General Opinion on Sigma Lens Quality

[mcrodgers2]

I've been looking for a fast super-wide angle lens for my Minolta

X-570. Something at either 18mm, 17mm, 16mm...maybe even 15mm, perhaps

a zoom but at such a wide angle I don't think I need a zoom. This

would be to compliment my Tokina 24-40mm f/2.8 that so far has made me

rather happy.

 

In my on line searches I keep coming across Sigma lenses. To be

honest anything else I find seems to be rather expensive or seems kind

of slow at f/4 plus or both.

 

A friend of mine told be to avoid Sigma lenses. I've also heard that

optically some are good but mechanically they just don't hold up. A

good deal on something that falls apart isn't a good deal to me, but

exactly how bad are Sigma lenses mechanically? Are they optically any

good? Where do they fall on the food chain between Cosina and Rokkor?

 

Getting off topic a little, I saw a ZENITAR LENS 2.8/16 FISH-EYE on

line. It's Russian...any good?

 

Of course being an X-570 owner I�m not talking at all about auto focus

Sigma lenses.

[chris_eve]

My only Sigma is a 21-35 in 42-screw, it's great, though probably showing it's age if compared to "modern" lenses.

 

As for the Russian 16mm, I've got a "Peleng" 8mm and have no problem with it, if that's any recommendation. There's always the (possible) consideration of varying quality control that does seem to occur, according to some reports, with equipment from eastern Europe. Try before you buy, if possible, but certainly don't discount it.

[Brian]

I don't understand the continual bad rep that Sigma gets, particularly on this forum. I have a 15 year old Sigma 24/2.8 (Minolta MD fitting) which has never let me down. Certainly I have no criticism of the build quality. I suspect the optical quality is slightly below the Rokkor 24mm, but at half the price of the Rokkor I still think it makes sense. I don't know about super wide Sigmas below 20mm, but I see no reason why they should be avoided.

[h._p.]

Rule 1 about a forum like this is to take much of what you read with a pinch of salt. A lot of people are very definite about things which close analysis shows they know little or nothing about.

 

I've used several Sigma lenses and currently use the 17~35mm EX. My experience is that they are very well constructed for their price and perform very well. They are generally better designed than the Cosina offerings and often as good as Nikkor or Canon lenses at much higher prices. They do not compare with the top offerings from Nikon or Canon but then they cost as little as 1/10th of the price so that is hardly surprising.

 

As with anything, you can get a poor example. The trick is to buy from a reputable dealer, test carefully and take it straight back if there's anything amiss. Of course you need to be realistic in your expectations. Don't be surprised if the edge definition of a Sigma superwide is not as good as the central definition of a Rokkor 50mm!

 

If you're looking for a good 16mm fisheye try the Sigma - it's extremely good in my experience.

[steve_levine]

IMHO SIGMA=crap.I bought several of their lenses over the last few years and was not happy with either.My 18mm f3.5 "clouded" up inside within a year of sitting in my camera case!It was next to a dozen Nikkors,that didnt fog.Sigma charged $60 to uncloud it,it never looked as good or as sharp in the VF after.It now rests in the bottom of my file cabinet,next to other wastes of money.(this lens cost me $375 at B&H,it was not cheap!)In my opinion these are shoddily built crap.My other Sigma lens was a zoom that was so soft,I was never able to use it.Like anything in life,you get what you pay for.

[roto]

I have two Sigma lenses, one Tokina and several Nikkors. I find the sharpness, contrast and construction of the Sigmas to be closely comparable to the equivalent Nikkors. For example, the build quality of the Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX HSM is not as good as that of the Nikkor 80-200/2.8 AF-S, but also not much worse. Same goes for the optical quality where, IMHO, the quality gap is definitely smaller.

 

I'm definitely quite happy with the Sigmas I have.

 

I can't say the same about the Tokina (28-80/2.8 AT-X Pro), but that's another story...

[roto]

As usual, opinions vary wildly...

 

I would simply like to add that if you buy an hypothetical Tokigma 15-500/3.5-11 zoom for $100 you cannot expect it to be very sharp or well built.

 

If you think about it, also Nikon and Canon build cheap, crappy lenses: examples that come to my mind are the Nikkor 28-80/3.5-5.6 D, the 28-100/3.5-5.6 G or the 70-300/4-5.6 G. I'm pretty sure that Canon too has similar "jewels" in its lens lineup. Does that mean that all their lenses suck?

 

The bottom line is that, as always, you get what you paid for.

 

One might object: "Yes, but Sigma lenses cost half the price of comparable Nikkors! You then get half the quality."

 

False! If you define the build and optical quality of Nikon lenses to be equal to 100%, as every engineer knows, getting to 90%-95% of that quality has a certain cost, but trying to get to 100% and match exactly Nikon's (or Canon's) quality will *dramatically* increase the cost and will eventually make you match their prices as well!

[bacsa]

To contribute constructively to your question, here's what I'm aware of: The 17mm f/3.5 Tokina superwide lenses(the manual focus w Minolta MD fitting "SL", the AF ATX and the AF ATX-Pro) are considered reasonable optically and very well built. I myself own the AF ATX, it's heavy(450g); I bought it second-hand and e.g. on the permanently attached lens hood(!) there are several traces of banging around. Since it's METAL hood, it kind of protected the lens... Generally, i would say it looks sturdy as hell. I am satisfyed with its colors, distortion is just what i expected from a 17mm, there's no noticeable vignetting(never made oversized prints, tho') - unless you use any kind of filters. If f/3.5 is fast enough for you, i would recommend it.

<p>

Oh yes...it should be cheap:)

<p>

There's a short description about the manual focus version <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/17tokina.htm">here </a>. But you should try it yourself.

<p>

cheers

[art_karr]

I've never had all that many Sigma lenses. My first ones were

purchased when I was a poor graduate student. Back then, all

they made were preset lenses. They exhibited every optical

problem possible in a lens; and all in one lens, but they worked.

Over the years they have become much better; both optically and

mechanically.

 

I buy them for little used focal lengths [or zooms which I seldom

use] since they focus in the same direction as Nikon. The ones I

have now are optically fine and mechanically stronger than the

newest Nikon or Canon lenses. For lenses wider than 20 mm, I

always buy from the camera maker; those are much more

difficult to correct. Just my experience and note I haven't tried the

newest Sigma wides.

 

Art Karr

[alex_lofquist]

I bought a couple of Sigma lenses to take to Kenya back 13 years ago. A 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 APO, and a 400 f/5.6 APO. They were often used wide open, or close to it. The images are excellent and have been shown in competition.

I did have a problem recently with the 70-210 where the front optical housing came apart from the main mount, but it was repaired promptly by Sigma for a moderate cost. I should add that the problem occurred during a jeep ride over some rough mountain trails.

If you can generalize from these samples, I would give an OK.

[walter_strong3]

I've got the 14mm 2.8 and it definitely is soft in the corners. If I were doing commercial work I'd chuck it but for "recreational" photography it works just fine. Now, that is not to say I won't find an excuse to buy a 14mm Canon.............!!

[rolf_lockwood]

If you're looking for a super-wide and you're happy with your Tokina 24-40 -- and at the risk of being flamed by the Tokina-hating Roberto T. -- why not think of the Tokina 17? I'm not sure that the MF version is the same optically as my 17 3.5 AF ATX Pro, but mine is very much OK. It flares when pressed, but its virtues outweigh that limitation. I also have two Sigmas which are both fine in their ways -- a tiny, 15-year-old MF 28 2.8 that focuses to just a few inches and a 600 8.0 mirror that does OK within its obvious limitations. I got them both in package deals years ago. The 28 is very nicely built and more than sharp enough for family snaps but it flares more readily than any other lens I own, most of which are Nikkors, plus four Tokinas, three very old Super Takumars and two 1970s-vintage Leitz Summicron Ms. Still, I'm happy to keep it. I had a Sigma 28-105 4.0-5.6 AF version II for a couple of years too, and then I got the Nikkor equivalent, the 28-105 3.4-4.5. Huge difference! The Nikkor produces crisp and distortion-free pictures at just about any focal length and aperture, whereas the Sigma couldn't manage crispness anywhere except shorter focal lengths at f11. And even then it wasn't great, though it was also about 25% of the Nikkor's cost, so factor that in. It was worth it to me to spend extra on the Nikkor. Who wants fuzzy pics? As for the current 'EX' Sigmas, most of them get good reviews, but I opted for the Tokina 28-80 when I went shopping a couple of years ago because it seemed much better built than the equivalent Sigma. It's proven to be a fine lens, at least the equal of my Nikkor 28-105 in almost every test (the Nikkor's now for sale). I think what you get with third-party lenses is, aside from the variety of gems and dogs, greater sample variation. But even Nikon and the rest of the big boys suffer that affliction sometimes. You take your chances.

[lee_brand]

I have an old FD mount Sigma that I use extensively - 50-300/4.5

 

It is probably about 8-10 years old. Build quality is good and it is reasonably sharp - but not as sharp as a 200mm Canon prime. It suites my purposes most of the time.

 

There are wide ranges of lens "quality" within a manufacturers line - the best example of this is possibly Vivitar. They had a very fine range of old MF lenses (S1) that are now quite hard to find - but they have also produced a lot of Cr@p. I think that the same can be said for Tokina and probably Sigma.

 

You alway get what you pay for with lenses - if the thing was sold as a "consumer zoom" 10 years ago then it remains a 10 year old consumer zoom today. A super wide Sigma is probably not going to be pin sharp or built like a 24mm Rokkor! But I am fairly sure that it will last a couple of years and take reasonably good pictures:-)

[mcrodgers2]

Thanks everyone for the quality answers.

 

Not to get off topic about Sigma lenses but...

Canon and Nikkor lenses keep getting mentioned. I have two Nikkor lenses, both for my Nikonos V underwater system. My Nikkor 15mm UW lens is superb and the most expensive lens I own, but it only focuses underwater. The 35mm Nikkor is amphibious and sometimes I carry it along for land shots with my Minolta.

 

The Nikonos is not well suited for terra firma however. For starters it's not an SLR, you must estimate distance to focus. Also, there is a very limited choice of special underwater or amphibious Nikkor lenses that fit it.

 

I'd love to get an MD mount Nikkor and from what I hear about Canon lenses I'd like to try one of those too. I don't believe there is such a thing as an MD mount Nikkor or Canon lens. I'd have to buy another camera to use Nikkor lenses. Am I wrong?

[mcrodgers2]

PS

 

Mr Lockwood;

What are 'EX' Sigmas?

[rolf_lockwood]

The 'EX' line is Sigma's premium AF series -- better glass, better build, faster wide-open apertures -- aimed at people above the lowest-cost consumer levels. Most reviewers speak highly of them. Come to think of it, they do a 20mm AF 1.8. Ah, but you're a Minolta MF guy. Hope this helps, Michael.

[bacsa]

Hi.<p>

Regarding your fitting problem: it is completely unusual to fit e.g. nikkor to minolta MD, BUT, there's a company in the UK that makes adaptors for practically anything-to-anything. Check the site <br>http://www.srbfilm.co.uk

<br>Of course...an adaptor like this might cost you more than a second-hand not-too fancy Nikon body:)<br>

cheers

[douglas_green1]

I'm a big fan of the Tokina 17mm f3.5 lens. The Vivitar 17mm f3.5 was also made by Tokina and is identical.

[russ_butner___portland__or]

I have heard many negative reviews on the Sigma zooms. However, I have an old 28mm 2.8 Sigma, that is quite good. Optically and construction wise. As I said, it's an old fixed 28 2.8

[craig_allyn_rose]

I am gonna swim right into the shark infested waters of this debate and posit my

opinion. I currently have one Canon lens (50mm f/1.8 II) and five Sigma lenses

including the 170-500mm, 100-300mm DL, 28-135mm, 105mm EX, 24mm EX.

 

My return on investment is really quite high when considering the amount of money I

save over purchasing L lenses. In addition, the quality of the EX line is superb. These

are fast, well-designed pieces of glass that occupy my bag proudly. Now don't get me

wrong! Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta all make some awesome lenses, but why not

get equal results for far less money?

 

Best of luck!

 

Craig A. Rose // www.carosephoto.com

[hayward]

I've owned 1 Cosina, 2 Canon, 1 Minolta, 6 Nikon, 1 Samyang, 1 Sigma, and 3 Tamron lenses. The only one that actually fell apart was the Samyang. All the others vary, but on the whole the manufacturer's lenses are better built and sharper optically, but there are exceptions. The $400 Tamron 90 2.8 Macro is much sharper and better built than the $100 Nikon 28-80 G or Nikon $100 G 70-300 G. The Minolta Maxxum 35-70 is cheap, toy-like plastic, but sharp optically. The Sigma I have is the 24mm 2.8 AF and it is cheap looking and very noisy, with a good deal of edge distrotion, but seems fairly sharp. It was less than half the price of the comparable Nikon, though.

[mike_thompson4]

I am a long-haul trucker. I carry a Minolta 8000I constantly.

When I discovered how useless the 50mm lens was, I started using a Sigma 70-210 zoom so I don't have to take lots of equipment with me. I

am perfectly happy with this lens. It produces excellent sunrises/sunsets, clear, sharp portraits, and everything else I have

photographed. My friends make positive comments about my pictures, and give me credit for more talent than I think I have. I believe the Sigmas are excellent value for the money. As for price, I have bought all of the equipment I've purchased this past year on ebay. Pieces

for manual cameras can be had at very good prices.