Sigma/Tamron lenses are they as good as nikon equivelent

[jay__3]

Are they as good or better which one would you recommend for quality

any focal length.

[paulfisher]

Some Tamrons are better than some Sigmas are better than some Nikkors are better...

 

You get the idea. What particular focal length & speed are you looking for?

[christoph_frick1]

Paul is obviously right: it all depends on the particular lenses. I can only comment on the ones whith which I do have experience. I have three Nikkor primes (50mm 1,4; 35mm 1,4; 105mm 1,8; all MF) and one Sigma zoom (28-70mm, 2,8; about 8 years old, also MF). You will not be surprised that I say that I'm very happy with those Nikkor primes and that the Sigma zoom performs with clearly visible less quality at the corresponding focal lengths. The new Sigmas with aspherical lenses should be significantly better than my old version, but whether they can compeat with the Nikkor primes I don't know.

I wonder whether you will get answers from people who really have experience with lenses which can be compared (i.e., Nikkor prime with Sigma prime, or Nikkor zoom with Sigma zoom), because now that I have my Nikkor primes I'm not at all tempted to buy the corresponding Sigma primes, and vice versa for the zoom.

[dudley]

Moving away from the optics - I have mainly Nikon lenses - zoom and prime - and (had) an early Tamron 28-200. I like to think I treat all lenses equally, and where the Nikon lenses have so far survived, the Tamron lasted less than a year before I snapped some inner parts. I suppose my fault rather than Tamron's, but when I tried to get it repaired - no chance. Granted that was in 1997 so things have probably improved. I've never bothered to check if the construction has improved.

[todd peach seattle, washi]

As others have said, 'it depends'. I think that comparing the 'consumer grade' lenses in each line they'll come out pretty close. I owned the Sigma 70-300 APO for a few years, and it was a pretty decent lens. Unfortunately, it didn't work properly on my F100; I documented my problems on a web page:<br>

<A HREF="http://www.thepeaches.com/photography/Sigma.htm">http://www.thepeaches.com/photography/Sigma.htm</A>

<p>

I then bought the corresponding Nikon 70-300 EDIF. I believe image quality and build quality are pretty much the same between those two particular lenses. The Sigma had a 1:2 close focus vs. Nikon's 1:4, but I never used either in that mode (I have dedicated macro lenses).

<p>

Based on my experience, I would consider Sigma again if they offered something at a big discount from the equivalent Nikon, or if they offered something Nikon didn't have. I would still do my research to see if the particular lens was any good before jumping in. I am of course leery of Sigma 'once again' missing some developmental step from Nikon that would render my lens not usable on Nikon's next body.

[jay__3]

There is a good cost saving against using non-nikon lenses.Having never tried them i was interestd in the forums views.The sigma 28mm to 70mm ASPH seems interesting any comments about it,also a wide angle prime 28mm or 35mm.

[jeff_feldmann]

I have mostly nikon equiptment, but for many years I have used a 400mm Sigma 5.6 It has been bumped and knocked around and still provides good images. I use the lens with a n90s. I'm now interested in getting a Sigma 100-400 zoom lens. Has anyone tryed that lens? Jeff Feldmann

[chuck]

When both specification and price is comparable (Nikkor 28-80 f/3.5-5.6G vs sigma 28-80 f/3.5-5.6), the qualities tends to be broadly comparable. In most cases, however, Nikkor lenses with comparable specs are much more expensive then Sigma and Tamron (ex. Nikkor 80-200 AF-S vs. Sigma 70-200 HSM). In these cases, the Nikkor lenses generally offer superior optical and built quality commensurate with their steeper price.

[edsel_adams]

Id stick with the Nikkors.I bought a 18mm f3.5 Sigma,pro series lens in Nikon Mount from B&H in 1998.When it was new it was clear & bright.In six months it became all cloudy inside.I sent it back to Sigma who didnt mind that Id bought this "grey" from B&H.They charged me $60 to "fix" the problem.The lens came back still kinda cloudy & dark.It now rests in my bottom file cabinet drawer,with the other stuff I wasted money on,but cannot use.Save your money,buy Nikkor lenses they last longer than 6 months!

[Ray House]

I'll answer your question with a question. Why do you think Nikors cost more? However in many instances you wouldn't be able to tell the difference....except build quality! BUY THE NIKORS, Unless your looking at the "G" series.

[jay__3]

wouldn't be able to tell the difference....except build quality

 

How important is build quality when new improved designed lenses are constantly appearing.

[shoshana]

I can only tell you what I have observed -

 

I have a N90s w/ Nikkor 28-105

My Sig Other has an N80 w/ Tamron 28-105

 

On his camera, the Nikkor focuses quickly. The Tamron 'hunts'.

 

On my camera - no real focus speed difference noticed.

 

He doesn't think that his Tamron photos from his last trip have as much 'pop' as when he borrowed my Nikkor. Personally - I think the fact that he never remembers to use his lens hood or clean his UV filter (it was seriously grimy when we swapped lenses before his current trip) might have *something* to do with his dull pics...

 

And of course, the Nikkor has that sorta macro mode which can come in handy.

 

'shana

[jonmy7]

Well Peter I am hoping that the quality is okay as I will most likely have to go 3rd party on my next lens. I think that if you are getting a lens which you know you will not use often then perhaps the supposedly lower build quality will not matter as much.

 

out for my post in 3 months time "My xxxx (non nikkor) lens is broken after 1 month" ;-)

[jay__3]

I think i will stick to nikon lenses,primes except for the 80mm to 200mm 2.8 zoom which i have and is a wonderful lense.

[terence_patrick]

I was recently wondering the same thing as I was getting ready to purchase a fisheye lens for my Nikon N80. It was down to the Nikkor 16mm and the Sigma 15mm. After reading a few review sites and going into a local shop to test the feel for myself, I decided to go with the Sigma. The most obvious deciding factor was the price, which is literally half the price of the Nikkor. Other factors included the Sigma's ability to focus much closer than the Nikkor. The review by Thom Hogan at http://www.bythom.com also helped as he did a thorough evaluation of the Sigma. He also recommends the Sigma lens over the Nikkor.

 

This is of course, my own personal experiences for the particular applications I have. I'm a student, so price was very important to me.

[farhan_alam]

Hi everyone, I have a F4 and i am planing to buy Tamron 75-300 af lens, I also thought about Sigma but this camera shop in Virginia told me not to use Sigma lenses on F4 coz it will ruin the electronic system of the camera i just want to know how true is this. Is Tamron lenses are better than Sigma for F4. please let me know thanks