Sigma lenses vs. Nikon lenses

[Aldor88]

So heres my topic, like most photographers I'm looking at new gear all the time, often gear I can't afford :p. But the thing is I keep bumping into sigma lenses...

I was looking for a fast telezoom the other day and what do Nikon offer?...the 70-200VR? the 80-400? these are big, expensive beasts. Then I look at sigma and they have the 50-150/2.8, It's no pro lens but thats not what I'm after either, they also have the relatively cheap 70-200/2.8, which is pretty big too tho.
Nikon does have the normal Telezooms under controll tho, with the 55-200VR and 70-300VR, both excellent lenses. They also have the good one-for-all lenses, the 18-135 and 18-200VR.

Then I look at wide angle lenses, what do Nikon offer? a 12-24 that costs 3 times(almost 4) what i can get a sigma 10-20 for these days.Then there is the Tokina and Tamron lenses as well. Again there is a difference in optical quality but why don't Nikon make a consumer wide-angle?

Same with normal zoom lenses, all Nikon has is the 18-55 kit(with or/wo VR) lens, the 18-70kit and the new 16-85VR. The first ones are very good lenses for the price but they are still kit lenses with slow apertures. The last one is just too expensive to even consider atm. Sigma has the 18-50/f2.8 and the 17-70/f2.8-4.5 if your looking for more flexibility, then there is the Tamron lenses as well...Oh yea Nikon has the 17-55/f2.8 as well, for only 1.2k :rolleyes:.

And the primes... Nikon does have some excellent primes with good value but as a D40 owned I'm again forced to Sigma if I want a prime that will AF on my body. The sigma 30mm/f1.4.

From where I'm standing Im going to end up with a Nikon body and only Sigma lenses, is this a bad thing? i don' know. All i know is that Nikon have little to offer that compete with the Sigma 10-20mm/f4-5.6, 17-70mm/f2.8-4.5, 50-150mm/f2.8 setup in the same price range. I'd like to own Nikon lenses but they ain't making it easy for me.

So what do you think? is Nikon going to release some new consumer lenses in the future? or is it going to let Sigma rule the market. Discuss, im bored :).

[K1W1]

If you are happy with the results that you get with Sigma lenses then by all means use them. It's the results that count.
I don't have any problems at all buying a Sigma or Tokina or Tamron lens if it offers me the results I want for the money that I am willing to commit.
The only issue I know of with Sigma is that their QC seems a bit random at times. There are plenty of reports of people getting Sigma lenses that are not quite right then changing them under warranty for another lens that is noticeably better. This never seems to happen with Nikon glas even at the consumer end.

[XaiLo]

Get the lens that gets you the picture that's my motto. No matter what glass you get it's going to be a compromise... find the ones you can live with. ;) if that means you end up with non Nikon glass so be it. There are quite a few people here who use third party lenses with measurable success. That's not a bad thing at all! :)

[erichlund]

I don't disagree with the sentiments given, but let me put forward this little bit of devil's advocacy: Sigma (and other third party) lenses are nice until it's time to sell. You'll, generally speaking, get 80% or more of the value of a Nikkor. With the Sigma's it will be less. I have a Tamron 75-300. Paid $150 new (or thereabouts). I was offered $25 for it when I enquired at a retail store that deals in 2nd hand. I've seen it as high as $75 on Ebay, but people do crazy things there. Still, that's only 50%.

[bauerman]

I am of the opinion that from a bang for your buck perspective (at many focal ranges) Sigma can offer a lot more than their Canon or Nikon counterparts. One of the reasons that I am happy with the Canon system that I currently use is the plethora of third party lens options - especially from Sigma.

Sigma seems to be able to push certain lens performance down into lower price points than Canon or Nikon even attempt to. That is big for me, I don't want to cut corners on image quality and yet want to balance that requirement with a fairly tight budget. A company like Sigma allows me to achieve both of those goals at times.

[erichlund]

Well, the devil's advocate must come out again. When we talk performance, you have three things: Quotables, measurables, and intangibles. Companies like Sigma and Tamron and Tokina are really good at the Quotables, and if you buy their better stuff, you get some of the measurables, but you don't often get all the measurables, and you rarely get the intangibles.

The quotables are the basic engineering specs. The measurables are the basic performance things like lines per inch of resolution. Intangibles are things you can see, but are hard to measure. You can measure color accuracy, but it's hard to measure good skin tones, because it's not just color.

An example is the Nikon 85mm f1.4. It has some measurables that would make you would think it's not the greatest lens, but these measurables are what lead to a certain quality of image in portraits that make it the best of the Nikkor portrait lenses. Those are the things you rarely get with the third party lenses.

[bauerman]

Even if you do not buy Sigma, Tokina or Tamron lenses you HAVE to be happy that they are around as they force the big boys (Canon/Nikon) to keep innovating and these companies also help keep the cost of the name brands in check to a certain extent.

[erichlund]

No argument there. Heck, I even have a couple of them. The Tamron is not going to get anyone too excited, but the Tokina 12-24 is one of the exceptions, as it is nearly as good at the Nikkor for a whole lot less. Of course, I could just be saying that to justify that I didn't even try the Nikkor because of the cost. But the reviews seem to support it, and I've gotten very good results from it.

I'm not by any means saying that people should not look at the third party lenses. I'm just saying that they should do so with their eyes wide open, understanding that there may be qualities they won't get. OTOH, there are cases where the third party lenses are superior.

Zeiss primes for Nikon come to mind. They kick the Nikkor primes out of the park. Of course, they are only useful on the higher end cameras, as they are manual lenses that meter like AI-S lenses. At least, that is my understanding.

Another example would be the 70-300APO from Sigma. Until Nikon came out with the VR version, you could not find the ED, and the G is junk, so the Sigma beat Nikkor on this like a bad rug. Of course, then the VR version came out, and that's the end of that story.

[K1W1]

Sigma (and other third party) lenses are nice until it's time to sell. You'll, generally speaking, get 80% or more of the value of a Nikkor. With the Sigma's it will be less.

So let me do some math here. (I'm using Australian prices before somebody gets their knickers in a knot)

I can buy a Nikon 12-124 for $1370 and later on sell it for 80% ($1095) a loss of some $274

I can buy a Tokina 12-24 for $599 and sell it for say 50% ($299) a loss of $300 so I'm all of $26 worse of in the loss stakes.

BUT in the mean time with the Sigma I have $791 available that I can use to buy other photographic equipment.

I'm sorry but I don't believe that your argument holds up when you compare the capital cost of the lenses and the opportunity value of the money saved rather than just the percentage loss.

[erichlund]

First of all, those numbers are generalizations. For a while, you could by 18-200s @ retail and sell them on Ebay for a profit. There are many AI-S Nikkors that sell today for rediculously high amounts, way beyond what they originally cost. Look for that to happen with the Nikkor 17-35 and 28-70, two legendary lenses. Try and find the AF-S 80-200 lens and see what that would cost compared to retail.

You have specifically picked a lens that does not compare well. Note my signature. Which lens do I have? I can do math as well as you. BTW: You are getting ripped off on both of those, @B&H its Nikkor - $920, Tokina - $499. The US Dollar is down against just about anybody, so my prices should be higher than yours. The Nikkor is selling on Ebay for a range of $730-$860 and the Tokina is selling at $360-390. So, here in the USA, it's more of a wash, but both are holding value well. OTOH, look at the Tokina, it's built like a tank, it focuses fast (assuming you don't have a D40(x)/D60), and it's close to the Nikkor in image quality. I would expect this to be an exception to the general rule. Before you drag out another, I expect there are other exceptions as well.

Finally, if you cannot afford the best image quality, you have to choose what fits your budget. I'm not saying that budget doesn't enter the equation. I'm not saying value doesn't enter the equation. But, in terms of long term value, many Nikkor lenses are going to hold their value very well, and some will even increase in value. This is MOSTLY not true with third party lenses.

[K1W1]

Finally, if you cannot afford the best image quality, you have to choose what fits your budget.

Finally you have realised what everybody else in this thread has been saying all along. It's taken a while but you got there in the end.

[XaiLo]

OK now why did we have to drag the D40 into this :mad: j/k lmao and Kiwi, since you now have saved us $800 I'll be expecting an SB-800 in the mail. :p

[Rooz]

So heres my topic, like most photographers I'm looking at new gear all the time, often gear I can't afford :p. But the thing is I keep bumping into sigma lenses...

I was looking for a fast telezoom the other day and what do Nikon offer?...the 70-200VR? the 80-400? these are big, expensive beasts. Then I look at sigma and they have the 50-150/2.8, It's no pro lens but thats not what I'm after either, they also have the relatively cheap 70-200/2.8, which is pretty big too tho.
Nikon does have the normal Telezooms under controll tho, with the 55-200VR and 70-300VR, both excellent lenses. They also have the good one-for-all lenses, the 18-135 and 18-200VR.

Then I look at wide angle lenses, what do Nikon offer? a 12-24 that costs 3 times(almost 4) what i can get a sigma 10-20 for these days.Then there is the Tokina and Tamron lenses as well. Again there is a difference in optical quality but why don't Nikon make a consumer wide-angle?

Same with normal zoom lenses, all Nikon has is the 18-55 kit(with or/wo VR) lens, the 18-70kit and the new 16-85VR. The first ones are very good lenses for the price but they are still kit lenses with slow apertures. The last one is just too expensive to even consider atm. Sigma has the 18-50/f2.8 and the 17-70/f2.8-4.5 if your looking for more flexibility, then there is the Tamron lenses as well...Oh yea Nikon has the 17-55/f2.8 as well, for only 1.2k :rolleyes:.

And the primes... Nikon does have some excellent primes with good value but as a D40 owned I'm again forced to Sigma if I want a prime that will AF on my body. The sigma 30mm/f1.4.

From where I'm standing Im going to end up with a Nikon body and only Sigma lenses, is this a bad thing? i don' know. All i know is that Nikon have little to offer that compete with the Sigma 10-20mm/f4-5.6, 17-70mm/f2.8-4.5, 50-150mm/f2.8 setup in the same price range. I'd like to own Nikon lenses but they ain't making it easy for me.

So what do you think? is Nikon going to release some new consumer lenses in the future? or is it going to let Sigma rule the market. Discuss, im bored :).

fast lens are generally not consumer lens' though. 2.8's are heavier and larger and consumers dont generally want that. there are 2.8 lens' from sigma which are very good and if your budget is limited, great options preseting very good value for money, but they just arent quite as good.

personally, i wont buy another sigma lens cos i cant handle non-af-s lens' anymore. the lack of speed and noisy AF is really frustrating me so i'll just save my money and buy the nikkor.

[K1W1]

Kiwi, since you now have saved us $800 I'll be expecting an SB-800 in the mail. :p

How about I send you my SB600 when I get a SB800. :)

[XaiLo]

OK, now make sure you run out and get one tomorrow. :p lol

[SpecialK]

If you buy a lens to use and keep, resale value is immaterial.

There are good and bad lenses from every manufacturer.

Buy what makes you happy.

[jcon]

I will save you all from my long rant and just say that I agree with what Eric has said in this thread. For the most part, you get what you pay for. By the way, anybody miss WrestlingReport(Yeah, me either!)? I can just imagine what he would be saying right now in this thread..... LOL

[erichlund]

Finally you have realised what everybody else in this thread has been saying all along. It's taken a while but you got there in the end.

Once again, you miss my point. I've never said that budget doesn't count. I've merely said understand the difference. Understand that if you buy the 3rd party lens, you may be giving up quality for price. If that is not your intent, then you may be making a wrong choice.

People often put the third party lenses forward as just as good for less money. In some rare cases, it's actually true. But usually there is a reason the third party lens is cheaper, and it's never out of the goodness of their hearts.

[T06]

If you buy a lens to use and keep, resale value is immaterial.

There are good and bad lenses from every manufacturer.

Buy what makes you happy.

TooSHAY!!!!!!
I mean just look at the signature.:D:D:D:D:D

[e_dawg]

Just got the Sigma 24-60/2.8 and tested it out. Yep, got a lemon. Useless at f/2.8 and f/4. Noticeable corner blur, but twice as bad on the left side of the frame where it extends almost half way into the frame. The AF is so bad at 24 mm that I only got one shot out of 7 in focus.

[Rooz]

ouch. f4, my favourite aperture.
is this lens renowned for poor samples ? i never even heard of the 24-60. only knew about the 24-70 2.8.