Sigma lenses ?

[paulobao]

Hi,

I'm a newby so...

I saw at the Ken Rockwell site that he always says bad comments about Sigma Lenses. Is that true? Sigma lenses are that bad? How they compared with Nikon lenses?

Thanks,

paulo from portugal

 

[Bob G-man]

You can do a search of pbase by lens. (Search "by camera." The lens options appear.) Take a look at some pictures taken with the lens you are considering. I think it's a semi-decent way to assess what the lens is capable of, subject to web-pic limitations.

Bob

 

[Ronaldhogenboom]

It's true, Sigma lenses are cr*p and Ken Rockwell is God.

ahem

Sigma produces a great variety of lenses, from very cheap ones to pro grade ones. Some of them are rated vey highly, some of them are not. Lens tests may help, but the best way is to try lenses out for yourself.

I personally do not believe that you need original Nikon lenses and that third party lenses will work just as well. I have an array of Sigmas and Tokinas but I don't think the question what brand of lens I used will EVER be an issue for the people I work for.

A 'real' Nikon lens will not make your pictures better, it will only make you feel better that you have more expensive lenses with (slightly) better test results. A 70-200 Nikkor f2.8 may be better than a Sigma with the same specs, that I believe. Will it maken a real world difference? Probably not.

Today I sold a picture made with a cheap Sigma lens. It's a 40x60 enlargement of a cropped picture made at 1600ASA at a concert. Still people are thrilled by it. That's good enough for me.

Regards,

Ronald

http://www.lookupinwonder.nl

 

[yldan]

depends on which sigma you are looking at.

i recommend doing a search, or asking about a specific sigma lens in the nikon lens forum.

but overall, i think sigma makes good glass, and for me... i can't notice much of a difference. (i'm not using nikon pro glass though, but as a newby... you're probably not either)

while you're at it... do a search (in this forum) on ken rockwell. i think you'll find that there are ... um..... differing opinions on him.

hope this helps.

-Dan

 

[dumbo]

In many cases third party lenses is actually both cheaper and better than the corresponding Nikon lenses. Tamron 90/2.8 and Sigma 105/2.8 Mcarolenses are better than the Nikon 105/2.8 for example. The Sigma 70-200/2.8 is more or less on par with the Nikon 80-200/2.8, at a lower price. The Sigma 70-300/4-5.6 APO II is better than the Nikon 70-300's.

Then it also depens on what you mean by better. Is it better built? Is it sharper? Is the bokeh better? Is it faster focusing, etc etc?

Better can mean many things depending in your needsor preferences.

Hi,

I'm a newby so...
I saw at the Ken Rockwell site that he always says bad comments
about Sigma Lenses. Is that true? Sigma lenses are that bad? How
they compared with Nikon lenses?

Thanks,

paulo from portugal

 

[jeremyInMT]

I have a sigma 105/2.8 macro that is fast becoming my favorite for macro as well as shots of people.

--
D70 and photo discussion
D70 custom tone curves @ http://forum.mastersphoto.net

 

[ajones0000]

What I have found is that for every different zoom range, etc. there is typically a 'best' lens and it is not always Nikon. I have Tamron, Sigma, and Nikon lenses and my next purchase is probably going to be a Tokina. I believe it spreading the wealth.
--
http://www.pbase.com/ajones0000

 

[brn]

Ken is an excellent photographer with some good ideas, but you can't trust his equipment evaluations. Ken is infamous for publishing conclusions without bothering to even touch the equipment. Third party lenses are a very good example of that. Ken assumes they're all junk and doesn't bother to consider them. For something as subjective as optical quality, how can he draw such conclusions without taking the time to evaluate the lenses? In my opinion, it's irresponsible of him.

In many cases third party lenses are better than Nikkor. Read Ken if you enjoy him, but don't put much faith in his reviews.

Hi,

I'm a newby so...
I saw at the Ken Rockwell site that he always says bad comments
about Sigma Lenses. Is that true? Sigma lenses are that bad? How
they compared with Nikon lenses?

Thanks,

paulo from portugal

 

[Glenn Dortch]

This is one of those questions that requires the caveat "opinions are like bellybuttons . . . . . everybody has one".

You'll find just as many people who love 3rd party lenses as you do people who loathe them.

Personally, I prefer Nikon glass. BUT having said that, I have been very pleased with my Sigma 12-24 wide angle zoom. Sure, it can show some lens flare in bright sunlight and I'd prefer to have the ability to use screw-in front filters, but other than those two minor (IMHO) problems, I think it's a great lens and it was significantly (for my budget) cheaper than its Nikon counterpart.

As far as Ken Rockwell (or any other reviewer), you have to consider the source of the information and how much their own personal biases and usage needs influence their review. When I am researching a major purchase like a lens or camera body, I try to asborb as much information as possible and make my final decision based on that information, my understanding of the subject and my personal needs/wants/desires.

At the end of the day, you're the one who has to make the decision and plunk your hard earned money down at the cash register. If you buy something that you're not happy with, return it to the store (if possible) or sell it on eBay.

Here endeth my sermon.

Regards,
---
Glenn Dortch

'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'

http://www.pbase.com/glennd

 

[VinceV]

There is a lot of information on the Nikon SLR Lens forum as well.

 

[kdvsn]

How have you been able to conclude that for different type of lenses differnt brands are better or worse than the Nikons, by reading reviews?

 

[chilipalmer]

I wanted a good macro lens that didn't break the bank. I have to say that this is it The Sigma 50mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO...

Some examples (All shot handheld):
http://www.deviantart.com/view/17915277/
http://www.deviantart.com/view/18006590/
http://www.deviantart.com/view/18029511/
http://www.deviantart.com/view/17209387/
http://www.deviantart.com/view/17008266/

I plan to get more Sigma lenses, because for the money, they are really hard to beat

Hi,

I'm a newby so...
I saw at the Ken Rockwell site that he always says bad comments
about Sigma Lenses. Is that true? Sigma lenses are that bad? How
they compared with Nikon lenses?

Thanks,

paulo from portugal

--
Lewis
http://chilipalmer.deviantart.com/gallery/

 

[Wally OZ]

In many cases third party lenses are better than Nikkor. Read Ken
if you enjoy him, but don't put much faith in his reviews.

Hi,

I'm a newby so...
I saw at the Ken Rockwell site that he always says bad comments
about Sigma Lenses. Is that true? Sigma lenses are that bad? How
they compared with Nikon lenses?

Thanks,

paulo from portugal

 

[Mike Dantignac]

Not yet had any problems with my Sigma Lens, I have a 15-30mm and 50-500mm. Both are great lenses. They've produced sharp images, and from my personal evaluation have been better then or equal to Nikon quality. Atleast for me personally. Also they're a cheaper alternative! Just my $0.02 tho.
--
mike - http://dantignacphoto.com

 

[david70]

Everything is relative, and in this capitalist world we live in, to price. In the end, that may be the best gauge you have short of personal experience.
dpc
http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/showgallery.php?ppuser=2233

 

[Wally OZ]

In Australia Nikon lenses sell for 2X the USA price after you allow for exchange rates.

Sigma lenses sell for the same as USA prices or less!

Based on price alone the Nikon lenses must be 4X better than Sigma

Not kidding about the prices here.

http://www.maxwell.com.au/

Everything is relative, and in this capitalist world we live in, to
price. In the end, that may be the best gauge you have short of
personal experience.
dpc
http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/showgallery.php?ppuser=2233

 

[ghostrider25]

This is EXACTLY the same as when I was a kid and I insisited that my mom buy me Lucky Charms rather than Marshmellow Matey's. Afterall, Lucky Charms were better because they were name brand. It had nothing to do with the actual cereal contained in the box, despite what I would have told you.

It's the same story here. There are good and bad Sigmas AND Nikons. I know, blasphemy? It's true. I have no brand loyalty and I do not fear being crucified by "lens purists" (read lens snobs). Nikons sometimes are better than 3rd party and sometimes 3rd party is better than Nikon. If one lens is better than the other, I can admit it without taking the brand name into any account because the name on the lens contributes nothing to image quality.

I would be willing to bet anything that IF everyone's beloved Nikkor 17-55 said Sigma on it rather than Nikon, it would not be nearly so beloved. Everyone would be arguing that the 18-70 is way better because it's a Nikon and Nikon is better than Sigma, even a 2.8 Sigma.

I should modify my quote below to be something like, "Equipment doesn't take pictures... people do." In the end, cameras and lenses are tools that the biggest variable in the equation (the photographer) uses to create the image.

--
-Mike
http://www.pbase.com/ghostrider25

'Cameras don't take pictures... people do.'

 

[Frits Thomsen]

is the most egocentric j.rk on the internet...and that says a lot.

He makes his "reviews" based on hearsay, he have never actually seen many of the things he reviews ...and he readily admits that.

The fact is, some Sigma lenses are good for the money , some are not, and some are just plain good...

And yes, I am a Sigma - user.... sorry for intruding...
Frits Thomsen
See my pictures at
http://www.pbase.com/yoicz

 

[Adam-T]

Ken is an excellent source of Nikon LENS** Reviews and has discovered some real Gems like the 28-80 F3.5-5.6D and 70-210 F4-5.6 but his camera reviews , Platform debates and stance on Sigma lenses are the work of pure fantasy ..

The old Sigma 24mm F2.8 "Superwide-II" is sharper and more even across the frame wide open than the overpriced Nikon or Canon equivalents and is better made being from all metal - the 300F4 HSM APO Macro / 400 F5.6 APO Macro HSM are knockout lenses and are better built than the Canon L / Nikon ED equivalents but just as sharp.. there are other old Sigmas which are as good as these three and there are total Dogs also - but remember that canon and Nikon have Doggy lenses too, try a Canon 75-300-III, 100-300 F4.5-5.6 USM or a 20mm F2.8 USM wide open for instance - I'm sure that many who have had a bad copy of the 24-120VR, 28-200 D (not G) or a misfocussing 28-105 would agree too..

The lenses which Ken seems to pick on are the fast aperture midrange zooms and maybe he's suffered Sigma's poor QC , but I've seen poor copies of the 28-70 F2.8 AFS or Canon 24-70L and Excellent copies of the Sig 28-70 F2.8 EX-DF but wouldn't go posting on a website to avoid Canon and Nikon 24/28-xx Pro lenses and to only buy Sigmas.

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

 

[BellaDonna]

Hi,

I'm a newby so...
I saw at the Ken Rockwell site that he always says bad comments
about Sigma Lenses. Is that true? Sigma lenses are that bad? How
they compared with Nikon lenses?

Thanks,

paulo from portugal

--
Donna Bella

Please this thread from Nikon Discussion:
---------------------------------------------------------

How to get a lot of free publicity (Sigma)
BJN - 20 hours ago

Sigma marketing is pretty clever. They "discontinue" their existing lens lineup except for a handful of recent lenses, then put a new coating on exactly the same lenses (okay, they also changed the rubber grip) and then introduce them as new digital-ready lenses. Then they dribble out the retread lens product announcements to extend the visibility. Prepare yourself for a long, boring run of Sigma lens announcements. Just remember, same lens - different coating.
--
BJN

Is this really true ?

Donna

lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll