Sigma Lenses for Nikon

<p>How good are Sigma lenses that have Nikon mounts? Are they worth their price (Usually cheaper than the Nikon lenses)? Or do you think its a complete waste of money?</p>

<p>Do they affect the quality of your photographs?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Sigma make great lenses for Nikon mount. Definately not a complete waste of money. Like any make of lens, if you use it and get something from it then it is a valuable lens, if it sits around and never gets put on the camera then perhaps to you it's useless.</p>

<p>I purchased a Sigma HSM 70-200mm f/2.8 tele zoom lens - the older series I version- it was an excellent lens, sharp, contrasty and focused every bit as fast as any Nikkor I've used. I only sold it as I was given the Nikkor 70-200mm VR lens as a gift. It (the Sigma) was an excellent lens - the current version II lens is reported to be even better........ The only difference I noticed from the Sigma was that it rendered colours ever so slightly "warmer" than my Nikkor lenses do - this is of no consequence to me, only an observational difference.</p>

<p>It is said around the traps that third party companies such as Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc do not have quality control standards as high as Nikon does so occasionally one might come across a 'bad' copy of a third party lens for Nikon mount. The only 'bad' copy of any lens I ever purchased was actually a Nikkor lens, but I'd have to qualify that statement of fact by saying I've only used 4 third party lenses out of perhaps the 20 lenses I've tried.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It really depends on the lens itself and not the brand. Ask about the particular lens before buying one. Out of my most useful four lenses , two are not nikon but a tokina and a sigma.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Have you seen this site: <a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/">http://www.imaging-resource.com/</a> ?<br>

Scroll down the left column to "Camera Lens Reviews". There are other sites out there as well. As Leslie pointed out, it depends on the lens. I have two third-party lenses that I bought after careful research and I am very happy with both...the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and the Sigma 150mm Macro.</p>

 

<p>in general sigma EX lenses are better than nikon kit lenses. sigma makes good primes too. they have done a good job of filling in the gaps in the nikkor line; they offer some lenses nikon doesnt make. and the newer sigmas tend to be much much better than the older ones. you really have to do a lens by lens comparison, though. but its like anything, there are gems, duds, and some which are just ok.</p>

<p>as for picture quality, here's a shot from my sigma 50-150 i took two days ago...</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Despite a reputation of having a low quality control, Sigma offers several valuable lenses that are very appreciated by Nikon users. What is very important to know, each lens has it's own character and fits a "niche". You may need or may not need what it offers, so that's why are different opinions among various users. For instance, I am a happy user of a Sigma 24mm f1.8. This is probably not a lens for a landscaper, but for shooting people in low light (indoor events) it's quite amazing for a very convenient cost. At this time this lens has just one AF competitor, the Nikon 24mm f1.4 that costs 9x more... I am very tempted by that Nikon ultimate glass but I wonder if it really deserves the huge difference so I'm in stand-by for now.<br>

One of the most appreciated lens from Sigma is the 50mm f1.4, many people claiming that is the best AF lens for 50mm from the market. Also the 150mm f2.8 macro is a high performer on its class. Some zooms are also quite appreciated for what they offer but again, each lens has its character... you need to know it before to buy.</p>

<p>I own and use a sigma 10-20mm EX HSM and a 500mm EX HSM. Both are superb, and cheaper than their nikon counterparts. Not a single problem with them....</p>

<p>I agree...my Sigma 300mm 2.8 has served me very well -<br>

<a href="http://www.naturephotographers.net/sigma30028.html">http://www.naturephotographers.net/sigma30028.html</a><br>

<a href="http://www.naturephotographers.net/sigma30028.html"></a>I have also owned and used the Sigma 30mm 1.4 with great results -<br>

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0803/08031801sigma50mm.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/news/0803/08031801sigma50mm.asp</a><br>

All in all...I'd happily purchase Sigma if the Nikon version was un-affordable.</p>

<p>Sigma makes two grades of lenses, a cheap consumer grade and a pretty good pro grade. Which lens are you talking about? I've owned two Sigma lenses in the recent past and was happy with both. Still own the 30mm f1.4. Is that the lens you're talking about?</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I have used two Nikon-mount Sigmas for the last two years: the 10-20mm EX HSM and the 150-500mm DG OS HSM. The build quality of both leaves little to be desired and the image quality is quite acceptable. As an alternative to the Nikon lenses, I would have no hesitation in using them, even if I would give an edge to the better (and considerably more expensive) Nikon ones of a broadly comparable nature.</p>

<p>Sigma has got a "bum rap" I think on the 'quality control' issue. Their serious problems were some mistakes made in the early days of AF that have haunted them ever since.<br>

One of the nice things about Sigma is that there have been long periods of time when some particular range of lens (e.g., ultra-wide angles) have been available only from Sigma. I have both an APS-C Sigma 10-20mm and a 35mm Sigma 15-30mm (a discontinued model), and they are good lenses. They are an innovative company, not just copiers of other company's designs.</p>

<p>Tokina and Tamron have a more narrow listing of lenses, but some of those are also excellent, and bargains to boot.</p>

<p>I don't have an interest in Sigma's entry-level kit-ish lenses, but I have their 10-20 ultrawide, 30/1.4, and 50/1.4 in regular use right along side of several very nice Nikon lenses. I'd really miss the Sigmas if I didn't have them. The 30/1.4 is one my favorite walk-around lenses, despite having several other excellent options. It's a qualitative thing - you either like a lens or you don't, as used in particular circumstances.<br /><br />Just the other day, under a shady storefront, with the 30/1.4 used nearly wide open at f/1.8 to help de-emphasize the busy background.</p>

<p>Woops, here's that image.</p><div></div>

<p>I recently bought the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 for concerts because it's a great match to the APS-C Dx sensor cameras, and Nikon does not have anything in that range. I'm extremely happy with it (but I do wish it had vibration reduction/optical stabilization/vibration control). I also have a Tokina 12-24 f/4 that is just great, and a new Tamron 17-50 VC, so obviously I have no problem with third party lenses. By-the-way, I do have three other Nikon lenses.</p>

<p>i get paid on the side shooting weddings and other corporate events, indoors and out. and i have a pair of sigmas --- 18-50mm f/2.8 and the 50-150mm f/2.8.</p>

<p>i'm trying to save a little for the sigma 30mm f/1.4. i always suffer in envy when i see matt's sample taken with that lens :-)</p>

<p>I have a Sigma 17-35 and a 70-300, quite a few years old and began life on my previous Nikon film bodies, on my D700 now. The 70-300 I once considered pretty crappy especially at the long end, now am very happy with it on the D700 thanks to the high iso, therefore able to use at an optimal aperture f/8 f/11, or whatever I want it to be. Of course its all down to money isn't it ?<br />If we could all afford top notch Nikon brand, then we would all have only Nikon. The independent brands are good enough, for the money. Yes, ofcourse they're worth the money. What you should be asking is, Is a Nikon equivallent, producing the same picture, that is 10x the price, worth the money ?</p>

<p>I actually only have 4 lenses. Sigma 18-50 f2.8, Sigma 105 f2.8 Macro, Sigma 120-400 and an old 80-200 f2.8 Push-Pull Nikkor.The three Sigmas are all their pro grade lenses and I would match them against most lenses in their ranges for image quality. Nikkor Pro lenses are PROBABLY more robust mechanically but I cannot prove that by inspectiion or use. For a pro who gives a lense much harsher treatment than I do they MAY be worth the value but not for me as a hobbist. Would I only buy Nikkor if I could afford it ( I can't) the answer is NO. I don't spend money for name appeal. </p>

<p>there's little doubt that sigma's optical performance has improved of late, to the point where they can actually charge more for their glass in some cases than the nikkor equivalents (i.e., 50/1.4). they are one of the largest lensmakers in the world, and to their credit, they funneled some of the $$ they got from their el cheapo line into making better mid- to high-end lenses and improving older designs. (now if they could make a DP3 with better ergonomics and AF speed and, say, a 28mm 1.8 fixed lens...)</p>

<p>it will be interesting to see what happens when sigma comes out with their new 17-50/2.8 OS HSM lens, which should sell for almost 1/3rd less than the nikon 17-55 and offer stabilization to boot. if it's anywhere close optically, then the only reason to get the nikkor is because of brand loyalty and/or you need a lens you can substitute as a truncheon.</p>

<p>I've only owned Nikon and Mamiya lenses, but I am very tempted to try a Sigma lens. I've only heard good things about them. Sigma has been making lenses for a long time.</p>

<p>I was thinking about this one in particular <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-9862692-39.html">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-9862692-39.html</a> ;)</p>

<p>On the street it's called the 'Bigma'.</p>

<p>I have the Sigma 50 f1.4 and it's wonderful. Here in Oz it's currently around Aus$100 LESS than the Nikon equivalent. Currently waiting for the 85 f1.4....yummm</p>

<p>Is the OP *only* interested in Sigma, and not other third party lenses? While there seems to be some consensus that sticking with Nikon is safe, comparing third party lenses can be all over the place. Reasons:</p>

<p>- As mentioned, it depends on which lens.<br>

- Even for a specific lens by a manufacturer, there can be multiple versions.<br>

- Not many posters have owned multiple versions of the same lens, let alone from multiple manufacturers.<br>

- Owners shoot different genres and have different image end products in mind. Their expectations from a lens vary accordingly.</p>

<p>Without providing any of these contexts, comments are as helpful as those from the four blind men feeling out and describing an elephant.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00WRv9</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On the street it's called the 'Bigma'.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>No, <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/sigma-50-500mm-f-4-6.3-ex-dg-hsm-lens-review.aspx">THIS</a> is called the 'Bigma'</p>

<p>Recently got the Sigma 30 mm f/1.4. Love it. <br>

Spent a whole day inside the Exploratorium in San Francisco shooting with that lens on my D90. It's dark in there with all sorts of wierd reflections and funky lighting, but the lens and camera did just fine. Got some great shots of the kids in our family playing with the exhibits, and couldn't have easily used a flash even if I had one, what with the 30-40 ft ceilings and all. </p>