Nikon vs Sigma telephoto zoom lens

[anilmaddala]

Hi I already have a Nikon 18-55mm standard kit lens and am planning to buy a refurbished telephoto zoom lens for my Nikon D5100.

I am looking at the following:

1)Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR - 99USD

2)Tamron 75-300mm f/4-5.6 LD AF Macro Auto - 164USD

3)Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX VR II - 239USD

4)Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG OS - 308USD

I tried searching a lot of pages and youtube, but still am unable to arrive at a conclusion. Please help me choose one.

Thank you.

 

[bike4fun12]

I see you have the sigma 70-300mm on the list. If you are willing to spend $300 for that, why not spend $359 for a refurb Nikon 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 VR on Adorama. an excellent lens for the money. there are 2 nikon 70-300mm lenses, but, make sure to get the one that says VR. because, the other nikon 70-300mm won't AF on your D5100.

I have used the nikon 70-300mm VR for birds in flight for a year now. trust me, for the money, it is one of nikon's best.

 

[Rafterman]

The Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 is also a great lens. It has VC (vibration compensation) and will auto-focus on your D5100. It's $350 brand new after $100 mail-in rebate, or gently used on eBay for around $280-300. There are many who claim that it is as good, or even better than the Nikon 70-300 VR.

 

[Buck777]

I've recently swapped to FX, but on my D200 I was really impressed with my 18-250mm Sigma. I compared it to the Nikon 18-200 VR and to be honest the sigma left it for dead.
I'm currently looking at the 28-300 Nikon for my FX. If I could have swapped my sigma over to full frame I would have

 

[o hey tyler]

I've recently swapped to FX, but on my D200 I was really impressed with my 18-250mm Sigma. I compared it to the Nikon 18-200 VR and to be honest the sigma left it for dead.
I'm currently looking at the 28-300 Nikon for my FX. If I could have swapped my sigma over to full frame I would have

It doesn't make sense (to me) to buy a full frame camera and put a super zoom on it. It's like having a Porsche chassis powered by a leaf blower.

 

[anilmaddala]

Hi is the Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX VR II any better?

It falls exactly in my budget and i already have a compliment 18-55mm kit lens. And is the macro good in it?

 

[nmoody]

Hi is the Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX VR II any better?

It falls exactly in my budget and i already have a compliment 18-55mm kit lens. And is the macro good in it?

The 55-300 is a fine lens but the 70-300 Tamron SP and 70-300 Nikon are much better, I can't speak for the others.

 

[Rafterman]

Hi is the Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX VR II any better?

It falls exactly in my budget and i already have a compliment 18-55mm kit lens. And is the macro good in it?

The 55-300 is a fine lens but the 70-300 Tamron SP and 70-300 Nikon are much better, I can't speak for the others.

Plus, if you plan to do any macro shooting, I'd recommend a dedicated macro lens. The telephoto zoom lenses labelled as "macro" usually only magnify the subject to no larger than 1/4th life-size. A dedicated lens will go to 1:1.

 

[Buck777]

I've recently swapped to FX, but on my D200 I was really impressed with my 18-250mm Sigma. I compared it to the Nikon 18-200 VR and to be honest the sigma left it for dead.
I'm currently looking at the 28-300 Nikon for my FX. If I could have swapped my sigma over to full frame I would have

It doesn't make sense (to me) to buy a full frame camera and put a super zoom on it. It's like having a Porsche chassis powered by a leaf blower.

Well sports and wildlife have presented challenges that my 50mm prime cannot keep up with. I'm in early stages with my D700 but its the same speed as my D200 (1/8000) but the clarity is light years apart. Well, that's my experience so far. I cant get that close to the subject and its often at variable distances, so for me it's a no brainier to have a zoom. There is a real temptation to go a bit crazy, but I went for the relatively cheap 28-300 only because of reasonably good reviews and a reasonably good price - for a full frame

 

[bike4fun12]

If nikon, then the 70-300mm VR lens. according to rafterman, the tamron 70-300mm seems to hold its own against the rest of the field. do some serious research and make sure you get the right lens for you.

 

[bart2]

Tamron 70-300VC great lens for the money!Love It

 

[coastalconn]

I had a Nikon 55-300. It is a good lens. The Tamron 70-300 VC is better (#2 on your list is different, it will not AF on your camera) If you can swing $450 for the Tamron ($350 after rebate) you get a nice 6 year warranty and a great lens. The Nikon is also highly regarded but I never have shot with one although some people say some copies are soft over 200mm.

 

[Buck777]

When I purchased the sigma 18-250, even the photo shop I brought it from turned their nose up at it saying the Nikon 18-200mm was far superior. Wrong. The Nikon 18-200 was a good stable lens for Nikon but has problems with lens creep and often dissatisfaction with the images. Reviews at the time were saying the sigma was not only matching it, but it field tests was superior.
I love Nikon. I'll always be a Nikon user for the foreseeable future. But there's also a bit of snobbery around having 'Nikon only' lens. Even Ken Rockfield admits that when Nikon get it wrong it's usually fairly spectacular ( see his review on the older 24-120mm lens).
I personally find the amazon feedback really informative. If a lens is a dog then customers, especially US customers, vent loud and long. After 10 months on the market it's easy to spot the duds.
Don't get put off Sigma. Lens for lens they are very good. The only caution is that I'm hearing the D7000 won't accept certain sigma lens due to a chip issue. In the US sigma will change the chip free, everywhere else you're outta luck.

 

[TheLost]

Tamron's AF speed isn't that great. The Nikon 55-200 AF speed isn't much better..

You can pick up a Factory Refurbished Nikon 70-300VR for $350. IMHO its the best zoom you can buy under $1k. For $350 its an amazing deal (vs $590 new).

 

[Vautrin]

I have a Sigma 24mm-70mm that I was very disappointed with. Didn't want to shell out the extra cash for Nikon, but after that, I'll always pay the extra cash over being cheap.

Issues I had included focusing issues, lens flare issues, and vignetting. All common in sigma zooms as I later learned in reviews.

If I shoot away from the sun on a cloudy day there's still lens flare. Never seen anything like it. Like a damned rainbow is built into the lens.

Focusing, because Sigma has to reverse engineer the focusing mechanism, and doesn't always get it right.

On the other hand, I LOVE my Sigma 50mm. It's such a beautiful lens I was hooked on Sigma (till I bought the zoom)

From what I've heard, such things are common. You'll either love or hate the lens, but it's a bit of a crap shoot