Nikon - Sigma Lens Question

compur · Nov 10, 2018

My experience over the years with Sigma lenses (both MF and AF) are that they are optically good but the build quality is often poor and they tend to break rather easily from normal use. First the surface markings wear off and then the moving parts start to break. Maybe the newer lenses are built better but I would never buy one to find out.

I would go for a gently used Nikkor over a new Sigma any day. Its value will also hold much better than a Sigma if you later decide to sell it.

n614cd · Nov 10, 2018

compur said:
My experience over the years with Sigma lenses (both MF and AF) are that they are optically good but the build quality is often poor and they tend to break rather easily from normal use. First the surface markings wear off and then the moving parts start to break. Maybe the newer lenses are built better but I would never buy one to find out.

I would go for a gently used Nikkor over a new Sigma any day. Its value will also hold much better than a Sigma if you later decide to sell it.

Wow, you must abuse your equipment or be unlucky. Or maybe I just have been lucky.

I have been using two Sigma ART lenses (a prime and a zoom) since 2013. They have stood the test of time; everything from road trips, off roading, international flights, single engine piston flights where bumps put my head in the ceiling....

As a hobbyist I do not use them everyday, but I have taken a good 10k images between them and they have traveled over a few hundred thousand miles.

Tim

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk

BananaRepublic · Nov 10, 2018

cmrotell said:
I was recently at a seminar where a Nikon pro/rep was giving a talk. They strongly suggested that Nikon owners should only shoot with Nikon Nikkor lenses. The reason he gave was that Nikon lenses, specifically the glass in those lenses, are optimized for Nikon body sensors. I need a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens and the 2700 price tag is just a touch out of my range. I was really scoping out the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 DG OS HSM, which hasn't come out yet. After hearing this new information though I've become hesitant and wondering if I should wait to save some more cash.

I've never owned anything but Nikon lenses and just wondering what others have experienced.

Nikon don't make there own sensors, its just hard sell talk,

BananaRepublic · Nov 10, 2018

compur said:
My experience over the years with Sigma lenses (both MF and AF) are that they are optically good but the build quality is often poor and they tend to break rather easily from normal use. First the surface markings wear off and then the moving parts start to break. Maybe the newer lenses are built better but I would never buy one to find out.

I would go for a gently used Nikkor over a new Sigma any day. Its value will also hold much better than a Sigma if you later decide to sell it.

Once bought stay bought.

Derrel · Nov 10, 2018

compur said:
My experience over the years with Sigma lenses (both MF and AF) are that they are optically good but the build quality is often poor and they tend to break rather easily from normal use. First the surface markings wear off and then the moving parts start to break. Maybe the newer lenses are built better but I would never buy one to find out.

I would go for a gently used Nikkor over a new Sigma any day. Its value will also hold much better than a Sigma if you later decide to sell it.

Older, manual focus Sigma lenses had pretty dreadful build quality. This was 1970's-1980's era stuff, and the build quality and materials were sub-par compared to Canon or Nikon lenses. Also, optically, the older Sigmas were a cut below Nikons in many cases-BUT,at dramatically lower price points. Still, a lens is a lens, and even a rather modest-quality lens can make a lot of good pictures. Especially when the "picture" is seen small, or on-screen, or is retouched/modified/edited/enhanced; let's face it, in the 1970's and 1980's we often shot and showed 4x6 inch prints on a regular basis, and that is not demanding shooting. Same today--looking at an image seen a foot across, on-screen, most lenses at f/8 are perfectly fine. I shoot a lot at f/7.1 with flash indoors, at f/5.6 outdoors a lot, also 6.3 and 7.1 and 8...at such apertures, almost ANY lens is adequately good. Diffraction takes the real acutance edge off by f/6.3, and at f/7.1 and f/8 a cheap, $40 used Nikkor zoom looks adequate on a 24 to 36 MP sensor.

As far as AF Sigmas, I have owned a few, less than a handful. 18-125 for APS-C, horrible flare, zoom creep,not sharp,loud focusing on Canon. 100-300 f/4 EX-HSM, 180mm f/3.5 EX-HSM APO-Macro, 80-400 OS for Canon. These were there "good" lenses in the late 1990's/early 2000's era. On Nikon, the 180 macro and 100-300, both their top-shelf lenses, FAILED to focus correctly on newer Nikons. The issue came when Nikon added a second focusing control button on the D200 generation, effectively it seemed, "breaking" the Sigma lens compatibility that worked fine on earlier cameras. By the 2005 Nikon era, the D2x, the 100-300 f/4 EX-HSM and the 180 HSM EX Macro, both part of their "EXcellence" series models, did not focus right with the Nikon AF-S protocol.

The issue, as I see it, is the focusing protocol...HSM is NOT AF-S, nor is it Nikon's newest focusing protocol, AF-P. In the future, if Nikon for example, goes to all- AF-P instead of AF-S...I suspect that earlier, older Sigma lenses will not function, or function erratically, with those "future" Nikon bodies. It happened to me. This is the reverse-engineering issue that independent lens manufacturers have to work around.

As far as current Sigma lenses, and the ART series. My opinion is Biting sharpness, hard and sterile bokeh, jarring backgrounds on many subjects like foliage. But high,high test-chart scores. ART means typically over-corrected lens designs that score high lines per millimeter results, but that typically look clinical or hard, and brutal, to me and other fans of soft, creamy, or natural, bokeh. Tamron has gone the same route though with their new 35,45,85 VC lenses...Ugggh...awful, hard,jarring bokeh, especially on OOF foreground objects. Some of the ugliest fashion images I've seen in years were made with the new Tamron 85mm f/1.8 and 45mm f/1.8 VC lenses at a beach in Australia. Tamron's 45 VC looks like rubbish compared to the 45-P Nikkor's bokeh and rendering, but one is an ancient Tessar design and is great at slower apertures, the other is modern, f/1.8, and Vibration Control equipped.

At one time, for 20-plus-years, Sigma lenses had a yellow color rendering. This can _not_ be completely eliminated in post processing software. Lens color rendering is one area where Tamron is closer to Nikon than is Sigma. The issue arrises mostly when you use one lens that's different out of multiple lenses, or mix lenses in a shoot.If you shoot all one-brand, there's never an issue with color rendering.

These days, Sigma prices are higher than they have ever been, but the re-sale is poor compared to manufacturer brand lenses. Especially over 10- to 15-year buy-use-sell cycles; this is where the Nikkor and Canon lenses hold their value better than third-party lenses do.

compur · Nov 10, 2018

n614cd said:
Wow, you must abuse your equipment or be unlucky. Or maybe I just have been lucky.

I have been using two Sigma ART lenses (a prime and a zoom) since 2013. They have stood the test of time; everything from road trips, off roading, international flights, single engine piston flights where bumps put my head in the ceiling....

As a hobbyist I do not use them everyday, but I have taken a good 10k images between them and they have traveled over a few hundred thousand miles.

Tim

Five whole years of infrequent use. Gosh. My socks last longer than that.

Like I said, maybe the newer Sigma lenses are better. My experience with them is mostly with older MF and early (film era) AF lenses but they seemed to have such crappy build quality that I just wrote the brand off as sub par. I believe Sigma also made those cheap Quantaray lenses of the 1970-1980s (before you were born?) which didn't do anything to improve my opinion of their products.

I do still have one Sigma lens. It's a 90mm AF macro that I use sometimes to take table top photos for online sales. It is optically OK but it has a broken focus lock and I know if I try to sell it with that flaw I'll probably only get 10 bucks for it so I figure I might as well keep using it until it falls apart completely.

And, no, I don't abuse my gear at all.