Nikon vs sigma lens
Discussion
Op I just went through this too, wanted a walk around lens so looked at the Nikon 18-140 and similar in Sigma and Tamron. Took advice from here (always sound) and read through lots of reviews. What clinched it for me were the user reviews on Amazon. They were universal in reviewing the Nikon lens as being sharp but those who bought Sigma or Tamron were disappointed.
Not saying that will be across the board, just saying do your homework first. I bought the Nikon, still testing it but a big difference over the stock lens and I have no regrets.
Following a recommendation on here I bought it from http://hdewcameras.co.uk. And saved a fair bit of money too!
Not saying that will be across the board, just saying do your homework first. I bought the Nikon, still testing it but a big difference over the stock lens and I have no regrets.
Following a recommendation on here I bought it from http://hdewcameras.co.uk. And saved a fair bit of money too!
One from today using the Sigma 150mm Macro on a Canon 7D, but had to send the first one back as it did not focus.
Common Lizard by sinky 911, on Flickr
Common Lizard by sinky 911, on FlickrYou really have to take each lens on its own merits and find out what its good and bad points are.
All lenses, even the $$$ ones have bad points (though usually minor or negligible)
Sigma make some great lenses and are often a bargain compared to 1st party lenses , but they do make some shockers too
All lenses, even the $$$ ones have bad points (though usually minor or negligible)
Sigma make some great lenses and are often a bargain compared to 1st party lenses , but they do make some shockers too
RobDickinson said:
You really have to take each lens ....
....and that goes as much for the whole range of Nikkors.
Sometimes you can pay ££££s and still find imperfections, and otherwise some built to a budget can be brilliant.
Remember, in theory, prime telephotos should be easier to design than wide angle zooms. But then you still have to build the things and you can choose metals or plastics, "ordinary" or "exotic" glass etc.
And even the most expensive can need AF fine tuning - so if you have a body than can do that - fine.
If not, try and see if you can get a test, or at least know if you can return it if you don't get on with it!
Sigma do some very good lenses, some of the reason they are cheaper is that sigma make one lens and are able to use it on many platforms, nikon don`t do that
I find that I prefer mid range o/e lenses(70-300 f3.5 type things) as they tend to foucus much faster and with better lock on, but I can`t justify a nikon 70-200f2.8 over a sigma 70-200f2.8, I had a canon l spec 70-200 and a sigma 70-200 and the canon lept into focus and held the sigma was a bit slower and would hunt
Ray
I find that I prefer mid range o/e lenses(70-300 f3.5 type things) as they tend to foucus much faster and with better lock on, but I can`t justify a nikon 70-200f2.8 over a sigma 70-200f2.8, I had a canon l spec 70-200 and a sigma 70-200 and the canon lept into focus and held the sigma was a bit slower and would hunt
Ray
Simpo Two said:
A £100 lens is not going to be as good as a £250 one.
How can you generalise like that?. Which £100 lens and which £250 lens?Second hand? New? ...and what are the criteria? Sharpness, handling, maximum aperture, wieght, build quality?
Nikon's cheap and cheerful 50mm f/1.8 is a cracker, whereas there are plenty of £250 zooms that I wouldn't touch with a bargepole.
budfox said:
Simpo Two said:
A £100 lens is not going to be as good as a £250 one.
How can you generalise like that?. Which £100 lens and which £250 lens?in general answer, id say the Nikon lens are worth the extra money. However, if you're buying primes and looking at the Sigma Art series of lens i.e. 24mm/35mm/85mm 1.4 lens then its worth the saving they are really nice lens. I've personally still got the Nikons due to better weather resistance, but for image quality the art lens matches or surpasses.
RobDickinson said:
I've just bought a sigma 50mm f1.4 art. 3 times the price of the canon equivalent! :O
Did you want to add anything to that comment, Mr D? 
I had a bit of NAS hit me since I acquired a new (secondhand) body at the end of January, and I am right back in the mood for lens-hunting......!
Just found the Stigma 24 mm f/1.4 "Art" - have been wrestling with a couple of nice looking Vivitar Series One 28mm f/1.9s that have been tempting me like Loreleis on the Bay of Es. Absolutely don't "need" them - I have a particularly lovely 17-35mm f/2.8 that I know is streets ahead of the 20mm f/2.8 AF-D Nikkor it replaced (Although it has been squeaking like a squeaky thing for a while, so I just know it's going to want a service + soon!) But previously I was completely un-impressed with a Stigma 14mm, but these days have a very beautiful Nikkor 14mm (courtesy of a fellow PHer and a fortuitous Ebay session) and it's really difficult to evaluate whether the 3rd party lenses provide value for money.
Had a Tokina 28-70mm at one stage. Well built, but no loss when it went of to be replaced....... I think my priorities may be different, I really like my 50mm and 85mm Nikkors - both the f/1.4s - but to be honest they "Vinny" like Vinny Jones - tough and abrasive, but leave a bokeh to die for compared to either a) stopping down to f/2 or b) being far more sensible with a F/1.8 to start with......!
Quite a personal love affair - the lens! OP - I think you need to understand that there's never an "answer" to your question......!
K12beano said:
id you want to add anything to that comment, Mr D?
Yeah - that even 3rd party lenses can be a step up (in cost and quality) to 1st party!The sigma art is the best autofocus 50 on the market. Canons range is very average and TBH there is a big argument for the £50 over the £1500 f1.2L, and there shouldnt be!
Looking at early sigma 24mm art reviews its good but not as stand out as the canon/nikons, but is a reasonable price. If you dont need autofocus look at the samyang 24mm f1.4
Tamron lens in my rather limited experience, cheap optics with lots of CA at the edges, plus even cheaper plastics. Sigma lenses you can get some crackers I like both my 28-70 and my 70-200 but when I looked at the wider end I wasn't so convinced. Nikon lenses I looked at a 70-200 really hard, even second hand I couldn't justify the cost over the sigma. I do however have a couple of Nikon lenses that spend time stuck on the front of the camera.
325Ti said:
Are nikon lens worth the higher price vs sigma etc?
Looking to try some basic nature photography etc using my nikon d3100
Thought something like a 55-300 would be a good lens ?
Nikon approx 250
Sigma approx 150
Tamaron (probably spelt wrong) have a 70 -300 for only 100?
In principle - yes.Looking to try some basic nature photography etc using my nikon d3100
Thought something like a 55-300 would be a good lens ?
Nikon approx 250
Sigma approx 150
Tamaron (probably spelt wrong) have a 70 -300 for only 100?
In reality not always
In this specific example - neither is an amazing lens, both will undoubtedly be fine.
I have both makes of lenses - with Sigma I have found the % chance of getting a good one is slightly lower, but if you persevere then their good ones are very sharp - both my 105 macro and 70-200 are fantastically sharp...
but Nikon lenses still are slightly better...
however the lenses you are looking at are amateur lenses built down to a price - the lens I was using today is 5x the price and the quality difference will be huge.
buying a lense with a lower 'f' number gives you a bigger aperture hole when wide open (e.g. f 2.8 v. f 3.5-5.6) and the lens is wide open when focusing = more light for focusing = faster & more acurate focusing
so as those lenses are in that price bracket (cheap) I woul suggest that either would be fine - if buying in that price range you might as well save money...
however you could go to a shop and perhaps try them - certainly at the cheaper end of the market it can vary - e.g. the 18-200 Sigma is okay - the 18-200 Nikon is fantastic in comparison.
BTw there is usually 3 levels of lenses.
1st - cheap consumer lenses - these typically are very slow (optically and focus), variable aperture and its enough that they just cover the focal range they state. They can be of acceptable quality these days.
2nd - low end 'pro' - sometimes variable aperture or f4. Good build and optics and focus speeds. limited tele end (400mm or so).
3rd - top line pro glass. F2.8 zooms, f1.4 primes, supertele's to 800mm. Take out a mortgage.
1st - cheap consumer lenses - these typically are very slow (optically and focus), variable aperture and its enough that they just cover the focal range they state. They can be of acceptable quality these days.
2nd - low end 'pro' - sometimes variable aperture or f4. Good build and optics and focus speeds. limited tele end (400mm or so).
3rd - top line pro glass. F2.8 zooms, f1.4 primes, supertele's to 800mm. Take out a mortgage.
Although Sigma has done a fantastic job on its primes recently, and the 120-300 zoom and 150-600 zoom, the older zooms in particular are to be avoided.
I have tested a few and the sample variation is high, the quality is low, the focus speed is poor, and the focus accuracy is variable. On your D3100 which does not have a great autofocus system and does not have the facility to adjust autofocus, performance is almost guaranteed to be low.
You can buy a Sigma zoom successfully, but for best chances you should do so in person, taking along a tripod and a test chart, and testing 3 copies against each other for autofocus accuracy, sharpness and decentering.
I would not recommend the 55-300. At 200mm + the sharpness drops off very rapidly. Instead get the 55-200 which has better close focus distance, is sharp at 200mm and is faster to focus, and cheaper. You will need to stop it down to f8 for best results though as it is not sharp wide open.
The 55-200 earned a place in my bag as it is just so small and light for its 200mm focal length. One of these + the 35mm 1.8 prime will cover 80% of situations and you can fit both in a small shoulder bag and carry hike all day and never worry about the weight. Due to the f8 aperture restriction and slow focus and limited magnification you will have to get lucky to get decent shots with it...I find having a small light lens on a small light camera permanently at my side means I get luckier more often, but I would never choose it for any serious work.
If you want to do decent quality nature work, there is really only one lens in your price range that is going to satisfy, the 70-300 f5.6 VR Nikkor. It is sharp, and best of all acceptably sharp wide open up to 200mm ( beyond 300mm stop down to f8-f11 for best results ), quick to focus and has excellent VR. I would honestly suggest simply saving a bit ( you can get them for £300 ) and go for this lens, you won't find a bad review for it, and for the price you won't find a better lens at 300mm. The Sigma stops being sharp at 200mm and doesn't improve if you stop it down.
If you want outstanding results, then the 300mm f4 has just been replaced by a smaller lighter phase Fresnel design. By all accounts the new version has many advantages, so people will be upgrading, so you expect lots of the older AFS 300mm f4's to show up on ebay in the next 6 months, so get saving, wait a bit and you will be able to pick up a bargain, I expect they will drop to below £500 on ebay. This lens stands head and shoulders above all the lenses in its price range, it has an outstanding close focus distance, it is one of the sharpest prime telephotos ever tested, it has blindingly fast accurate autofocus, and you can put a 1.4 teleconvertor on to make it a 400mm 5.6 for handheld birding. LLoyd H on here uses one to photograph fast jets, go look at his work for what this lens can do: http://lloydh.co.uk/lowflyinggallery-1/
I have tested a few and the sample variation is high, the quality is low, the focus speed is poor, and the focus accuracy is variable. On your D3100 which does not have a great autofocus system and does not have the facility to adjust autofocus, performance is almost guaranteed to be low.
You can buy a Sigma zoom successfully, but for best chances you should do so in person, taking along a tripod and a test chart, and testing 3 copies against each other for autofocus accuracy, sharpness and decentering.
I would not recommend the 55-300. At 200mm + the sharpness drops off very rapidly. Instead get the 55-200 which has better close focus distance, is sharp at 200mm and is faster to focus, and cheaper. You will need to stop it down to f8 for best results though as it is not sharp wide open.
The 55-200 earned a place in my bag as it is just so small and light for its 200mm focal length. One of these + the 35mm 1.8 prime will cover 80% of situations and you can fit both in a small shoulder bag and carry hike all day and never worry about the weight. Due to the f8 aperture restriction and slow focus and limited magnification you will have to get lucky to get decent shots with it...I find having a small light lens on a small light camera permanently at my side means I get luckier more often, but I would never choose it for any serious work.
If you want to do decent quality nature work, there is really only one lens in your price range that is going to satisfy, the 70-300 f5.6 VR Nikkor. It is sharp, and best of all acceptably sharp wide open up to 200mm ( beyond 300mm stop down to f8-f11 for best results ), quick to focus and has excellent VR. I would honestly suggest simply saving a bit ( you can get them for £300 ) and go for this lens, you won't find a bad review for it, and for the price you won't find a better lens at 300mm. The Sigma stops being sharp at 200mm and doesn't improve if you stop it down.
If you want outstanding results, then the 300mm f4 has just been replaced by a smaller lighter phase Fresnel design. By all accounts the new version has many advantages, so people will be upgrading, so you expect lots of the older AFS 300mm f4's to show up on ebay in the next 6 months, so get saving, wait a bit and you will be able to pick up a bargain, I expect they will drop to below £500 on ebay. This lens stands head and shoulders above all the lenses in its price range, it has an outstanding close focus distance, it is one of the sharpest prime telephotos ever tested, it has blindingly fast accurate autofocus, and you can put a 1.4 teleconvertor on to make it a 400mm 5.6 for handheld birding. LLoyd H on here uses one to photograph fast jets, go look at his work for what this lens can do: http://lloydh.co.uk/lowflyinggallery-1/
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff