Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    12

    Is Sigma Lens a better choice than Nikon...Please Help!

    I recently acquired the Nikon D300. I was told by the retailer that the Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC Optical Stabilizer was a better choice than the Nikon 18-200 Lens. I have used Nikon all my life and contemplating whether I should have purchased the Nikon Lens instead. Can anyone shed some light regarding the performance of Sigma over Nikon Lens?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    570
    Most reviews rate the Nikon 18-200VR over the sigma 18-200OS, the difference isn't too big tho and the sigma costs less as well. For the same price I'd go for the Nikon tho. The Nikon also has a fairly common problem with lens creep but is also faster at the long end.

    In general both Sigma and Nikon make great lenses, Nikons AF-S seems to be a bit faster than Sigmas HSM and VR is a bit more effective than OS tho.
    Last edited by Aldor88; 12-18-2007 at 04:46 AM. Reason: spelling
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/14807929@N05/

    D40+Sigma 17-70-2.8-4.5 DC MACRO

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,887
    the sigma will be far easier to get a hold of since the nikon one is in short supply. i would get the Nikon if i could afford it (or wanted it for that matter!).
    Nikon D700
    Sigma 70-200 F2.8
    Sigma 85mm F1.4
    Sigma 15-30 F3.5 - 4.5



    http://www.philipduartephotography.com

    "It's better to be hurt by the truth than comforted by a lie"

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    1,148
    I have the Nikkor 18-200mm. I think there are more reasons to have it than to have the Sigma.

    ByThom review of the Nikkor:
    http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm

    Comparison Review (not sure if this is an older version of the sigma or current):
    http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Si...mm/page3.shtml
    Nikon D70s
    Nikkor 50mm 1.8D (If you don't have it you need it)
    Nikkor 18-200mm VR II
    SB-600
    Bogen/Manfrotto Tripods/Heads
    NAS (D300, Nikkor 80-200mm (or 70-200mm)f/2.8, Tamron 90mm Macro)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,929
    Where is WrestlingReport when you need him?
    Jason

    "A coward dies a thousand deaths, a soldier dies but once."-2Pac


    A bunch of Nikon stuff!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    516
    Nikkor all the way.

    "Availability" really depends. All the camera shops in the bigger cities I've recently stumbled across (biggest cities in the southeast...excluding South Carolina) have had the Nikkor 18-200VR IN STOCK. So they are available, just do a little searching on the internet.

    I've never seen a single shop carry the Sigma lense you speak of. I'm not too much of a fan of sigma on a nikon. Apparently they are made for Canons anyway...
    Small Town Newspaper Oaf

    East Coast Coorespondant for CRAWL Magazine!!??

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    without doubt i'd get the nikkor. btw: does anyone have any info on how many stops sigma's OS is good for ?
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Maryland's Eastern Shore
    Posts
    2,143
    Quote Originally Posted by jcon View Post
    Where is WrestlingReport when you need him?
    First thing that came to my mind when I saw
    the title of the thread!
    - Rich

    Nikon: D50, 18-70mm, 50mm, 70-200vr
    Kenko: 12mm, 20mm, 36mm Ext Tubes
    Manfrotto: 486RC2
    Benro: A-327 tripod


    My Flickr Photos Here

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,931
    For the cost of the 18-200 with stabilisation couldn't you get a Nikkor 55-200VR and a 18-55 or even 18-70 sized lens from either Nikon or Sigma?
    IMO the 18-200 lenses are a flawed proposition - too much zoom and too many compromises.
    I know it's convenient to have only one lens but the purpose or at least reason for a DSLR is the ability to change lenses to suit the occasion and by fitting a one size fits all product you are defeating the basic purpose of the camera.
    My 2 cents.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    1,148
    With all due respect K1W1, I agree, and disagree with what you are saying. There are many other reasons that a DSLR would be chosen over a P&S. The sensor is one of the first things. Larger sensor (and all the benefits that go with it), ease of use (for adjustments and attaining the look you want), expandability, ruggedness, etc... Being able to change lenses of course is right in there. It isn't the only reason.

    Yes, there is compromise, but the Nikkor lens is revolutionary in that the compromises are really done well, and the overall performance for the buck is very good. The ability to shoot many different focal lengths without having to change lenses is very helpful in many situations - sometimes even the difference between getting and not getting the shot. There are many very good reasons for choosing this lens. Perfect shots is not the reason. However, ownership of one does not mean that there aren't many occasions to use other lenses - it just means that you don't have to change lenses as often - without compromising much.
    Nikon D70s
    Nikkor 50mm 1.8D (If you don't have it you need it)
    Nikkor 18-200mm VR II
    SB-600
    Bogen/Manfrotto Tripods/Heads
    NAS (D300, Nikkor 80-200mm (or 70-200mm)f/2.8, Tamron 90mm Macro)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •