Nikon 28-70 F2.8 vs Sigma 28-70 F2.8

[chris_nash1]

Nikon 28-70 f2.8 IF-ED AF-S $1660.17

vs

Sigma 28-70 f2.8 AF EX $511.40 USD

 

 

OK, so the Nikon lens is more than 3x the cost of the Sigma. How do

the lenses perform elative to each other. Is the cost of the Nikon

justified?

 

(Please don't tell me to buy a prime... I am looking for a fast zoom

and would like to know what makes the Nikon lens worth the extra $)

[frank uhlig]

Chris, why -- do you think -- a Mercedes costs 3 times what a Honda Accord goes for? Both travel 70 miles per hour down the freeway. Side by side ...

 

So, if you want/need state of the art gear, you get the Mercedes, right, if you can get along with an average car, you get the Accord.

 

Same with lenses: the Mercedes has much better pick up, ride, seats, ... so does the Nikon: superfast AF, great ED glass for colors, contrast etc.; but the Sigma will get you there nearly as well, not quite as sharp, as fast, or as relaxed ..., but it will work to its standards.

 

You buy according to your need and pocket, and then simply enjoy and compose great images!

 

A trip to the Grand Canyon is great in either a Mercedes or an Accord, is it not?

[ni-conartist]

Supurb answer Frank.

 

 

 

i too like to relate photography to cars...my other passion.

[chuck___3]

"Chris, why -- do you think -- a Mercedes costs 3 times what a Honda Accord goes for? Both travel 70 miles per hour down the freeway. Side by side ..."<p>

Well, Mercedes will do far more to temporily cover up pathological insecurities than Honda ever could, unless one happens to be a boy racer and drive an Accura NSX.<p>

 

"So, if you want/need state of the art gear, you get the Mercedes, right, if you can get along with an average car, you get the Accord."<p>

The last time when Mercedes was indisputably more innovative or more "state of the art" than Honda was the year before Honda started making cars.<p>

"Same with lenses: the Mercedes has much better pick up, ride, seats, ... so does the Nikon: superfast AF, great ED glass for colors, contrast etc.; but the Sigma will get you there nearly as well, not quite as sharp, as fast, or as relaxed ..., but it will work to its standards.

You buy according to your need and pocket, and then simply enjoy and compose great images!"<p>

I have to agree that the particular Nikon lens question is faster focusing, sharper, more contrasty than the Sigma. But its price tag would hardly make most people more "Relaxed" than would be the case had one settled for the Sigma.<p>

"A trip to the Grand Canyon is great in either a Mercedes or an Accord, is it not?"

I am substantially more likely to be able afford a grand Canyon trip with a Honda than with a Mercedes.

[arnulfo_rosas]

Although I agree that the Nikkor is far better than the Sigma, unless you are really serious into PJ, you do not need to buy such expensive (...and superb) lens. For amateurs on a budget (like me!), this particular Sigma zoom is just fine for anything (I own the 24-70 2.8 version and it is not too bad - especially for those occassions when I do not pursue that perfect picture; when I want the best possible results, I always use primes, but then again this is my personal choice).

 

According to several reviews, the Tokina 28-80 mm seems to perform better than the Sigma at about the same price, so it could be good if you check it before taking a decision.

[todd_phillips1]

And while Accords resale for a higher amount (pecentage wise) than other domestic US cars, Mercedes resale is, well....in the "pre-owned", not "used" category.

 

You get what you pay for. Even used...excuse me, "pre-owned" and discontinued 20-35 2.8AF Nikkors sell for more than the new Sigma price.

 

Unless you need 17mm, check out the 20-35...it is a beautiful lens.

[todd peach seattle, washi]

Nikon 35-70 F2.8 D MACRO (62) *WITH CAPS Bargain $339.00.

 

Won't scare small children or your wallet. Seriously.

[scott_carlsson]

Not much reason to look at the Sigma or Tokina stuff. I'll say look for the Nikkor 35-70 f2.8D also. Very sharp, readily available used for well under $500.00. I paid $375.00 for a near mint lens at a local swap last year.

[john_n._wall]

I don't have a clue about the Sigma, but the Tokina 28-85 f/2.8 and the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 are highly regarded by many folks. I have the Tokina and it works exceptionally well for me. The Nikkor 35-70 f/2.8 is an outstandingly sharp lens, but it is an older design with features -- rotating front element and push-pull zoom -- that I find annoying.

 

I'm sure the Nikkor 28-70 AF-S is a great lens, but Nikon snobs who refuse to consider that aftermarket lens makers sometimes also make great lenses for Nikon bodies deserve to have their credit cards burdened by the $1000 difference between the cost of the aftermarket lenses and the tariff Nikon gets for the AF-S lens. You've bought into the Nikon mystique hook, line, and sinker. Me, I'm interested in the quality of the images, not the name on the gear.

[michael_devoue]

I too love the car analogies- BUT-

I proudly own a Honda Accord with 190.000 miles and still running strong.

 

Nikon is the Honda. Leica is the Mercedes.

 

Sigma might be Daewoo, or Kia, or Hyundai, or Yugo.

 

Please don't ever compare Sigma's crap to Honda's well-engineered product.

 

Lets not BS ourselves- Nikon is not the Mercedes. Nikon is the Honda. Reasonably affordable, very reliable.

 

Leica is the Mercedes- Both expensive german stuff and all.

 

This lens comparison should be more like the Hyndai Tiburon vs. the Acura(Honda in the rest of the world) RSX Type S. 'nuff said.

[chuck___3]

Considering Mercedes Post Chrysler record for unreliability and multitude of factory fresh defects (substantially more than even the former paragon of American automotive inadaquacy: General Motors), I would hesitate to use Mercedes as analogue of quality. Instead, they are representative of a firm whose former reputation is really no longer deserved, but who is still able to squeeze milage out that obsolete reputation.

[david_sereda]

I've always seen Nikon as being more analogous to Toyota myself...reliable, highly functional, maybe not as flashy as something like Nissan/Canon, but definitely the piece of machinery you'd want to pick for a long lasting, worry free relationship! :)

 

Leica is maybe like Mercedes circa 1985.

 

Fun analogies to consider!

 

Dave (another car fanatic)

[todd peach seattle, washi]

My 1986 Mercedes has 286,000 miles. It's my daily driver. I have no idea what kind of camera it wants to be when it grows up.

[dimitri_karaminov]

This must be one of the most stupid and frustrating threads for the starting author that have ever been written on this forum. somehow my guts tell me chris wanted to talk about sigma and nikon lenses instead of discussing car manufacturer analogies...

 

While I'm sure of everybody's best intentions, I really have a hard time understanding just why so many folks feel the need to talk about the one lens they own while being totally unable to provide any useful info on the other lens(es) in question. Psychology suggests that we all feel the need to reassure ourselves of the validity of our decisions once we've spent large amounts of money, but: That doesn't help the person who asked the question AT ALL! What a nuisance... There really should be forum threads where everyone feeling the need to soothe one's own conscience can just tell everyone else how f&%$ing happy he/she is with what they bought. That might just clear the other posts of this waste... Sorry, but it'S true.

 

On to the question: I've owned both lenses (yes, that's right) and I'm in no way associated with either one of the companies ;-) ... Bottom line: The Nikkor IS slightly better in 1) terms of contrast and 2) center/edge sharpness at f32, but unless you want to blow your slides up to HUGE posters (I'm talking about several feet, not inches), you will might very well regret not spending the extra bucks on a trip to your favourite Pacific Island where the scenery... Sorry, I'll shut up. Well, at least that was my reasoning afterwards. So if you a) are not a pro, b) don't kill more than 300 films a year (which would put you in either a) or the retired-millionare category) or c) don't need a specific brand name (Sigma's one too, mind you) to bolster your ego, you should probably go for less-than-but-very-close-to-best-possible and buy the Sigma. Get it used if you can, it's a keeper and a bang for the buck (at least it was for me) so don't worry about it's re-sale value.

 

And one last thought: If you DO need to print huge blow-ups, consider buying into MF or LF equipment and start a similar but even more heated (almost religious) discussion in a hassy/rollei/bronica/mamiya thread. Especially watch out for the "My-Zeiss-against-your-ZenzanonPS" brawl, it's a blast. Oh, and don't forget to shut off your computer and to get out to take some beautiful pictures. ;-)

 

Cheers everyone.

[todd_evans]

Just to add to the silliness, I have a two year old Hyundai (Sigma) Santa Fe that still runs like it's showroom new!

[bruce_lieberman]

My wife drove a Honda so I could buy a Leica!

[jose_merino]

specific question: if you wanted to use normal prints or slightly higher (10x8) is the sigma lens good enough ? what about the light sensitivity.. is it exactly the same ?

 

To keep annoying everyone and to build on a useless car analogy:

 

I own both a Honda and a Subaru

I own both a Nikkor (50mm f1.8) and a Sigma (28-70 3.5 etc)

 

my wife drives the Subaru, so can't really make an analogy :(

[anth]

I've owned and sold a Sigma 28-70. It really needed to be stopped down to about 5.6 to be decent. It lacked contrast and corner sharpness at wider apertures. I've not used the Nikon, but I have no doubt that you are getting better performance for the money. I've since moved to 35 and 85 mm primes and an 18-35 zoom. The zoom isn't brilliant wide open, but since I mostly use it for landscapes it is stopped down and performs well. If you do want a zoom, you might consider the 24-85 in either guise (AFS or AFD) as both seem to be pretty good for the range they cover. HTH

[ll_taylor]

I am so glad I found this thread. This is more needing advice rather than giving one. Sorry.

 

I have been tearing my hair out about this same question! Sigma 24-70mm f2.8D EX DG versus Nikon 28-70mm shebang! I have swung back and forth. Gone through Dimitri's logic of no I'm not a pro, don't shoot more than 300 roles a year (although close), not a millionaire ... hmm except the last point about brands...not so much to boost my ego but I've been brought up in a Nikon family! Upon generations, we have used nothing else but Nikon! Hence a real dilemma for me. At the end of the day, I am wanting a quality, versatile lens that will last me a long long time! I don't mind paying up now if it means I have going to have a kick *rse lens!

 

Cars aside, any suggestions? thanks!