Help - new lens doesn’t fit my Nikon? Is it me

Hi. I have a Nikon d5000 and bought a wide angle lens 10-20mm for it. The lens is secondhand and by sigma. It says on it 10-20mm 1:4-5.6 dc hsm. It appears to be slightly too big to fit my camera. Can anyone help? I don’t know much about cameras but just wanted a wide angle for scenery and garden shots

 

Sorry, but this lens will not fit your camera. You have a Canon EF mount Sigma lens (Canon EF lens mount - Wikipedia). You need a Nikon F mount to fit your D5000.

 

Canon EF mount

Sigma is a third-party lens manufacturer. A lot of their lenses come in several different mounts, typically Canon EF, Nikon F, Sony A (previously Minolta), Pentax, and Sigma's own mount that very few people use. Some of their lenses also come in the Sony mirrorless E mount.

 

The electronic contacts on your Sigma lens seem to fit Canon EF. It is definitely not a Nikon F-mount version.

 

See the Nikon F-mount electronic contacts on this teleconverter. They are on the side of the lens, not pointing towards the camera body as your image shows.

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by ShunCheung

Modern Nikon F mount looks like this ...

 

Thank you so much for your help. When I ordered it, it said it was for Nikon (as shown). I will return it then. Thank you again

 

Hi. I have a Nikon d5000 and bought a wide angle lens 10-20mm for it.

Your lens looks very nice cosmetically, except it's made for Canon. :oops: According to reviews, it's a very good wide angle lens.

 

Hope you can return it for an exchange or refund. Not your fault. Good luck!

Never mind. I'm blind.

...or buy a Canon.

I have exactly one Sigma lens, a 35mm/f1.4 in Nikon F mount. I checked through it, and there is no marking on the lens which mount it is for. If one doesn't pay close attention, apparently it is very easy to get mixed up at some camera dealer. Hopefully you can get it exchanged. Edited May 15, 2020 by ShunCheung

Your lens looks very nice cosmetically, except it's made for Canon. :oops: According to reviews, it's a very good wide angle lens.!

 

I can confirm it is an excellent lens - I have one for my Pentax stable. Must be used with care to avoid hills and valleys in seascapes, though !

For reference for anyone else hitting this thread, Sigma do offer a mount conversion service - you can pay them to change whether the lens works with Nikon/Canon/Sony/Pentax. That can be useful if you yourself are swapping system, or if you can't return the lens for any reason (inheriting it, etc.) They do charge (more than this lens cost) for the service, and it only applies to some of their more expensive lenses, not this 10-20mm, I'm afraid. I suspect the general ability to switch mounts is a reason for them not to put "for Nikon" clearly on the lens.

 

This seems to be a simple seller error. I hope they'll correct it for you without you being out of pocket.

 

Sigma used to be known for optically iffy budget lenses - notably cheap superzooms. I had a 28-300mm Sigma in Canon mount, for example, and it was indeed poor at the long end. In more recent times they've been making some of the best lenses available, and (because the lenses are split between mounts) actually make more lenses than Nikon do; I have four, including some of my most-used lenses. Just in case Shun's purchasing choices put you off the brand. :-)

For reference for anyone else hitting this thread, Sigma do offer a mount conversion service - you can pay them to change whether the lens works with Nikon/Canon/Sony/Pentax. That can be useful if you yourself are swapping system, or if you can't return the lens for any reason (inheriting it, etc.) They do charge (more than this lens cost) for the service, and it only applies to some of their more expensive lenses, not this 10-20mm, I'm afraid. I suspect the general ability to switch mounts is a reason for them not to put "for Nikon" clearly on the lens.

 

I believe the mount conversion service is only available for the newer "Global Vision Lenses".

I believe the mount conversion service is only available for the newer "Global Vision Lenses".

 

Yes - the supported list is in the link I gave. Although Sigma call it "Gloab vision" in their table, which presumably says something bad about their vision. :-) I'd be stuck if I wanted to swap my 150mm OS Macro, for example - but if they were going to charge me $380 to do it, I might be able to do a trade-in for one in another mount for less.

Back in the old days of MF lenses, the mount type would usually be stamped on the rear of the lens. For Canon you'd usually see C/FD, and Nikon would usually be N/F or N/AI(depending on the generation of the lens). There were even some lenses with interchangeable mounts-I sold a Vivitar with a "T4" mount not too long ago, and the "N/F" mount on it nicely bayoneted on/off.

 

It would be nice if the makers now would at least mark it on the bayonet...

I think not putting 'Nikon' or 'Canon' on the lens might have more to do with avoiding lawsuits.

 

It's a real pain, especially when looking at used lenses being sold by someone who has no clue.

On my F-mount, Sigma 35mm/f1.4 Art lens, the Sigma rear lens cap does say "for Nikon." As long as Sigma doesn't leave the impression that it is a Nikon brand (Nikkor) lens, I would imagine that there shouldn't be any legal issues. It needs to specify something like "fits Nikon F mount." Not sure the OP still has her lens. Perhaps the rear cap may provide the clue.

 

Now that Nikon has a separate Z mount lens line. There will simply be more confusion in the long run. Individual sellers may have no clue if they are selling someone else's lens, but I would like to think that those who work at (used) camera stores should be at least somewhat familiar with the different mounts. However, when you are in a hurry, that is something that can easily be overlooked.

 

Both my Art lenses and my other Sigmas have similar "for Nikon" branding on the body cap, as does my Tamron 24-70 (with a brand name substitute, obviously). Not that they specify "F mount" of course, which may cause them difficulties in the new mirrorless era, as Shun suggests. On the other hand, I do have a selection of replacement rear lens caps that have no branding on them at all (including my recent acquisitions with release pins) - and at least one simple push-fit one that might go on more than one mount if you tried. Since lens caps are easy to lose and there's a market in selling replacements, I wouldn't be surprised if a used one happened to have less helpful labelling. Unfortunately, labelling the mount itself is a bit difficult (it kind of has to be shiny metal to give a smooth and flat fit) and you don't see much of it under a cap anyway - plus hopefully if someone's looked at the mount, they'll know what they're looking at. There isn't much visible in front of the mount on a third-party lens that's mount-specific in which to put a helpful label. Even with all that, though, it's always possible to put the wrong thing in the wrong box. Mistakes happen; I hope it gets sorted out.

A bit off topic, but while we are on this discussion, and the OP's original question is already fully answered: this is how the Z mount looks like. Its electronic contacts are more like those on the Canon EF mount.

 

Is the 4 bayonet lug design unique in 35mm terms?

On my F-mount, Sigma 35mm/f1.4 Art lens, the Sigma rear lens cap does say "for Nikon."

Wonder if OP received the original Sigma lens cap then (adding to the confusion ;) ). These discussions led me to check out my own Sigma Art wide-angles and the Tamron 15-30mm f/2,8, and found that, indeed, all have "for Nikon' indicated on the rear caps.

The OP shouldn't feel too bad about having to return that lens. It's an EX series Sigma!

 

My experience with that series of Sigma lenses is that they were better used as paperweights than stuck on the front of a camera ruining its image quality.

better used as paperweights

Damning, but true.!!

 

The non Art 50mm 1.4 was a marshmallow.

The EX series weren't too bad in my experience. The non-EX consumer brand were pretty awful.

 

My 150mm macro is an EX, and it's fine (and certainly better than the 105mm Nikkor). I'm still happy with my 8mm fish-eye - which was probably the best available 8mm at least until the Nikkor fisheye zoom appeared. The pre-Art 50mm had corners of vaseline in full frame, but on a DX sensor it behaved at least as well as the Nikkor AF-S and had better bokeh and lower LoCA, as I recall. It was also more expensive than the Nikkor. :-)

Sorry. Posted something to the wrong thread. Please delete or ignore.

The OP shouldn't feel too bad about having to return that lens. It's an EX series Sigma!

 

My experience with that series of Sigma lenses is that they were better used as paperweights than stuck on the front of a camera ruining its image quality.

Unfortunately it's all there is, aside from buying a Nikkor or going to a 12-24 Tamron, which won't be nearly wide enough for things like real estate photography or whatever. In fact the 10mm minimum on the Sigma really needs to be an 8 for that kind of work. The buyer made the best choice he could for the money, being the only choice. You have to be very careful buying it on ebay. I bought the same one and the ad said Nikon mount. But it wasn't. Send it back.