« can someone tell me the names of all the lenses for canon slr camera and what are they for?
Will Nikon Film SLR lenses be usable to Nikon Digital SLR cameras? I want to confirm because I heard they do.? »
Nikon vs. Sigma for SLR lenses, is it worth paying twice as much for nikon? July 3, 2009 | 11:54 pm

Alex

I need to get a 105 mm macro, the nikon is twice as much as the sigma. Is it worth it to pay twice as much?? It will be on a D90 body.

I also have an 18-200 mm Vr, i'm thinking of replacing that eventually with a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 18-55 f/2.8. Once again the sigma ones are half the price of nikon.

So my main question is do I really have to pay twice as much to get the results I want? What really is the difference between say a 70-200 mm f/1.8 from nikon and sigma that makes the nikon 700 dollars more, that's a big amount.

I guess my other question is it worth it to replace the 18-200 mm VR with 2 lenses that are f/2.8 and cover the same range and pay a whole lot more instead of just keeping the 18-200 VR?


Tags: , ,

This entry was filed under sigma slr lense. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

5 Responses to “Nikon vs. Sigma for SLR lenses, is it worth paying twice as much for nikon?”

  1. Shorty Says:
    July 3rd, 2009 at 11:55 pm

    Yes and no. Third party lenses are much, much cheaper than Nikon’s equivalents, but in nearly all of the cases, will not perform as well. It’s a tiny difference that will probably be seen only when shooting test charts in labs, but that tiny difference is enough for a professional to opt for the more expensive lens. For the amateur though, I can safely say that you should try out both versions, and see for yourself which one you prefer.

    Some people like a do-it-all lenses that covers a huge range from wide angle to telephoto. They are willing to sacrifice a little in image quality and low light performance for the versatility they get in return. If you have the money, I say go for it.

    But consider this, a "fast" f/2.8 is nothing compared to a f1.4 prime lenses. Although you lacks the ability the zoom, you gain a lot more in shutter speed (4 times faster), superior sharpness, and less distortion than zooms. Not to mention they cost a lot less than a fast zoom. Just some money-saving suggestions.

  2. Tim Says:
    July 3rd, 2009 at 11:55 pm

    Lenses are more important than the camera itself. Spend the extra dough for the Nikon f/2.8 lenses. I’m in the process of upgrading my lenses now. The first one I have bought it the 80-200 f/2.8…awesome lens!

  3. dankman Says:
    July 3rd, 2009 at 11:55 pm

    Are you ever going to upgrade your camera body? If so then I’d spend the extra money on the lenses. Sigma makes some nice lenses but they aren’t nearly as nice as any Nikon ED lens.

  4. Caoedhen Says:
    July 3rd, 2009 at 11:55 pm

    The Sigma 105 Macro is a perfectly good lens. So is the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. The Nikon 70-200 is a VR lens, and also AF-S. So it is stabilized, and focuses VERY fast. If you don’t require those two things, then the Sigma will work for you.

    At the shorter end, neither the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 nor the Nikkor 17-55DX f/2.8 are stabilized. I’d also look at the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 in this range. Any of the three will work just fine.

    Although the 18-200 VR would seem to be a damn-near-perfect lens on paper, the execution didn’t turn out so well. You can’t beat the range, no argument, but image quality is not what was expected, and it is generally regarded as a mediocre lens. Replacing it with 2 faster lenses can only be a good thing, even if those lenses don’t say Nikon on them.

  5. George Y Says:
    July 3rd, 2009 at 11:55 pm

    A friend of mine (a very GOOD friend) loaned me his Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8. Trust me, I handled it with extra, extra care during the week I used it. The images it gave me sold me on the need to move up to a faster lens for the sports I was shooting (college football and basketball).

    But the pinch of the price kept me from getting the same lens and I jumped on a gently used older non-macro Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. The results? I love the action photos that it allowed me to capture. In truth, they probably weren’t as sharp as the Nikon, but if I was waiting to buy the Nikon, those photos wouldn’t have been captured. I’d still be using my older, slower lenses while saving my pennies.

    Sigma makes both cheap, and excellent lenses. Their top-of-the-line optics are truly impressive, and I plan to add more to my camera bag.

    Here’s a couple of side-by-side comparisons for you.

    Sigma
    http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_70-200_2p8_n15/
    http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=318&sort=7&cat=37&page=3

    Nikon
    http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vr_n15/
    http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=113&sort=7&cat=28&page=2

    And here’s a pretty heated discussion on the two lenses.
    http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00D180

    Just a thought: If you get the 18-55mm 2.8, you’d lose the 55-70mm range.

Leave a Reply