Nikon vs Sigma

[CNCO]

I have seen a lot of good shots with sigma. I would like to know what others think about sigma and is the nikon lenses really worth the extra money.

 

[Markw]

Are Nikon lenses worth the extra money? Of course they are...for the most part. Are some Sigma lenses up to par with their Nikon counterparts? In some cases, yes. I personally own a few Sigma lenses. I have the following:
105mm F/2.8 EX DG 1:1 Macro
10-20mm F/4-5.6 EX DC HSM
18-50mm F/2.8D EX DC D
All of them are tack sharp and great performers. The wide angle has some fairly bad distortion at the corners until about 13mm, but other than that, theyre all fantastic lenses.

Mark

 

[tnvol]

I have the Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX DG 1:1 Macro and I love it.

 

[tirediron]

For general use, most third-party lenses are as good, or nearly so as their name-brand counterparts. The significant differences usually come in one (or more) of three areas:

-Their ability to deal with flare/CA

-Critical corner/large aperture sharpensss

-Build quality.

If you're a careful amateur, and not a 'pixel-peeper' by nature, you'll do well with third-party glass. That said, my preference is for used, name-brand glass.

 

[Overread]

-Their ability to deal with flare/CA

-Critical corner/large aperture sharpensss

-Build quality.

I'm pretty sure the sigma 50mm f1.4 lens manages to beat the canon in all these aspects (if maybe only equalling on the build quality aspect).


My own view on things is that its hard to give a final assessment that covers all 3rd party glass as there is always a few that defy any general assessment. Therefore my approach is to decide first on what you want a new lens to perform for you - what you want it to enable you to do - and then look at the whole market at what is on offer.
Consider and weigh up the pros and cons of both own brand and 3rd party glass and make your choice on what fits your needs and budget the best.

Some also say that 3rd party glass won't keep as high a resale value as own brand and whilst that might be true I don't consider it a limitations since most people don't buy glass with the intent of selling it - especially once you start looking at the more pro end glass.

 

[Joves]

The only advantage to some of the Nikon glass is resale value. But then we are talking about the higher end glass. If you are just starting out then third party glass can work well for you on a budget. You can usually get the better third party glass with a 2.8 aperture less expensively. Go used and it is even cheaper.

 

[sleist]

I own the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and The Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro.
Both are excellent lenses. The 50mm is actually more expensive than the Nikkor 50mm 1.4.

Every lens manufacturer has some all-star glass. All of them have some dogs too.

 

[Garbz]

Sigma is a company in Japan.

Nikon is a company in Japan.

Nikon's website is easier to navigate. Sigma's Japanese support people are really nice. That's about all the comparisons I will make between the two.

Both have great cameras, both have crap cameras, both have great lenses, both have crap lenses.


Now ask me what I think about General Motors vs Ford , or if you want a real answer ask about a specific product you are thinking of buying, you'll likely get a much more meaningful response.

 

[JamesMason]

Sigma is a company in Japan.

Nikon is a company in Japan.

Nikon's website is easier to navigate. Sigma's Japanese support people are really nice. That's about all the comparisons I will make between the two.

Both have great cameras, both have crap cameras, both have great lenses, both have crap lenses.


Now ask me what I think about General Motors vs Ford , or if you want a real answer ask about a specific product you are thinking of buying, you'll likely get a much more meaningful response.

about sums it up to be honest, they both make good and bad lenses. As a general rule, they both make more or less equally good lenses for each price point.

 

[CNCO]

I know they are better overall, my concern is that I want to buy the nikon 70-200 f2.8. Sigma makes a 70-300 f2.8. I want to shoot motorsports. It's not like you get 2.8 at max focal length so I'm just asking around which is better overall.

 

[michaelleggero]

actually with a 2.8 you get 2.8 at all the focal lengths, that's why they are big and heavy compared to the variable aperture lenses.
i have the nikon 70-200 (the old one) and i'm happy with it, but many think it is the worst lens nikon ever built. the main complaint with that lens is that it has ALOT of vignetting. and it does

the new version has solved this problem, so make sure you get the new one if you go with the nikon

i've also got the sigma 300-800mm this is without a doubt a pro lens, it has a pro build quality and feel about it, however i feel the focus is a tad bit slow compared to a pro nikon lens of the same level. i've got the nikon 600mm and that one is super fast focusing--but that might have to do wiht it being a prime lens and the sigma is a zoom.. anyone know about that observation on speed?

just do your research online about the specific lens you want to buy and don't be ashamed buying a third party lens thinking it's just amaterish cause it's not.

Mike

http://www.michaelleggero.com

 

[Joves]

actually with a 2.8 you get 2.8 at all the focal lengths, that's why they are big and heavy compared to the variable aperture lenses.
i have the nikon 70-200 (the old one) and i'm happy with it, but many think it is the worst lens nikon ever built. the main complaint with that lens is that it has ALOT of vignetting. and it does

the new version has solved this problem, so make sure you get the new one if you go with the nikon

i've also got the sigma 300-800mm this is without a doubt a pro lens, it has a pro build quality and feel about it, however i feel the focus is a tad bit slow compared to a pro nikon lens of the same level. i've got the nikon 600mm and that one is super fast focusing--but that might have to do wiht it being a prime lens and the sigma is a zoom.. anyone know about that observation on speed?

just do your research online about the specific lens you want to buy and don't be ashamed buying a third party lens thinking it's just amaterish cause it's not.

Mike

http://www.michaelleggero.com

Exactly. In which case the Nikon if you choose to sell it later will get you more of your money back. Also while I love my Sigma lenes they are slow to focus on the Nikon body. I have never that version of the Sigma so I dont know if it is slow or not. Maybe and owner will chime in.

 

[timbearden]

For me definately Nikon. I've used both lenses, and have gotten more distortion with sigma. Not to mention I have had focusing problems with the sigma.

 

[KmH]

The zoom ring on Sigma lenses rotates backwards from Nikon zoom rings.

Nikon lenses generally hold their value better than Sigma lenses.

Sigma lenses have reverse engineered electronics and may not work as advertised with future Nikon cameras, without being 'rechipped' by Sigma.

 

[David Dvir]

Nikon lesnes nearly always beat out the sigma counterparts. As a pro I only settle for the best in quality and price sort of falls by the wayside in terms of being a factor. However I will say that the sigma 50mm 1.4 is far superior to the Nikon. I would recommend that lens but aside from that, Nikon all the way. Worth the money.

Now for real consumer use, it's a bit less important and I would that some of the difference in price are appealing enough to consider sigma more often.