why buy Nikkor, Sigma is as good?

I am in trouble with choosing. My Nikkor 70-300 is focusing to slow, I want a better one with Micro feature. I do have 80-200/208 AFS.
Here are the candidates:
Nikkor; 70-180/4.5-5.6 ED D MIcro $999.00
Sigma for Nikon 73-300/4-5.6 macro super $199.00
Tamron 70-300/4-5.6LD no mention of MIcro $199.00

Some people claim that there isn't much if any difference in optic quality from one brand(Nikon) to another ( Sigma...) because of modern computeried technology of making lenses. Why pay more just for the name?
I don't have the option of testing all I want to chose from.
I would appreciate a good advice to clear this problem.
Robert--nugeny

You know the old saying you get what you pay for, well it is still true. However, most of us are on budgets and we need to way the pros vs. cons. on any purchase with that I would recommend looking at the Tamron AF28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 LD Aspherical (IF) Macro for the same price with rebate.

Bill

nugeny said:

I am in trouble with choosing. My Nikkor 70-300 is focusing to
slow, I want a better one with Micro feature. I do have 80-200/208
AFS.
Here are the candidates:
Nikkor; 70-180/4.5-5.6 ED D MIcro $999.00
Sigma for Nikon 73-300/4-5.6 macro super $199.00
Tamron 70-300/4-5.6LD no mention of MIcro $199.00
Some people claim that there isn't much if any difference in optic
quality from one brand(Nikon) to another ( Sigma...) because of
modern computeried technology of making lenses. Why pay more just
for the name?
I don't have the option of testing all I want to chose from.
I would appreciate a good advice to clear this problem.
Robert
--
nugeny

Click to expand...

I'd like to think they are close to as good, I am getting ready to get the Sigma 500/4.5 for my D-1x. While this won't be a lens that I would use professionally, I want it for bird shots, and I have been told that it is a good, sharp lens, with quick AF, and it's about half the price of the Nikon. If anyone has any BAD reports on this one, please jump in. Happy Holidays
Mike D

You may want to look at the Nikkor 70-300 AF D ED version. It'll cost you around $350. The AF is acceptably fast with this lens.

If you think the Nikkor has slow AF try the Sigma 73-300/4-5.6 macro super ($200.) The Images from this lens also lack some sharpness and contrast compared to the Nikkor, IMO.

You really do get what you pay for - though I agree the Nikkors are overpriced - they are much better than and 3rd party consumer-based lens.

I use a Tamron 20-40mm on my D1x and it gives me nice sharp images. The Tamron 28-300 is a dog to AF and is very slow. Also, because of it's size, the zoom is not smooth at all. It "catches" a bit in certain areas in the middle and near the long and wide focal length when turning the zoom ring. I looked at this lens seriously for a while. When I had the opportunity to try it - it was very dissapointing.

Hope this helps.

--Regards,Joe H.

Nugeny, you are listing a very special Nikkor zoom along with two very average consumer zoom lenses. These are not even in the same class, and I'll tell you why:

The Nikkor is designed primarily as a Macro lens -- not a "macro" zoom that may achieve 1:4 or so. This lens will maintain a fairly flat field at 1:1.3 and allow you to vary the magnification by using the zoom and keeping the subject in focus with the lens in a fixed position. It also acts as a quite good daylight short-to-medium-tele zoom. It is really spectacular when stopped down to f/8-f/11, but otherwise it is just very, very good. Even wide open the performance of this zoom is far better than a low-end consumer zoom, with excellent contrast and detail retrieval. My standards for a lens at wider apertures is too high to allow me to select this lens for a field lens, as it is really best used for closeup work (which is what it was designed for), and at distance it requires stopping down to f/8-f/11 before it reaches my standards. Don't get me wrong -- it's a great lens, but it's a lens primarily designed for closeup to extreme-closeup work, with a sideline as a landscape lens or general-purpose zoom.

The other two lenses are pedestrian, do-it-all tele-zooms with ho-hum optics that really don't do anything very well.

Considering that you have a Nikkor 80-200 AFS, are you looking for a lightweight medium tele-zoom, or do you have a special need? Are you sure that a prime wouldn't be the best addition to your stable since you already have a medium length zoom? If what you want is a closeup lens, you might consider getting a 105 Micro.

Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com

nugeny said:

I am in trouble with choosing. My Nikkor 70-300 is focusing to
slow, I want a better one with Micro feature. I do have 80-200/208
AFS.
Here are the candidates:
Nikkor; 70-180/4.5-5.6 ED D MIcro $999.00
Sigma for Nikon 73-300/4-5.6 macro super $199.00
Tamron 70-300/4-5.6LD no mention of MIcro $199.00
Some people claim that there isn't much if any difference in optic
quality from one brand(Nikon) to another ( Sigma...) because of
modern computeried technology of making lenses. Why pay more just
for the name?
I don't have the option of testing all I want to chose from.
I would appreciate a good advice to clear this problem.
Robert
--
nugeny

Click to expand...

--Ron Reznick http://digital-images.nethttp://trapagon.com

Besides the 90mm Macro lens, the 20-40mm zoom is the best lens they make, and your results are expected. Other Tamrons are, in my opinion, not worth putting on a good camera except when you have no choice.

Guess I'm a bit of a lens-snob [sigh].

Ron

Joe Hoddinott said:

You may want to look at the Nikkor 70-300 AF D ED version. It'll
cost you around $350. The AF is acceptably fast with this lens.

If you think the Nikkor has slow AF try the Sigma 73-300/4-5.6
macro super ($200.) The Images from this lens also lack some
sharpness and contrast compared to the Nikkor, IMO.

You really do get what you pay for - though I agree the Nikkors are
overpriced - they are much better than and 3rd party consumer-based
lens.

I use a Tamron 20-40mm on my D1x and it gives me nice sharp images.
The Tamron 28-300 is a dog to AF and is very slow. Also, because
of it's size, the zoom is not smooth at all. It "catches" a bit in
certain areas in the middle and near the long and wide focal length
when turning the zoom ring. I looked at this lens seriously for a
while. When I had the opportunity to try it - it was very
dissapointing.

Hope this helps.

--
Regards,
Joe H.

Click to expand...

--Ron Reznick http://digital-images.nethttp://trapagon.com

Hello Everybody,

Joe is right you get what you pay for, personally speaking I would never photograph with a Sigma lens. If you speak to those in the know in the photographic trade and they speak honestly to you not trying to sell you something.

They will tell you to go with Nikkors and avoid the third party lenses. Those lenses are cheaper because the manufacturer's cut corners inside where you can't see.

Inside Nikkor's the quality is the same as on the outside. Going to Sigma or Tamron lenses etc, is really false economy. It's like going to "No Name" products in grocery shopping, if you have ever tried it you will know they are never as good as the brand name products.

The reason is the manufacturer must cut corners somewhere to keep the price lower. So that's what you get with Sigma lenses, lower prices and lower standards in contrast, accurate colour transmission, and cheap plastic mounts holding the optics in place.

Do you really want to put that quality of lens on your incrediable digital D1x body. The lens is THE most important part on any camera, why abuse that knowledge. ; )

Stephen

-- http://www.livick.com

Stephen,

For work related lenses, most of this is good info, but I can say from experience that even the Nikon lenses have their flawsfrom corner cutting, a good example of this is the new 300/4 AFs lens. Take a look inside the tripod collar, the design sux. Metal screw heads rotating inside a metal track, mine got constant use for a couple of months and was shot, same setup on the 80/400. I agree that the glass is top rate, but I guess everyone is tempted to save $$ when they can in the production process. BTW, it's been 4 months and I'm still waiting for Nikon to replace the collar assembly. Happy Holidays all
Mike D

Once again, its a pro and con issue. There is quailty with Tamron and Sigma, but what are you needing the lens for ? To make money ? Personal use ? If you cant afford a Nikon lens now buy what you can get away with and upgrade later. If Nikon made a 28-105 lens at f/2.8 I would have purchased it so I get the Tamron. Buy the tools you need for the job that you can afford now ! Upgrade later !

Bill

Like you, I cannot afford to test every lens to select the best, so I have to rely on opinion from a variety of sources. I ran across a similar discussion on the Canon forum for lenses in the 17-35mm range. One poster ran some tests and posted the results between the canon and Sigma. The canon blew the Sigma away in sharpness and contrast. But if your budget dictates, then maybe the Sigma is good enough for the photography you feel is important. If you are a pro or well-healed amature you can probably expense the higher cost lens over time.

I use a Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX APO etc. For me it works fine and provides some decent reach even with a teleconverter that I would otherwise not be able to afford in the Nikon Nikor line. Would a 500mm Nikon be better. Sure, but not on my budget unless I made my living using this lens (keeping my day job). Most folks on this forum wouldn't be caught dead with this bazzoka like lens in their bag. For me it does the job and it is a fun lens to boot.

Regards,
Trent

nugeny said:

I am in trouble with choosing. My Nikkor 70-300 is focusing to
slow, I want a better one with Micro feature. I do have 80-200/208
AFS.
Here are the candidates:
Nikkor; 70-180/4.5-5.6 ED D MIcro $999.00
Sigma for Nikon 73-300/4-5.6 macro super $199.00
Tamron 70-300/4-5.6LD no mention of MIcro $199.00
Some people claim that there isn't much if any difference in optic
quality from one brand(Nikon) to another ( Sigma...) because of
modern computeried technology of making lenses. Why pay more just
for the name?
I don't have the option of testing all I want to chose from.
I would appreciate a good advice to clear this problem.
Robert
--
nugeny

Click to expand...

Bill,

As originally stated,NOT FOR PROFESSIONAL USE, that was the point! If it isn't a lens that I would use in my business, I would consider it as recreational, therefore, paying twice as much,(Nikon 500/4 Vs. the Sigma version) would not make sense. My 300/2.8's are a different matter, and they have always been the Nikon or Canon issue, again, daily use comes into play there. Would I put Russian lens's on my Blad, nope, see what I mean.
Happy Holidays
Mike D
(BTW, a side by side comparrison between these two might be a surprise)

Sorry, I wanted to include this link, some may find it worthwhile reading.
http://www.naturephotographers.net/sigma500.html
Mike D

Stephen,

I wanted to get your opinion on the Nikon 28-70 2.8AF-S.. It is worth the money? I do mostly close portrait/fashion style photography. I need the zoom feature. I mostly use studio flash but I like the depth of field options this 2.8 will give...

thanks in advance.

Stephen Livick said:

Hello Everybody,

Joe is right you get what you pay for, personally speaking I would
never photograph with a Sigma lens. If you speak to those in the
know in the photographic trade and they speak honestly to you not
trying to sell you something.

They will tell you to go with Nikkors and avoid the third party
lenses. Those lenses are cheaper because the manufacturer's cut
corners inside where you can't see.

Inside Nikkor's the quality is the same as on the outside. Going to
Sigma or Tamron lenses etc, is really false economy. It's like
going to "No Name" products in grocery shopping, if you have ever
tried it you will know they are never as good as the brand name
products.

The reason is the manufacturer must cut corners somewhere to keep
the price lower. So that's what you get with Sigma lenses, lower
prices and lower standards in contrast, accurate colour
transmission, and cheap plastic mounts holding the optics in place.

Do you really want to put that quality of lens on your incrediable
digital D1x body. The lens is THE most important part on any
camera, why abuse that knowledge. ; )

Stephen

--
http://www.livick.com

Click to expand...

--Frank B

Mike,

I have the Sigma 800/5.6 coming on Friday. If you are interested I will let you know the skinny after I use it a day or two. Currently I am using a Nikon 600 with a 1.4 welded onto it a lot of the time so I can make a good comparison.

Ken
http://www.clymbers.com

Mike Delaney said:

I'd like to think they are close to as good, I am getting ready to
get the Sigma 500/4.5 for my D-1x. While this won't be a lens that
I would use professionally, I want it for bird shots, and I have
been told that it is a good, sharp lens, with quick AF, and it's
about half the price of the Nikon. If anyone has any BAD reports
on this one, please jump in. Happy Holidays
Mike D

Click to expand...

Frank, I don't mean to speak for Stephen, but if what you are going to do with the lens is primarily from 10-12 feet in, there is simply no better medium-range zoom lens, and very few primes that come close. Where the 28-70 AFS falls down a bit is in the longer-distance shots, and that is only in comparison to the extreme quality it exhibits under 10-12 feet or in comparison to a top-grade lens that was designed for distance-work.

As long as the focal length is right for you, for close work it is a great choice. Do remember that it requires stopping down to f/5.6 or so for best results though -- if you are meaning to shoot in fairly low light or need to shoot wide open for other reasons, you'd be better off with the 85mm f/1.4D.

Ron

Frank Benvenuto said:

Stephen,

I wanted to get your opinion on the Nikon 28-70 2.8AF-S.. It is
worth the money? I do mostly close portrait/fashion style
photography. I need the zoom feature. I mostly use studio flash but
I like the depth of field options this 2.8 will give...

thanks in advance.
--Ron Reznick http://digital-images.nethttp://trapagon.com

Click to expand...

Ken McVay said:

Mike,

I have the Sigma 800/5.6 coming on Friday. If you are interested I
will let you know the skinny after I use it a day or two. Currently
I am using a Nikon 600 with a 1.4 welded onto it a lot of the time
so I can make a good comparison.

Ken
http://www.clymbers.com
Ken,

Click to expand...

I also am waiting to hear your finding about the new Sigma 800mm.

Just a question: why do you buy a Sigma 800mm when you already own a Nikkor 600mm?????
Bob

Ken McVay said:

Mike Delaney said:

I'd like to think they are close to as good, I am getting ready to
get the Sigma 500/4.5 for my D-1x. While this won't be a lens that
I would use professionally, I want it for bird shots, and I have
been told that it is a good, sharp lens, with quick AF, and it's
about half the price of the Nikon. If anyone has any BAD reports
on this one, please jump in. Happy Holidays
Mike D

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--nugeny

Ron Reznick said:

The Nikkor is designed primarily as a Macro lens -- not a "macro"
zoom that may achieve 1:4 or so. This lens will maintain a fairly
flat field at 1:1.3 and allow you to vary the magnification by
using the zoom and keeping the subject in focus with the lens in a
fixed position. It also acts as a quite good daylight
short-to-medium-tele zoom. It is really spectacular when stopped
down to f/8-f/11, but otherwise it is just very, very good. Even
wide open the performance of this zoom is far better than a low-end
consumer zoom, with excellent contrast and detail retrieval. My
standards for a lens at wider apertures is too high to allow me to
select this lens for a field lens, as it is really best used for
closeup work (which is what it was designed for), and at distance
it requires stopping down to f/8-f/11 before it reaches my
standards. Don't get me wrong -- it's a great lens, but it's a lens
primarily designed for closeup to extreme-closeup work, with a
sideline as a landscape lens or general-purpose zoom.

The other two lenses are pedestrian, do-it-all tele-zooms with
ho-hum optics that really don't do anything very well.

Considering that you have a Nikkor 80-200 AFS, are you looking for
a lightweight medium tele-zoom, or do you have a special need? Are
you sure that a prime wouldn't be the best addition to your stable
since you already have a medium length zoom? If what you want is a
closeup lens, you might consider getting a 105 Micro.

Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com

nugeny said:

I am in trouble with choosing. My Nikkor 70-300 is focusing to
slow, I want a better one with Micro feature. I do have 80-200/208
AFS.
Here are the candidates:
Nikkor; 70-180/4.5-5.6 ED D MIcro $999.00
Sigma for Nikon 73-300/4-5.6 macro super $199.00
Tamron 70-300/4-5.6LD no mention of MIcro $199.00
Some people claim that there isn't much if any difference in optic
quality from one brand(Nikon) to another ( Sigma...) because of
modern computeried technology of making lenses. Why pay more just
for the name?
I don't have the option of testing all I want to chose from.
I would appreciate a good advice to clear this problem.
Robert
--
nugeny

Click to expand...

--Ron,

Click to expand...

I sure appreciate your in depth analysis. My 70-300 is slow, I guess because I unfairly compare it with the 80-200/2.8 AFS. I think I will give the 105 micro a serious consideration. I just like the versality, the range and the light weight of the 70-300mm.
bob

Member said:

Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com

Click to expand...

--nugeny

Joe Hoddinott said:

You may want to look at the Nikkor 70-300 AF D ED version. It'll
cost you around $350. The AF is acceptably fast with this lens.

If you think the Nikkor has slow AF try the Sigma 73-300/4-5.6
macro super ($200.) The Images from this lens also lack some
sharpness and contrast compared to the Nikkor, IMO.

You really do get what you pay for - though I agree the Nikkors are
overpriced - they are much better than and 3rd party consumer-based
lens.

I use a Tamron 20-40mm on my D1x and it gives me nice sharp images.
The Tamron 28-300 is a dog to AF and is very slow. Also, because
of it's size, the zoom is not smooth at all. It "catches" a bit in
certain areas in the middle and near the long and wide focal length
when turning the zoom ring. I looked at this lens seriously for a
while. When I had the opportunity to try it - it was very
dissapointing.

Hope this helps.

--
Regards,
Joe H.

Click to expand...

Joe

You mean 70-300mm ED? that is what I have for about 2 years. 2 possibilities: either some thing is wrong with my 70-300 or I compare it unfairly with the new 80-200/2.8 AFS I got 5 months back.

again you meant 70-300 ED or 70-300 D ED. I think I do have the newest incarnation.
Bob --nugeny

Really for a couple of reasons. 1) My 600 is a MF lens and I want to upgrade to a AF-S type of lens. 2) I seem to use the lens a great deal with the 1.4x attached and it is my belief that the 800 without TC will yield sharper images then the 600 with TC.

I could very well have purchased a new 600 AF-S II for a bit more money but I believe I would rather have the extra reach the 800 gives as I photograph a lot of small birds.

I have had my hands on the sigma 500/4.5 and it is a fine piece of equipment and sharp as a razor. I don't think anyone could tell the difference in images produce by it and the Nikon counterpart.

I believe the 800 to be just a good as the 500 and if it is not I am going to be in a major pissed off mood because it took me a while to scrape the money together after the D1X purchase.

ken
http://www.clymbers.com

baruth said:

baruth said:

Ken,

Click to expand...

I also am waiting to hear your finding about the new Sigma 800mm.
Just a question: why do you buy a Sigma 800mm when you already own
a Nikkor 600mm?????
Bob

--
nugeny

Click to expand...

Hi there Ron. I have enjoyed reading your posts here in the forum so I thank you for talking my question.

I have done some research on this lens and from what I have read it seems to be perfect for my material and shooting style. I ordered one and can't wait till it arrives. I have been using the Nikon 24-120 3.5-4.5 on my F5 up till now. When I sold my F5 that lens went with it. Would you say that I will have a very noticable difference in my photos when I use the 28-70? or will the improvement be a subtle one? Remember, I am mostly using studio flash lighting..

Thanks again Ron

Ron Reznick said:

As long as the focal length is right for you, for close work it is
a great choice. Do remember that it requires stopping down to f/5.6
or so for best results though -- if you are meaning to shoot in
fairly low light or need to shoot wide open for other reasons,
you'd be better off with the 85mm f/1.4D.

Ron

Frank Benvenuto said:

Stephen,

I wanted to get your opinion on the Nikon 28-70 2.8AF-S.. It is
worth the money? I do mostly close portrait/fashion style
photography. I need the zoom feature. I mostly use studio flash but
I like the depth of field options this 2.8 will give...

thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com

Click to expand...

--Frank B