Sigma lens

[ramblingman]

I was lucky to find a local retailer to buy my resent nikkor 35mm...why I was there I noticed they had tamron lens ....so I asked about Sigma ...they told me they don't like these lens at all ...after a few years numbers fade they will be sent in to recalibrate ....how true is this guys?? Curiosity has the best of me now!!!

[michaelb]

I know that there have been many who have reported focusing/calibration issues with the Sigma 30 1.4, but I have had several Sigma lenses and I've loved them all. I've got 2 Sigma macro lenses and they are both wonderful lenses....

I've bought all of my Sigma lense used, but due to the focusing issues reported with the Sigma 30 1.4 and the 50 1.4 I think if I bought these I would buy new; Sigma has a great warranty so you can send them in for calibration.

By the way here is a nice test of the Siggy 30 1.4 vs the Canon 35 f/1.4L ($1000 lens)...
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/30v35_2nd

Sigma 105 macro...
http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/509494327_vrFjw-L.jpg


Here's one from my old Sigma 17-170 - great lens...
http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/220226347_8A3aN-L.jpg

[r3g]

I've had my Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 for over a year and it doesnt have any build quality or focus issues.

[K1W1]

..after a few years numbers fade they will be sent in to recalibrate ....how true is this guys?? Curiosity has the best of me now!!!

Sigma have a reputation for variable quality. If you get a good lens it's always a good lens but the chances of getting a not quite right one are much higher than with Nikon lenses.

[craigyc]

I only have 1 Sigma (the 10-20mm) but I have had no problems with it. I do see reports on the net about some people receiving a suspect copy of a lens but sigma seem to be pretty good at sending you an new one. Build quality is way above that of a cheap Nikon lens (Like the kit lenses).

Sigmas have metal lens mounts which is a big plus. And I also like their choice of the rubbery material they use on their lenses.

[K1W1]

Build quality is way above that of a cheap Nikon lens (Like the kit lenses).

Compare apples with apples. The Sigma 10-20 is hardly a comparable lens to a kit lens


Sigmas have metal lens mounts which is a big plus.

Why is a plastic lens mount a problem? Can you name one instance where a plastic lens mount has failed or caused any issue?
Once again you are not comparing apples with apples by using the kit lens mount as a comparison with a Sigma lens that is not designed as a kit lens equivalent.

[swpars]

The Sigma 10-20 sells for $430 USD at B&H.

The Nikon 18-105 VR sells for $360 USD at B&H, and is a kit lens with a plastic lens mount. While my 55-200mm VR with a plastic mount has not given me any problems, I've heard stories about plastic mounted lenses breaking off at the mount relatively easily so I try to be careful with mine.

While the focal lengths aren't comparable, the prices are relatively close.

[SpecialK]

Professional saleman should never bad-mouth products. They can and should give reasons why they like one over another.

[Rooz]

after a few years numbers fade they will be sent in to recalibrate ....how true is this guys?? !

lens' dont wear out. its complete bullshit. tamron and sigma are budget lens companies and as such have been known to have some issues with variable quality output. if you have a lens thats good from the start there's no reason it will turn "bad" after use. ive had the sigma 10-20, 150mm, 18-50 and all were perfect.

that being said, i see no reason to be buying a 30/1.4 sigma when the nikkor 35/1.8 is so cheap.

[D70FAN]

6 years with the Sigma 18-125 (I love this lens) and 24-70 f/2.8 and nary a problem.

Whoever told you that plastic mounts break, under normal use, is "full of balogna" (a metaphore of sorts:D). If you are shooting in "high impact" environments then you're probably using pro grade lenses anyway.

[D70FAN]

[QUOTE=michaelb;368196]I know that there have been many who have reported focusing/calibration issues with the Sigma 30 1.4, but I have had several Sigma lenses and I've loved them all. I've got 2 Sigma macro lenses and they are both wonderful lenses....

I've bought all of my Sigma lense used, but due to the focusing issues reported with the Sigma 30 1.4 and the 50 1.4 I think if I bought these I would buy new; Sigma has a great warranty so you can send them in for calibration.

By the way here is a nice test of the Siggy 30 1.4 vs the Canon 35 f/1.4L ($1000 lens)...
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/30v35_2nd

Sigma 105 macro...
Here's one from my old Sigma 17-170 - great lens...
QUOTE]

I'm liking both of these shots... A stand of Aspens is always a treat.

George

[Rooz]

i hope that test shows the sigma completley and utterly blown away by the 35L. i'm afraid to click on it cos if it says anything less, my blood pressure will go thru the roof. the 35L is nothing short of spectacular.

[r3g]

i hope that test shows the sigma completley and utterly blown away by the 35L. i'm afraid to click on it cos if it says anything less, my blood pressure will go thru the roof. the 35L is nothing short of spectacular.


According to the samples from that link the Sigma is slightly sharper and controls CA better but the bokeh isnt as smooth.

[swpars]

In all fairness, the fall-off wide open is better on the 35L, but it better be, it's an FX lens and the Sigma 30/1.4 is DX.

[Rooz]

According to the samples from that link the Sigma is slightly sharper and controls CA better but the bokeh isnt as smooth.

perhaps better that i dont read it then. i cant stand stupid ass tests like that. the 35/L and 70-200/4L are 2 lens' i almost switched systems over.

[craigyc]

Compare apples with apples. The Sigma 10-20 is hardly a comparable lens to a kit lens



Why is a plastic lens mount a problem? Can you name one instance where a plastic lens mount has failed or caused any issue?
Once again you are not comparing apples with apples by using the kit lens mount as a comparison with a Sigma lens that is not designed as a kit lens equivalent.


I know its slightly unfair to compare the 10-20 to a kit lens seeing as it has a more premium price, but as I said its the only Sigma I own.

As for the plastic lens mount I have had it snap on my 18-105mm. In my opinion my other lenses feel like they connect a lot more securely with the body. It wont stop me buying another plastic mounted lens if the price is right but if a lens has a metal mount I consider it a positive.

[tim11]

My Sigma does fade where the rubber grip is... from over use. :)
It's pin sharp and my new Nikon 24-85 might find itself hard to beat as I found out. Optically, I doubt if any lens at all fade through the years? :confused:

[fionndruinne]

Heheh, no midgrade DSLR would survive an impact situation where the plastic lens mount broke. Maybe if you had a D3, but then you wouldn't be using a budget plastic lens then, would you?

[swpars]

Heheh, no midgrade DSLR would survive an impact situation where the plastic lens mount broke.

That's actually not true, D40s and D60s have survived drops that busted off their kit lenses at the mounts. But I guess a D40 is an entry-grade SLR.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/d40slr/discuss/72157603856922676/#comment72157603861726547

http://www.flickr.com/groups/d40slr/discuss/72157613673426552/

[fionndruinne]

Pah. That was a miracle, then. I wouldn't trust my D40 to anything violent enough to break the lens mount, let alone make that a buying consideration for lenses.