NiKKor vs Sigma Lenses

[yangmanrui]

I have a NIKON D80 body and I need to chose one of these lenses:

1) Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5
2) Nikkor 18-135mm F 3.5
3) Sigma 18-125mm F 3.5

Which one would you suggest and why? ( I need something universal for my trip - I would like to take pictures of both cities and landscapes.)




thanks,

Man RUi

 

[JerryPH]

None of the above. They are all slow and relatively low quality lenses.

Try out a Sigma 18-50 DC EX HSM F/2.8 Macro.

 

[yangmanrui]

What do you mean by slow?
Man rui

 

[sabbath999]

Slow means that they don't let in very much light when their aperture is wide open.

 

[yangmanrui]

What would be the problems with little light?

 

[digital flower]

I have both #1 and #2. Both are pretty good lenses. The Sigma has Macro capabilities if that is important to you and the Nikon has more zoom. If it is your only lens I would go for the Sigma (#1) out of those two. I don't know about #3.

 

[RKW3]

What would be the problems with little light?

If your trying to shoot in dimly lit locations and your subject is moving, you could have a lot of problems. If your lens doesn't let much light into the camera then you will have to either a) choose a slower shutter speed, which can result in motion blur if you don't have a tripod or you have a moving subject, or b) choose a high ISO setting and the higher ISO number you choose, the more light your camera will absorb, but more noise will appear (you'll probably choose a combination of a and b.)

Here's an example of how the amount of light differs from different apertures (if you keep shutter speed & ISO the same in each photo, of course):

So usually you just want a "faster" lens (ie. the 1.4 in the diagram is the "fastest" because it allows the most light) so you will get more oppurtunities to take blur-less and noise-less photos. Sorry if I rambled on in this post.

 

[Socrates]

(if you keep shutter speed & ISO the same in each photo, of course)

I think I'm going to start prefacing every statement with "if nothing else changes..."

 

[yangmanrui]

Thanks for the explanation. This is excellent. Now, one more question - if I have a NiKon camera, would Nikkor lenses perform better than the same lenses from different manufacturer?

 

[RKW3]

I think I'm going to start prefacing every statement with "if nothing else changes..."

Umm ok. I'm not as smart as you, remember.

 

[Socrates]

Thanks for the explanation. This is excellent. Now, one more question - if I have a NiKon camera, would Nikkor lenses perform better than the same lenses from different manufacturer?

Let me put it to you this way...
I bought Nikon bodies because I wanted to use Nikon lenses.

 

[JerryPH]

Thanks for the explanation. This is excellent. Now, one more question - if I have a NiKon camera, would Nikkor lenses perform better than the same lenses from different manufacturer?

Depends on the lens. In general, yes... but NOT in the case of that 18-50 that I mentioned. It has been tested by 3 or more photography magazines and won EVERY time in tests against the best from Nikkor and Tamron.

This is why it is important that that YOU do the homework and research to find out what are the best choices based on your needs.

 

[Heck]

I just got the Sigma 18-50 mm F2.8 EX DC lens, Im not a pro and its stepping up from the kit lens but all I can say is wow! Out the box im impressed with the shots in low light and its my first macro lens to boot. For the money I think its a close call as to what lens is better. Theres a ton of info out there and its worth looking into sigma,

 

[RKW3]

Let me put it to you this way...
I bought Nikon bodies because I wanted to use Nikon lenses.

I bought a Nikon body for the option of buying Nikon lenses. Just because you buy a Nikon body doesn't necessarily mean you should always buy their lenses, especially when brands like Tamron and Sigma can make some very good glass (I should know, I have one whole Sigma lens!!!1!).

Of course if I was a professional who could afford a D3, I would invest in the best Nikon glass. But most of the time people are using fairly cheap D40's and D80's, if money wasn't an issue then you would likely see them using a D300. So when your buying lenses that aren't amazing, professional quality lenses, I don't see why you can't expand your options and look at other brands that, in some cases, can equal or almost equal the quality and performance of a Nikon brand lens for a usually cheaper price.


I hope I made sense.. And BTW the mean smiley guy in the title is a joke, lol

 

[Mav]

As for magazine reviews, they don't come even remotely close to capturing everything there is about a lens and image quality. The mags are also sent cherry picked samples from companies like Sigma, so I really don't care what some silly magazine says about lenses, just like I really don't care about what some silly magazine says about cars, just like I really don't care about what some magazine says about.... <<insert whatever you want here>>. Noticing a trend? Magazines = marketing BS = trying to sell you stuff. :thumbdown: So if a magazine says something is nice, that's good and all, but it really doesn't matter to me. If any magazine is reviewing "Brand X" and they also accept advertising money from "Brand X", you also have a direct conflict of interest which can lead to biased reviews.

Anyways, here's a "low quality" shot from my Nikkor 18-135 from a recent trip.

And as it turns out, even a crappy f/5.6 lens is perfectly fine for walking around a city at night. NO VR really needed either!

And the range during the day is great too...

18mm

135mm

If you want a one lens solution for a trip at a reasonable price, the Nikkor 18-135 could be it. I know I love mine. It's also has nice smooth looking bokeh for great portrait photos, unlike every other kit lens that Nikon makes, and unlike a lot of the cheaper f/2.8 zooms.

That said, I'm considering buying a few different Sigma lenses, the 50-150 f/2.8 HSM in particular. It suits my needs, I like the range, I've seen pretty good image samples from them online (not magazines), and Nikon has nothing even remotely close for the same money.