Sigma vs Nikon?

[Showzo]

Im looking to get maybe the 24-70

im buying used, and theres a pretty big price difference between nikon vs sigma
is the nikon worth the extra buck?
or sigma and get other accessories like grip or flash

 

[gsgary]

Thats because the Nikon has superior build quality and will last a life time if cared for

 

[djacobox372]

Thats because the Nikon has superior build quality and will last a life time if cared for

True, but I'd be willing to bet that it wouldn't last the three sigmas you could buy for less then the nikon.

I own the sigma, it's a good lens; but the nikon has better contrast and field flatness. Sharpness is about equal.

 

[tirediron]

It depends. If you're a professional who needs the superior build quality and more rugged construction, buy the Nikon. If you're a pixel-peeper who stresses over the most minute losses of quality, buy the Nikon. If you want a lens which will hold it's value for potential resale later on, buy the Nikon. If you're budget concious, a hobbyist, and/or just want nice pictures which are not going to be examined with a magnifying glass, and are careful with your gear, the Sigma will do fine.

 

[Showzo]

is the sigma 17-70 2.8 good?

 

[tirediron]

is the sigma 17-70 2.8 good?

Define "Good".

 

[Derrel]

If you like a yellow cast in all your images, Sigma is an excellent choice.

 

[tirediron]

If you like a yellow cast in all your images, Sigma is an excellent choice.

Those are warming lenses!

 

[o hey tyler]

If you were shooting with a Sigma SD14, then I would suggest the Sigma. But since you are shooting Nikon, I would suggest the "on brand" option (if money isn't an issue). If money is an issue, and you find the Stigma to be adequate, then go that route.

 

[MrLogic]

Thats because the Nikon has superior build quality and will last a life time if cared for

True, but I'd be willing to bet that it wouldn't last the three sigmas you could buy for less then the nikon.

I own the sigma, it's a good lens; but the nikon has better contrast and field flatness. Sharpness is about equal.

Sharpness most definitely isn't equal. See the respective reviews at Photozone.de

 

[PhotoWrangler]

Sigma produces very good lenses, but their quality control is shotty. Which is why you hear people talking about 'sharp copies' and 'soft copies'.

Nikon, on the other hand, has a reputation for fairly tight quality control, and superior glass. Nikon lenses will also hold their resale value much longer than third party brands.

As for sharpness and micro-contrast, Nikon lenses win every single time, hands down, in the bag. I speak from personal experience.

 

[SpeedTrap]

I bought the Sigma, had it for about a month and then sold it at a big loss and got the Nikon.
My first clue should have been when the first Sigma I got broke after only a few days after use. The desision maker for me was when my cheap Nikon lenses were noticeably sharper than the "High End" Sigma lens.
When I changed over to the Nikon 24-70 F2.8 the difference in build and image quality was amazing. If you can fit it in your budget, go for the Nikon it will hold its value better, or look for a used one.

 

[Knowbody]

On my Nikon D3S, I was using the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 but recently switched to the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8. The Nikon is bigger and heavier, but I find the image quality to be much better than the Sigma. I currently use a Sigma 85mm f/1.4 that I like very much. I have an older Sigma 50-500mm (without image stabilization) that serves its purpose well. I find Sigmas in general to be well made, but for your main lens (I used the Nikon 24-70 all the time), I just found Nikon to be a better choice for me.

 

[djacobox372]

Someone mentioned resale value: I've been buying and selling nikon mount lenses for years now and I've not seen much difference in the resale value of the major third party brands compared to the nikon brands. The depreciation rate is about the same, which means you lose more $$ on the nikon since it costs more to begin with.

The reason to buy nikon is if you want the very best image quality--their zooms are significantly better then the third party options, although third-party primes have just about caught up with nikon.

As for build quality, ever since nikon started using so much more plastic, I don't think there's much of a difference anymore between them and sigma (better then tamron still). Manufacturing precision metal parts is expensive, but plastic sort of evens the playing field.