Using "non-Nikkor" lenses

[DHA]

Am looking to buy a new lens and the nikkor versions are more expensive than the Sigma or Tokina equivalents. Is this due to the quality or is it the brand name you are paying for?

I am looking at f2.8 lenses if that makes any difference to the answer.

Cheers

[jon-]

It depends.

The Sigma 24-70 f2.8 is meant to be a cracking bit of kit. Some of their primes are as sharp, if not sharper than the Nikon / Canon version too, but there's also a lot of crap in their range.

In short, you're going to have to decide what 2.8 glass you want, then go and research.

Nikon have the other problem of a lot of their glass being optimised for DX rather than FX too.

[DHA]

Cheers, it was the 24-70 I was looking at.

[RobDickinson]

Theres two sigma 24-70f2.8's

The old non HSM model which is significantly cheaper and poorer and the new HSM one which is a pretty decent lens, but when I considered it against the canon 24-70L I discounted it, AF and image quality didnt seem to measure up and the nikkor 24-70 is ahead of the canon version by a fair way.

If you cant afford the nikon then I guess the sigma wont be a bad lens but I dont think it will measure up. They always seem to have AF issues too.