. A lot of times the third party lenses perform almost as well as the name brands for a fraction of the cost.

www.fredmiranda.com is a great site for lens reviews.

photobug · Sep 11, 2004

According to the Photozone lens ranking page (see it here) the Nikon 24-120 is rated 2 points higher than the Sigma 24-135.

The Sigma is a faster lens, with a longer focal length than the Nikon. At Adorama the US version of the Nikon is $510, the grey market version is $485, and the sigma is $319.

It's your money, but to me 2 rating points isn't worth $166 (for a grey market lens) let alone $191 for the US version.

Now I'm not knocking Nikon lenses. Nikon makes fine equipment, as do most camera manufacturers, but unless you're making your living from your photography I think your money is well spent on the Sigma.

There may be ergonomic issues, or noise/autofocus speed issues I'm not aware of though. In the end you need to try them both and decide how best to spend your money.

Oh, and the Sigma you're looking at is really too short for portraits, unless you like making everybody look like they are wearing a clown nose. Either the 24-120 or the Sigma 24-135 should work fine for portraits, and be a nice "walking around" lens as well.

Sharkbait · Sep 11, 2004

I've got a sigma 70-200 f2.8 and love it.

pilgrim · Sep 11, 2004

Digital Matt said:
I have a Sigma 70-300mm lens, and it performs pretty well, especially considering it's price, only $170. I also have a Tamron 17-55mm wide angle that I payed $460 which I love. Do lots of research. A lot of times the third party lenses perform almost as well as the name brands for a fraction of the cost.

www.fredmiranda.com is a great site for lens reviews.

thanks for that link matt! looks like some great reviews, and I think that was the final push I needed to get my new lens...

Mitica100 · Sep 13, 2004

I also bought a new Sigma 75-300 Apochromatic and it is tack sharp! I love it!!

nikon90s · Sep 13, 2004

buy the Nikon glass, I have 2 sigma lenses that I will be selling next year, just need to save some $$$ first. I find that the Nikon glass is sharper on my D70.

Just my 2 cents