nikon or sigma

[damien]

Hello Guys,

Im after some advice, Im looking to buy a 24-70 mm for my nikon d80, however looking on ebay i have noticed alot of price diffrence between the nikon and sigma, is there a reason for this or is it just a case because its made by nikon. Now any advice on this matter will be great,

thanks

[Donald]

Damien

Have you compared the specifications of both? I think you'll probably find that there is quite a bit of difference.

Now, that may not be relevant for your purposes, apart from the price differential. Remember, Sigma doesn't remain in business because it makes poor lenses. But, in many instances the big manufacturers (e.g. Nikon and Canon) make better lenses.

So, if you are in the market for such a lens, the Sigma may do more than a very good job for you. You need to do your research into each.

[lorenzobix]

hy Damien
the reason of such different prices is surely depending on the quality of the lenses. I own two sigma, a 28 f2.8 and a 28-70 f2.8, both very cheap. Both are very soft, bad resolution, ecc. but, the 28mm is a "battle lens", i bring in all the situations where i can't go with an expensive lens. fore example (i'm from Rome, Italy), i've used it in the strikes that made a lot of damages in this city. i don't know how it happens out of italy but, often, having a camera and being working is not always guaranteed that cops wont' touch you. the 28-70 is my marriage optic: i couldn't afford an expensive one so i chose this old af zoom for less than 200euros because i needed a wide aperture zoom to work (the clients do not often recognize a good lens or a bad lens, expecially after some PP).
Sigma lenses are not always bad lenses, there are some that are more expensive then the "originals" nikon or canon. talking abput the 24-70, there are two versions (the older is macro, the newer is HSM). i've never had one but i can tell you that a friend of mine has the old version on a canon 5D, and the results, according to him, are quite bad compared with the canon 24-70. If you are interested in this kind of lens, you may also consider the new tamron 24-70 with image stabilization.
Coming to an end, the optical quality is a parameter that's not always required at the top (as in marriage, where i chose it because of the aperture f2.8 that allows me to work with Acceptable Iso values and good security shutter speed times) and depends on what you are gonna do with your lenses. the 28mm for example is quite useless in landscaping because of its softness and luck of fine details, but for street and reportage is not completely useless.

[Marty]

Am I right in thinking that there are still two distinct strata of Sigma lenses? I have a feeling that Sigma still makes a "Pro" series as well as the cheap budget lenses.

I have had the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.5 DC HSM for about 4 years now and it has been a fabulous lens. A couple of years ago I had the opportunity to borrow a 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor for a week and thus was able to do side-by-side comparisons between the two. The Nikkor enjoys the advantage of an extra stop (at the tight end of the zoom) which is nice but in terms of real-life image quality, it was very hard to determine any notable difference. If I was pushed for a criticism of the Sigma, it wasn't quite as good at handling flare when shooting straight into the light but this is something I tend not to do anyway.

In other words, I'd say look hard at the Sigma option and try one out, if you know anyone who'll lend you one for a day or two.

[lorenzobix]

Am I right in thinking that there are still two distinct strata of Sigma lenses? I have a feeling that Sigma still makes a "Pro" series as well as the cheap budget lenses.

In other words, I'd say look hard at the Sigma option and try one out, if you know anyone who'll lend you one for a day or two.

i think you're totally right: sigma has also some excellent shots in the catalogue. they're the only ones to use the foveon instead of the classic bayer sensors. I think that the day they'll put it into a full frame sensor, they'll have good chances of becoming one of the world's top sellers. they make also some super-tele of certain quality (and price). Some lenses are absolutely comparable with the originals with no fears, nut they (as every brand) still produce some lower lenses. What i think is strange (and maybe is because thery're quite "newbe" in the high quality market) is that some lenses, hystoricaslly considered as "classics", as the 24.70, the 12-24, 70-300, and so made of hig quality by the various huge brands: nikon, canon, sony, etc, are not still been challenged by a sigma of the same value... why?

[thequacksoflife]

on a D80 my choices would be the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 EX OS or the Nikon17-55 f2.8. personally I'd fine 24 not wide enough on a DX body.

Sigma's top lenses are the EX series.

[damien]

on a D80 my choices would be the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 EX OS or the Nikon17-55 f2.8. personally I'd fine 24 not wide enough on a DX body.

Sigma's top lenses are the EX series.

would this be ok for a wedding shoot, as im still learning, i know its all about practice and the 2 wedding coming up are good for practice as it just plesure shoot for me with no pressure to get it right!

[thequacksoflife]

would this be ok for a wedding shoot, as im still learning, i know its all about practice and the 2 wedding coming up are good for practice as it just plesure shoot for me with no pressure to get it right!

can't see why not!