Sigma vs Nikon

[k_michael]

How does Sigma lenses compare to Nikon lenses in glass quality.

[majid]

Some Sigma lenses are very good, like the 20mm f/1.8, the 28-70mm f/2.8. Some are pretty good like the 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5. Some are unalloyed garbage (but then again, so are Nikon's "kit" lenses). There is no hard and fast rule.

[dan_fromm1]

Silly question.

 

Suggest you ask about about the finished products, not the glass from which the lens elements were made.

 

Suggest further that you don't ask overly broad questions. Sigma vs. Nikon? By all accounts some Sigma lenses are pretty good and some Nikon lenses are less than wonderful. By all accounts some Sigma lenses are optical and mechanical disasters and some Nikon lenses are outstanding in every way possible.

 

Few of us go out and buy a manufacturer's entire line of lenses. We pick, we choose, we buy one here and another there. Stupid generalizations in response to stupid questions ("Does Zeiss make the best lenses?" was another of yours) are terrible guides to action.

 

Merry Xmas. I hope that its all warm and comfy under your bridge and that the goat is well roasted.

 

Dan

[k_michael]

Your response shows the level of your social graces. You're answer is recieved with no respect at all. It recieves what it gives.

[geris_k]

Dan, I agree with Kevin. Go back and read your response. You start out by insulting the poster and then you try to go into casual conversation about the holidays? Did you have too much eggnog?

 

BTW -- Before you get to the final product, the glass and the optical design, and lens characteristics all play a role in the light traveling to the film. So, besides your poor social graces, your response was extreme in its conclusion and shallow in its thought process. That's not to say that you should buy a lens based on specifications alone, but I don't fault Kevin for asking the question.

[miles stoddard]

The glass quality in and of itself is obviously important, but you are bying a lens, so knowing which glass is "better" wouldn't be the deciding factor in any purchase. The build quality matters greatly, as do dozens of other factors. There are only a handful of optical lens glass makers in the world, so it would not be preposterous to assume that in some cases, and in come applications, that a maker has sold the glass to both a third-party maker, as well as the main-party maker. There is no way to generalize as most companies do not make every lens in their lens line, which further complicates any glass analysis. In general, people complain about edge resolution and flare, and what not. But, rarely are their complaints about any one glass element in the configuration. You can have great glass, and a mediocre lens. Lens comparisons can really only be made within purposes and @ the same or roughly the same focal lengths (105 Nikkor vs 105 Sigma Macro, etc.).

[ky2]

Kevin, you need to assess each and every lens on case by case study. Some Sigmas are good, some Nikkors are good, but there are just too many parameters out there for them to be compared equally. My personal experience with Sigmas is rather positive (20/1.8EX and 90/2.8 Macro), yet you need to understand that normally, 3rd party lenses lose their value considerably through time (my Sigma lenses sold at about 60% of their original value, my Canon lenses over 80%).

 

Good Sigma lenses: 20,24,28/1.8 EX (Stopped down); the original 28-70/2.8 EX, 50,90,105/2.8 Macro lenses; 70-200/2.8 EX, 300/2.8;

 

Moderately good Sigma lenses: 14/2.8 EX (Stopped down), 100-300/4 EX, 50-500 EX.

 

Cheap alternatives to costly Nikkors: 135-400/5.6 (Stopped down), 400/5.6 (Stopped down), 28-135.

 

Stay away Sigmas: 24-70, 18-35, anything with a pricetag of under $200 that wasn't mentioned above.

 

Nikkors are generally better built and normally perform better... They are also more expensive (sometimes, much more). It's your call after all. Personally, I believe that Sigma's fixed-focal lenses (and the 70-200/2.8 EX) are the ones you should consider, if you cannot afford comparable Nikkors.

 

One more thing. It is sad to note, but Sigma's customer service and repair policy is much better (and much cheaper -- normally free) than Nikon USA. Go figure.

[dan_fromm1]

Kevin:

 

Thanks for your courteous and thoughtful response.

 

When you post messages on public bulletin boards you must expect the occasional answer that doesn't please.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

 

To me, questions like the one that started this message thread as well of some of the similar ones you've put up recently seem designed more to elicit disagreements among others than information which will improve your understanding or on which you can act. Your intent may have been innocent, but as a devout bayesian I have me doubts.

 

Those mythical creatures Trolls, who, if they existed, would be considered sit-and-wait predators, are much slandered on the internet. Trolling is not an activity they engage in. The verb troll, from which I think the nasty internet epithet Troll was derived, refers to a kind of fishing, which, interestingly, can be done with a handline or by dragging a bait behind a boat, but not, as far as I know, with rod and reel. I don't think its appropriate as a short word for the act of posting provocations in the hope of starting quarrels among strangers. Trolling, especially with a handline, is a much more active kind of fishing and is intended to obtain something good (food, the joy of catching a fish) for the troller. Funny thing, the english language.

[jersey_emt]

I really don't want to get in the middle of this, but Kevin did ask a question, and that question was answered (by the majority of repliers) respectfully and honestly. He wants to know what Sigma lenses compare favorably to similar Nikon glass, almost definitely in the interest of saving a crapload of money.

 

There really was no reason to rant about trolling. Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread, and, in effect, YOU are trolling by taunting him to respond.

[dan_fromm2]

Justin, thanks for the sane response. You're probably right.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[david_smith12]

Kevin,

 

I've used Nikon prime lenses, and sigma zoom's. I recently purchased a new pentax AF body and a Sigma 28-105 zoom.

 

For my snapshot use I get excellent results with the sigma zoom. I enjoy the results of the lens with enlargements 8X10.

 

I used the Nikon lenses for astrophotography, where wide open fast lenses make a difference. Zooms aren't best for this kind of photography.

 

I purchased my lens new from an auction seller for under $100 and am very satisfied. Plus, if you don't like the lens or quality of build you can either return it or won't suffer much loss of money in reselling it.

 

Hope this perspective helps.

[k_michael]

He needs a psychophilosophical board.

[keith_van_hulle1]

Considering ALL the archived and current discussions about these brands here, you couldn't find this info already?

 

Oh, I forgot, PN is going down the USENET road . . .