Sigma lens for a Nikon D40 - Worth bothering?
Discussion
I don't think there's a simple yes or no answer to that. Bear in mind that the selling point for most of their lenses is that they are cheaper than the Nikon/Canon/Sony equivalents, so in one way or another they are usually inferior to their more expensive equivalents. Have a look at some of the review websites to get an idea. I've got a two Sigma lenses and I'm happy with them.
Some speak of variable quality with Sigma lenses - I've had several and always been happy with them. Just as a by the by, I have the Nikon 55-200 VR on a D40 and it produces some stunning images. Even a Leica owner on this forum thought a picture I posted using this set up was taken on a Leica!
james_tigerwoods said:
Do compatible lenses tend to be VR at all?
Sigma do have their own image stabilisation tech, but they haven't put it on as many of their lenses as Nikon have on theirs. On the other hand, you might find that you can get a fast Sigma lens without image stabilisation for similar money to a slow Nikon lens with VR.You get what you pay for (YGWYPF). A top Nikon lens will be better than a top Sigma lens, but then it costs more. You have to decide whether the difference in performance and wallet is worth it - you may be completely untroubled. Note also that Nikon and Sigma make both cheap and expensive lenses, so a top Sigma should be better than a cheap Nikkor. It all comes down to cash.
Simpo Two said:
You get what you pay for (YGWYPF). A top Nikon lens will be better than a top Sigma lens, but then it costs more. You have to decide whether the difference in performance and wallet is worth it - you may be completely untroubled. Note also that Nikon and Sigma make both cheap and expensive lenses, so a top Sigma should be better than a cheap Nikkor. It all comes down to cash.
Although I'd say on top of that you need to consider how much extra Nikon (or in my case Canon) are charging for the name. I'd reckon if you had two identically capable lenses, the Sigma would probably be at least 15-20% cheaper.SamHH said:
I don't think there's a simple yes or no answer to that.
On the one hand, given how important it is to collect your light, I cannot see why anyone would not want to go with Nikkor lenses once you decide to commit to the Nikon F mount. Best build, best optical quality, best ergonomics, best compatability (e.g. "D" information for metering). Great range and plenty on the secondhand market too.
On the other hand, you can see some excellent results from Sigma and the other third party manufacturers. And for more reasonable prices too!
Personally the handling of a Nikkor lens has swayed it for me many times - everything just feels right. Having had Sigmas, Tamrons and Tokinas in the past I'd say go and handle a lens, just like you handle a camera body, before making a decision. And before spending significant sums, see if you can hire before you buy.
RobDickinson said:
beano ofcourse has a money tree or two...
Yeah right - FO!For the rest of you, I do have 14 years behind me of buying and selling lenses for my Nikon cameras. Only one of the bodies and two of the lenses were ever bought new - the rest have all been secondhand. Hence I have used third party lenses as well as now having a small collection of Nikkor glass. It's only with this experience that I thought my contribution to this thread was of any possible use.....
^^^ Beano makes a sound point - there's nothing wrong with buying s/h lenses. Then you can get the best glass at a massive saving over new.
I guess it's a question of priorities. Many people spend £30 a month on mobile phone calls or Sky (that's £360pa), or posh shoes, or hand over a wedge of cash to a barman on Saturday night without caring - but hit a wall when they see a lens that's more expensive than another, even if it gives better results. Funny old world!
I guess it's a question of priorities. Many people spend £30 a month on mobile phone calls or Sky (that's £360pa), or posh shoes, or hand over a wedge of cash to a barman on Saturday night without caring - but hit a wall when they see a lens that's more expensive than another, even if it gives better results. Funny old world!
If you're thinking of the £130 70-300 Sigma I can say that using it for action shots tends to have all kinds of focus issues. Whatever you were planning on taking a photo of has long gone once the damn thing focusses
I have the 70-300 Nikkor and it's a monster of a lens in terms of weight, the 55-200 AFS is much more compact but I've found it a bit soft. It is cheap though
I have the 70-300 Nikkor and it's a monster of a lens in terms of weight, the 55-200 AFS is much more compact but I've found it a bit soft. It is cheap though
andy-xr said:
If you're thinking of the £130 70-300 Sigma I can say that using it for action shots tends to have all kinds of focus issues. Whatever you were planning on taking a photo of has long gone once the damn thing focusses
I have the 70-300 Nikkor and it's a monster of a lens in terms of weight, the 55-200 AFS is much more compact but I've found it a bit soft. It is cheap though
That's useful to know - I take it you've had and tried one?I have the 70-300 Nikkor and it's a monster of a lens in terms of weight, the 55-200 AFS is much more compact but I've found it a bit soft. It is cheap though
I'm now not sure whether I want a 70-300 or a 55-200... My friend has a 70-300 and I loved it, but it is expensive...
andy-xr said:
If you're thinking of the £130 70-300 Sigma I can say that using it for action shots tends to have all kinds of focus issues. Whatever you were planning on taking a photo of has long gone once the damn thing focusses
Never had a problem with my old Sigma f/4-5.6 70-300mm APO II HSM Macro Super. Only just replaced it with a Tamron f/2.8 70-200mm as on my D300 the images (even with af tuning) are decidedly soft, some thing they were not on my D70 and D80.Edited by dapprman on Sunday 15th March 12:08
I tried the non APO version of the Sigma 70-300 (aboout £150 from Jessops) on my D40. Was really unimpressed - the focus motor was really loud and hunted alot. I also found the images very soft compared to my Nikon lenses. I thought it would be worth a try for the price but only kept it a couple of days. Maybe the more expensive Sigma lenses are better but I would give the budget lenses a miss.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff