PDA

View Full Version : Sigma 24-135mm F/2.8 or Nikon?



hankbeblazin
09-28-2007, 11:13 PM
which one have people found are better? i have a friend who has the Sigma and its pretty impressive, never used the nikon version (18-135mm)

is the 2.8 of the sigma worth it? i've read third party lenses are inferior? whats your take?

Rooz
09-28-2007, 11:25 PM
i've never even heard of that sigma lens. will it AF on the d40 ? sounds like an older model that probably isn;t USM. from my point of view, 24mm at the narrow end isn't wide enuf anyway.

fionndruinne
09-28-2007, 11:26 PM
There's nothing in the statement "third party lenses are inferior" that makes an ounce of sense. Every lens manufacturer of note puts out some great lenses, some not so good. The anti-third-party fling is just a bunch of nonsense from the kind of people for whom brand loyalty is next to religion.

Are you comparing the Sigma against the Nikkor 18-135mm kit lens? There's not much comparison to be made between a kit lens and a fast f/2.8 lens - if you have need of low-light functionality or want a narrow depth-of-field, the f/2.8 is your answer.

I agree with Rooz; sounds like an older model which is probably not HSM (D40-compatible). If you're looking at Sigma, look at the 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5, and the 18-50mm f/2.8.

hankbeblazin
09-28-2007, 11:42 PM
hey thanks for the answers. manual or auto focus really isnt a priority for me at this time i'm just looking to build up my lenses before i buy a D80. i dont mind manual focusing for now knowing that i will be getting a D80 later.

i didnt know that third party lens inferiority was a bunch of BS hehe.

i've been looking at the Nikon 18-135 and heard good and bad things. mostly good.

but the Sigma 24-135 i used was pretty sweet. not sure if its worth it though

i like the fast sigma, but i've been looking at the nikon 17-55mm 2.8 too. i like the constant F stop

if you havent noticed i'm on a lens buying spree haha

fionndruinne
09-29-2007, 12:06 AM
How much is the Sigma you're looking at? Like Rooz said, 24mm is rather restrictive on the wide-angle end for a lens like this.

The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 (HSM and non-HSM versions) has been getting a lot of positive attention, it's definitely worth the investment, and cheaper than the Nikkor.

Sigma makes a lot of good lenses for Nikon cameras. Just like Tamron is quite widely used by mostly Canonites. There's no reason not to buy a third-party lens if you know it's a good one. Nikon puts out some mediocre lenses themselves, just like some third-party ones. Mostly third parties have strong and weak points - Tamron for instance has a good reputation with macro lenses, and Sigma does as well. One advantage with Sigma is how many affordable, good quality fast-aperture lenses they offer, while the Nikkor equivalents are much more costly.

Rooz
09-29-2007, 01:57 AM
hey thanks for the answers. manual or auto focus really isnt a priority for me at this time i'm just looking to build up my lenses before i buy a D80. i dont mind manual focusing for now knowing that i will be getting a D80 later.

i didnt know that third party lens inferiority was a bunch of BS hehe.

i've been looking at the Nikon 18-135 and heard good and bad things. mostly good.

but the Sigma 24-135 i used was pretty sweet. not sure if its worth it though

i like the fast sigma, but i've been looking at the nikon 17-55mm 2.8 too. i like the constant F stop.

i don;t know much about the lens or how much it is but i can;t see an advantage of buying it. not like its a classic nikkor or even a constant aperture so where is the benefit of it ? besides which MF may sound like it's ok but for an "everday lens" it's a complete pain in the ass.

personally i wouldn;t get the nikkor 17-55 just yet. i suspect that next year with the d3x announcement there will be some new lens' to add to the nikkor collection and i expect something to happen in this particualr range in an FX format. don;t forget that the 17-55 is a DX lens and with nikon's new FX format i can;t believe they won;t give us this range in FX with VR.

K1W1
09-29-2007, 05:16 AM
I can't find the Sigma lens listed on their web site but further research (Google is your friend) shows that it's an older lens that is not a constant f2.8 but is infact f2.8-4.5. The lens was designed for film cameras and as such is huge compared to modern digital only lenses. It does have a user selectable aperture ring and it definitely will NOT auto focus on a D40.
There are several owner review sites that give fairly so so reviews of the lens leading me to believe that any modern kit lens will probably out perform it in most if not all ways.
I know one owner review does not make a comprehensive sample but when I see this sort of thing I get worried.

After 5 months of use, my advice:

· If you can, don’t pay retail price for this lens; this should alleviate some expectations.

· If you have the money and image quality is your primary concern, this is probably not the lens for you.

· Compared with “kit” digital only lenses, this is a big and heavy lens.

· Build quality is generally good, zoom is smooth, manual focus ring is OK; but my copy creeps when shooting up, down or carried around.

· Best not to consider this lens for its wide-open abilities, at these apertures it is VERY SOFT.

· If you intend to shoot a lot of portraiture shots, you may be pleased with the soft-feathered affect to edges produced in images, especial from RAW conversions at wider apertures.

· Sharp images can be obtained at all focal lengths if you are able to stop down to around F8.

· Being bright or “fast”, does make for easier manual focus, which is handy because auto focus is poor in anything but the brightest of light on my Pentax *istD.

From here. (http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-zoom/sigma/PRD_286765_3128crx.aspx)

e_dawg
09-29-2007, 11:02 AM
I found the same thing as K1W1. Don't think it's produced anymore, and it's not a constant aperture f/2.8 lens, but rather 2.8-4.5.

I would have recommended the Tamron 28-75/2.8 as the closest in focal length range with a constant f/2.8 aperture, but it doesn't have an AF motor, so it no AF on the D40.

In lieu of that, I would recommend the Sigma 18-50/2.8 HSM as a fast medium zoom if you're looking for something that's fast and sharp. 90% as good as the Nikon 17-55/2.8, they say, for 40% of the price.

There's also the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 HSM if you prefer a bit more range over speed at the long end.

Depends on what you shoot, but you might be better off keeping your kit lens ATM and getting a superwide like the Sigma 10-20 HSM instead. A completely different focal length range to open up new possibilities. I believe you already have a 50/1.8 to take care of the need of a fast lens in the normal focal length range, yes?

Just food for thought...

BTW, since you're a budding Sigma fan, check out Sigma4Less.com, as they seem to have the lowest prices sometimes, depending on which model. Also, if you really don't want AF on your D40, some places are clearing out the older non-HSM versions of the 18-50/2.8 and 17-70/2.8-4.5.

e_dawg
09-29-2007, 11:18 AM
P.S. I know you're considering the D80 so you can autofocus non-AFS and non-HSM lenses. Please note that you still can't meter manual focus AI or AIS lenses unless you get a D200 or higher (not sure, correct me if I'm wrong guys). So if you really want to go all out and be able to use the entire Nikkor lens catalog (and don't mind using MF), the D80 gets you 2/3 of the way there, but there's more to go.

One reason to consider a D200: the recently introduced manual focus Carl Zeiss ZF primes for the Nikon F mount comes to mind. By most accounts, these have better image quality than anything you can get from Nikon, Sigma, or Tamron. If you don't mind MF, these are some of the best lenses money can buy. They have all the focal lengths you'll need, from 25/2.8, 28/2, 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, and 50/2 and 100/2 macros, $500-1000.

I am very tempted to get a Zeiss 25/2.8 to use on my S5 Pro for a city walkaround or landscape lens.

mattc
09-29-2007, 01:08 PM
I've been reading a ton of reviews over the past couple days and also been looking at side by side pictures of the two sigma and nikkor 18-50/17-55 2.8 and everything i read is it has a slow aufofocus even being the hsm motor. also it is not as sharp at some stops and lengths. after my readings im gonna be holding off on the sigma and going for the nikor

hankbeblazin
09-29-2007, 02:59 PM
thanks for all the help guys. i love nikon lenses but once you start getting into the pro lenses they are astronomical in price. is the 1200 bucks worth it or are the sigma pro lenses just as good for the less price?

and are the sigma pro lenses the ones with the yellow or white (im color blind) circle around the front element?

fionndruinne
09-29-2007, 03:40 PM
The "EX" term designates the higher-grade Sigmas.

And no, a Sigma of half the Nikkor's price is not going to be quite as good as the Nikkor, simply because of the grade of materials and craftsmanship. But like you said, $1200 is just beyond what's reasonable for most people.

Rooz
09-29-2007, 05:13 PM
thanks for all the help guys. i love nikon lenses but once you start getting into the pro lenses they are astronomical in price. is the 1200 bucks worth it or are the sigma pro lenses just as good for the less price?

and are the sigma pro lenses the ones with the yellow or white (im color blind) circle around the front element?

in a side by side comparison of the sigma 18-50 and the nikkor 17-55, these are the results i found.

the nikkor is built better
AF much, much faster
AF much quieter
AF more accurately
AF better in low light
has more accurate colour rendition and contrast

do you reckon thats enuf reasons to pay more money ? ;)

mattc
09-29-2007, 05:40 PM
think of it this way why pay for the sigma if your unsure and then later on want to upgrade to the nikon, you end up paying more anyways when that 500 for the sigma and is 1200 for the nikon its only a 700 difference as aposed to a 1200 dollar difference when you decide to go the nikon route and already bought the sigma. id suggest you wait the extra paycheck or 2 and go with the nikon there not going anywhere and you will always have that lense regardles of your body upgrade assuming your staying with the nikon family

hankbeblazin
09-29-2007, 06:31 PM
think of it this way why pay for the sigma if your unsure and then later on want to upgrade to the nikon, you end up paying more anyways when that 500 for the sigma and is 1200 for the nikon its only a 700 difference as aposed to a 1200 dollar difference when you decide to go the nikon route and already bought the sigma. id suggest you wait the extra paycheck or 2 and go with the nikon there not going anywhere and you will always have that lense regardles of your body upgrade assuming your staying with the nikon family

thats a good way to put it. i've always ever bought nikon lenses simply because well its nikon and they have been in the professional photography business their whole existance. i was just wondering what the differences in quality between third party lenses on the professional level are. now i know, thanks.

mattc
09-29-2007, 06:54 PM
ya a friend of mine told me that in regards to the d200 d300 battle i was in and told me i will regrete not getting the extra fps so why pay 1200 then 1700 when i can just suck up the extra 500 and its now how im looking at everything technology wise

e_dawg
09-30-2007, 04:28 AM
Wow, putting the Nikkor 17-55/2.8 up on a pedestal, are we? It's still susceptible to flare and ghosting, has quality control problems (usually focus accuracy / sharpness issues) / sample variability, not as sharp as the Tamron 17-50 wide open, significant barrel distortion at the wide end, significant vignetting at the wide end wide open. Basically, the only thing that is objectively better than its competition is the AF speed and noise (AF accuracy is debatable).

Of course, no lens is perfect, but you'd expect it to be a significantly better performer than its competition when it costs almost 3x as much! It's quite debatable whether that is the case or not.

K1W1
09-30-2007, 06:41 AM
But like you said, $1200 is just beyond what's reasonable for most people.

If I could buy 70-200 f2.8 VR's for Aus$1200.00 I'd mortgage the house and buy a truck load (Rooz can have one close to cost :) as a "spare")

mattc
09-30-2007, 08:44 AM
im not really putting it on a pedestal. i have no experience with either of the 2 lens's im just going on reviews when i see 50+ reviews saying its a slow auto in low light and even from people that have both or had both saying its not as sharp wide open which i think is pretty important espically when your buying a 2.8 for a reason to be able to use it at 2.8. and then i read 50+ reviews saying that the only problem they find with the nikon is its heavy. yes every lense will have its flaw and not be perfect in ones eyes and im not putting down sigma either. i have their 10-20 and i enjoy it. its porbably my most used lens aswell.

e_dawg
09-30-2007, 11:54 AM
matt, don't get me wrong. there are a lot of opinions on this lens depending who you talk to, and it wasn't my intention to direct any criticism at you or anyone else specifically... just have heard a bit of the nikkor "halo effect" surrounding this lens and am a bit puzzled as to why.

The 70-200/VR, for example, as K1W1 mentions above, is one of those Nikkors that deserves to be on a bit of a pedestal and is worth paying extra for. The 85/1.4, hmm... let me think about that for a second here ;) The 55-200/VR (not like you're paying much extra for this anyways) and 18-200/VR (until recently, at least), yes. These lenses command a premium, and they are worth that extra dollar or two ;)

But the 17-55 worth 3x as much as its competition? Not such a strong case as the others...

fionndruinne
09-30-2007, 03:28 PM
Geez, I don't know where the phrase "only $700 more" comes from, but it ain't the same world I live in.:p

I may be mistaken, but won't a Sigma 18-50mm hold its price fairly well? If one wants to upgrade to the fabulously costly 17-55mm Nikkor, selling the Sigma which one has had and used (emphasis - you gotta lens, you got the shot!) for say $350-400 is not a terrible thing.

mattc
10-04-2007, 06:07 PM
i only say 700 more in regards to if you buy the sigma and then later decide you would rather have the nikkor anyways i just came home with my nikkor 17-55 2.8 and straped it on and i love it so far im gonna go out shooting tonight and tomorrow i have a band shoot to do so i'll get to test out the low end nicely. its actually not that heavy a little missbalanced on my d40x but not to bad.

hankbeblazin
10-04-2007, 07:12 PM
cool let us know

how do you like that sigma 10-20