Sigma lens review - highly rated

[andrew_cale]

In this month's Popular Photography and Imaging magazine (May 2007) there is a

review of the new Sigma 18-50 2.8 lens (page 78). This is a revised lens (2nd

gen), and the reviewers give it an outstanding review.

 

What caught my eye was the conclusion, where they say "In all, it's a stellar

performer, and significantly better by virtually all optical benchmarks than

its predecessor, or, for that matter, competitors such as Nikon's comparable 17-

55mm f/2.8."

 

Seeing as how this lens will go for about 1/3 the price of the Nikon they

mention, this may be a truly viable alternative. I have the 17-55 and consider

it to be my favorite lens.

 

If anyone owns or has used this new Sigma lens please provide your feedback.

While I don't dispure that Sigma makes some high quality lenses, I do have a

hard time believing it is significantly better in virtuall all optical

benchmarks than the Nikon 17-55. Maybe I am unreasonable skeptical...

 

Thanks,

Andy

[Michael R Freeman]

Actually, I've never known Pop Photo to give anything but an outstanding review on <b>any</b> lens. It may well be a great lens, but you are certainly not unreasonably skeptical. :-)

[dhgeyer]

There have been a couple of threads about this already that I know about and contributed to. I tried both lenses side by side for about a week, because Ritz Camera will let you return a lens within 30 days. I knew I wasn't going to keep them both. I kept the Sigma, primarily because it is smaller and lighter, and the camera balances better for me with it. In other words, it "works" better for me.

<br /><br />

There are certainly some things about the Nikon that are better. It has an internal focusing motor, rather than relying on the camera's motor via a slotted drive, as the Sigma does. This makes the Nikon lens a bit faster and a lot quieter. The Nikon lens allows manual correction of autofocusing "on the fly" without having to change anything. The Sigma lens has a focusing ring that always turns when autofocusing, so you have to keep your fingers away from it. In order to manually focus you have to swing the switch on the camera body to manual, since the lens doesn't have an A/M switch. The Nikon lens is more robustly built, although I can't imagine either actually wearing out in any kind of use I'll ever give it.

<br /><br />

I found, and this site:

<br /><br />

<a href="http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html">

PhotoZone Lab Tests</a>

<br /><br />

found in lab tests of both lenses, that neither the Nikon nor the Sigma was significantly superior optically. They have different strengths and weaknesses, but in the end it's about a wash or close to it. They are both very good.

[andrew_cale]

D.H.

Thanks for the feedback. Does it have any problems with lens flare?

Andy

[dhgeyer]

Andy: No, not for me. It has a good lens hood, as does the Nikon. I don't do a lot of shooting into light sources. I'm sure it could be made to flare. That wasn't part of my side by side testing, but I haven't seen any since then either.

[oskar_ojala]

Note that these are 15 element lenses, the build quality should be good enough to be able to hold everything in alignment through years of use. This aspect is practically never tested, but since the market is full of lenses of dubious build quality, I would for some lenses worry about this. I don't know if it applies to this Sigma, though, but maybe worth considering.

[anthony_bez]

"significantly better by virtually all optical benchmarks than its predecessor, or, for that matter, competitors such as Nikon's comparable 17- 55mm f/2.8."

 

It seems Sigma have invested a huge chunk of there advertising budget with Popular Photography.

[elliot1]

If photography is your hobby, almost any lens will do unless you are really picky. If you are shooting professionally, the choice is easy.

[tom_jenner1]

Is there an experienced photographer out there who actually takes Popular Photography seriously?

 

Hmmm, how much do you want to bet that Sigma has a very large production line and they only give out the very best lens sample to be reviewed (duh!).

[NetR]

Given the Sigma uses a screwdriver slot and the motor in the camera, it won't autofocus on the D40 or D40X. There may well be other forthcoming Nikon DSLRs that only use lens motors. So the lenses are not quite equal in this regard and you should be thinking forwards. The Nikon lens is also MUCH better than the Sigma at 17mm and from 51-55mm ;-)

[kfoster70]

I did my own personal comparison of the Sigma 18-50mm, Nikon 17-55mm and the Tamron 17-50mm. I personally thought the Tamron was better then the Sigma. I liked the build of the Sigma over the Tamron, but the Tamron focused faster and was quieter. Many say the Tamron is sharper wide open then the Sigma. I eventually bought the Nikon due to better resale, better build quality, and AF-S. However, if either of the Sigma or Tamron had AF-S then I would have probably bought on of them.

 

I never trust magazine reviews of any product. They are good tools for hearing about new products and getting basic information, but they usually dont give hard facts and real testing. Third party reviewers on the net that dont have advertising dollars at stake do a better job.

[bsd230]

I am considering this lens myself. I actually put it in my cart last night and still kicking around if I should go ahead and buy it today. I have had good luck with Sigma EX lenses in the past in image quality and build. If I were making money with my photography I might spend the extra and get the Nikkor but I would be surprised if anyone could tell the difference between the 2 in an image shot in their respective sweet spots. Also worth noting that the review on PhotoZone is not the new Sigma which the new one is supposed to be better. 18-50 Macro is the new version key word being Macro. If it doesn't say Macro, it's the old version. Although PopPhoto never give bad reviews if a lens is not that great it usually shows lower quality images in their SQF. The SQF is much higher for this lens than my Nikkor 18-200.