Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
12/6/2019 7:27:02 PM
Posted: 6/6/2011 7:28:19 PM EST
Should I stick with Nikkor lenses or will Sigma lenses give me the same image quality? I know Nikkor lenses are more expensive but is the IQ better than Sigmas?
Link Posted: 6/6/2011 7:56:40 PM EST
I have a couple of Sigma's and have been very pleased with their image quality.
Link Posted: 6/6/2011 8:01:42 PM EST
Depends on the lens. Some of the third party manufacturers' lenses are better in some ways (in addition to price) but worse in other ways. Check reviews of the type lens your looking at purchasing, and compare the pros and cons of Nikkor vs. Sigma/Tokina/etc.
Link Posted: 6/6/2011 8:07:32 PM EST
I have heard that the image quality is close, but that the focus is a bit slower etc. So it could also depend on what your intending to do with the lens, and what aspects will be most important to you.

I don't have any personal experience with sigma lenses, but I weighed the same choices and ended up going with a used nikkor.
Link Posted: 6/6/2011 8:14:36 PM EST
Thank you posters for your comments. I am looking at getting the following lenses funds permitting in the following order: 70-300mm, 24-70mm, and 70-200mm.

I like to take photographs of wildlife and landscapes. I would like to start taking photographs of sports as well. I will read reviews of the lenses from various manufacturers and find out which lenses are the best bang for the buck.
Link Posted: 6/6/2011 8:16:55 PM EST
Why 70-300 and 70-200?

Get a fast 70-200 and a teleconverter.

Link Posted: 6/6/2011 8:17:12 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/6/2011 8:18:27 PM EST by slappomatt]
I used to have a Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX DG and it was a pretty good lens. IQ was very decent. I was using it with a D50. I sold the D50 and bought a D80. Focus was a tiny bit off but still pretty good. I sold the D80 and got a D200. would not focus correctly even with focus adjustments. Very inconsistent. Also the rubber coating they coat all their higher end lens tents to rub off and looks cheesy. I now stick with Nikon lens or if I want a cheaper alternative I go with Tokina. My Tokina 12-24 F4 is my most used lens by far and I love it!

ETA I also had the 2.0 TC and it worked great on the D50 and not so great on all the other bodies....
Link Posted: 6/6/2011 8:37:29 PM EST
Originally Posted By Zack3g:
Why 70-300 and 70-200?

Get a fast 70-200 and a teleconverter.



+ 1,000...
Link Posted: 6/6/2011 11:57:36 PM EST
If I were you I would see if there is any place locally to you that you could rent lenses from and try them out before you buy them. I have a place where I live that rents lenses by the day, so if there is a particular lens that I am thinking about getting I see if they have it and rent it for a weekend and go put it through its paces and see if its going to function for what I need. I love to shoot waterfowl and I am thinking about getting a prime lens for that. I am also looking at a 12-24 for wide angle stuff.
Link Posted: 6/7/2011 5:13:02 AM EST
I've heard that QC is a little off with the sigmas. Mostly you get good ones but sometimes a so-so copy that you need to send back.

I shoot sports for a guy that uses a sigma 70-200 f2.8. In direct side by side comparisons vs my nikon 70-200 vr1 his sigma has to be stopped down to 3.2-3.5 for comparable sharpness and it focuses distinctly slower. On the other hand it was less than 2/3 the price new. And on yet another hand I can sell my vr1 for almost what I paid for it after the prices went nuts with the Japanese crises.

I concur with going 70-200 f2.8 and a TC though. Most of the 70-300's generally get poor reviews once they get past maybe 250 mm.

Really depends on what you plan on doing. For serious sports a slow focusing lens will cost you shots. Likewise for indoor sports you'll want every fraction of f-stop you can get shooting in some gyms. Good luck with your choice.

I will say this though. I hurt paying $1800 for that vr1 but it's been worth every penny when it snaps into focus on a quick volleyball serve and the image is so sharp I can literally count the kids eyelashes in the pic.
Link Posted: 6/7/2011 5:19:29 AM EST
Originally Posted By Elduke:
Should I stick with Nikkor lenses or will Sigma lenses give me the same image quality? I know Nikkor lenses are more expensive but is the IQ better than Sigmas?


Come on. You know the answer to that question.
Link Posted: 6/7/2011 5:47:44 PM EST
Cost less yes, IQ less as well. Build quality less, QC can be hit or miss. They do have some great lenses though, I have their 10-20mm and it's pretty nifty.
Link Posted: 6/8/2011 12:17:58 AM EST
Originally Posted By Zack3g:
Why 70-300 and 70-200?

Get a fast 70-200 and a teleconverter.

Two different lenses for two different purposes. Don't let the overlap in focal length fool you. The 70-200mm is a large, heavy, pro IQ lens; great for photo vacations. The 70-300mm is a consumer-level, travel-light lens (great for family vacations).
Link Posted: 6/8/2011 6:41:51 PM EST
Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Depends on the lens. Some of the third party manufacturers' lenses are better in some ways (in addition to price) but worse in other ways. Check reviews of the type lens your looking at purchasing, and compare the pros and cons of Nikkor vs. Sigma/Tokina/etc.


This.
My Sigma 10-20 is a great landscape lens.
My 24-70 Nikkor is fantastic.
Link Posted: 6/8/2011 7:03:44 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/8/2011 7:04:27 PM EST by Koi]
I got a Sigma 18-50 2/8 and the new 85 1/4 prime. The 18-50 gives me no reason to look elsewhere. The 85 prime is right up there with the Nikon for way less money. Now the problem with sigma is I think you got more of a chance of getting a bad version off the shelf. Other than that Sigma is well worth what you get.
Link Posted: 6/9/2011 4:53:57 PM EST
Originally Posted By Koi:
I got a Sigma 18-50 2/8 and the new 85 1/4 prime. The 85 prime is right up there with the Nikon for way less money.


That is quite a statement.
Link Posted: 6/10/2011 10:56:52 PM EST
The only advantage that the current batches of Nikkor lenses have over the 3rd party lenses is weather sealing IMO. Focus speed and sharpness are almost on par in general.

Read reviews from multiple sources on the particular lens that you plan to buy
Link Posted: 6/12/2011 5:48:14 AM EST
Thank you for the advice I will look for a local camera store that will allow me to rent lenses so I can check out the image quality from Nikon and Sigma. I will also look for reviews of the lenses as well to make an informative purchase.
Link Posted: 6/13/2011 2:47:34 PM EST
Depends on the lens . Can't make a blanket statement that Nikon "better" IQ than Sigma and other third party

Generally speaking the Nikon pro zooms such as the 70-200 VRII etc would be preferred over the Sigma 70-200. The cost of the Sigma 70-200 OS is $1500 + , so you might as well splurge and get the Nikon

Another example, the Nikon 24-70 2.8 is a killer lens over the Sigma 24-70 2.8 . Problem is the Nikon is over $1000 more ! Do I think its twice the lens...No . All boils down to how much you want to spend

I find the consumer level Nikon and the Sigma zooms pretty comparable for their intended purpose

Where Sigma I think holds their own is the 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 and 150 Macro . I am a Nikon snob, and I chose the Sigma 50 1.4 over the Nikon 50 1.4

For crop sensor DX , the UWA from Tokina are outstanding and I prefer those over the Nikon offering

I would suggest that you should pick up used , older generation Nikon pro level lenses if you want Nikon

For example, the 35-70 2.8, 28-70 2.8s etc .

Lastly, some of these differences are very subtle, so unless you are shooting RAW and playing with file in PP, you are splitting hairs

What do you have for a body ?
Link Posted: 6/13/2011 6:52:13 PM EST
Originally Posted By trg42:
Depends on the lens . Can't make a blanket statement that Nikon "better" IQ than Sigma and other third party

Generally speaking the Nikon pro zooms such as the 70-200 VRII etc would be preferred over the Sigma 70-200. The cost of the Sigma 70-200 OS is $1500 + , so you might as well splurge and get the Nikon

Another example, the Nikon 24-70 2.8 is a killer lens over the Sigma 24-70 2.8 . Problem is the Nikon is over $1000 more ! Do I think its twice the lens...No . All boils down to how much you want to spend

I find the consumer level Nikon and the Sigma zooms pretty comparable for their intended purpose

Where Sigma I think holds their own is the 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 and 150 Macro . I am a Nikon snob, and I chose the Sigma 50 1.4 over the Nikon 50 1.4

For crop sensor DX , the UWA from Tokina are outstanding and I prefer those over the Nikon offering

I would suggest that you should pick up used , older generation Nikon pro level lenses if you want Nikon

For example, the 35-70 2.8, 28-70 2.8s etc .

Lastly, some of these differences are very subtle, so unless you are shooting RAW and playing with file in PP, you are splitting hairs

What do you have for a body ?


I am currently using the D7000 from Nikon.
Link Posted: 6/14/2011 7:17:28 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/14/2011 7:18:03 AM EST by Koi]
Another thing is you can do is auto focus fine tune any lens if your camera body is capable of it. You have a slight adjustment you can make for each of your lenses. Some need it and some don't.
Link Posted: 6/14/2011 1:57:09 PM EST
Excellent body...my main body is D700...its amazing how well the D7000 keeps up even hi ISO with the D700

Since you have a new DX and probably won't be stepping up to FX any time soon, you should save up for the following

The 24-70 2.8 will miss most of the wide angle which is very handy for travel , landscape etc so its not the best choice. I used one for years on D300 ( DX ) and it was not ideal

This is why the go to pro DX mid range is the Nikkor 17-55 2.8 ( 17X1.5 = 25 , 55X1.5 = 82 ...which is why its a DX mid range zoom )

This is a must for any serious DX shooter. You won't miss the range between 55 and 70

The other one is the Tokina 11-16 2.8 ...very highly regarded even over the Nikon 10-24 . Awesome lens

Lastly for killer fast zoom the 70-200 2.8VR1...you can find a VR1 fairly reasonable and on DX its a great lense ( VRII version better for FX ). Easy to find since so many guys are dumping the VR1 for the VRII . The Sigma 70-200 is a good lens but you will miss the VR / OS . The OS version of the Sigma is too pricy for what you are getting. Might as well buy the Nikkor

For a travel lens you can't beat the Nikon 18-200 VRII . Great lens

For specialty portrait etc the 50 1.4 from Sigma is a good choice but bit bulky on D7000 body . This lens is significantly larger than the Nikon 50 1.4
Link Posted: 6/19/2011 4:58:03 PM EST
I know the 70-300 is not a great as the 70-200 but will it sufficient to use in a baseball game since the ballpark is well lit in the evening?
Link Posted: 6/19/2011 8:47:41 PM EST
You can give the 70-300mm a try (rent it first?), but you will probably find that the field is not as well lit as you think.
Link Posted: 6/20/2011 3:37:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/20/2011 3:38:33 AM EST by Elduke]
Originally Posted By JosephK:
You can give the 70-300mm a try (rent it first?), but you will probably find that the field is not as well lit as you think.


I should probably rent the 70-200 VR II from a lens rental company to compare the photos from the game. I was planning on purchasing the 70-300mm at the end of the month since the only lenses I have right now are a 50mm prime and a 80-210mm. I will replace the 80-210mm with the 70-300mm and look at possibly getting the 35mm DX lens next along with a SB-700/900.

ETA:

I will post some photos of the game with the 70-300mm.
Link Posted: 6/23/2011 6:58:27 PM EST
Don't fiddle fuck around. Buy the Nikon glass, the 70-200mm will behave like a 100-300 in DX. You will have it longer than the D7000 body you have right now. Speaking of which, the replacement for it will be out in about 2 years. What's your body going to be worth in a couple of years? Foggles, that's what. A good lens will keep it's value, bodies not so much. Which would be easier to sell in the future, a Nikon lens or some Happy Meal POS? Look in any camera store's used case.... a ton of brand X shit, collecting dust.

It's hard enough to sell L or Nano lenses. Right now is a really good time to buy.

Read all that you can, buy wisely.

I've got a nearly new SB-900 that I would sell for $275, U.S., box, papers, all gels, etc. The SB-900 is a super flash, I own 4! Shoots very quickly, powerful, easy to operate (menu easy), sits very high, no red eye or barreling with a long lens (like a 70-200mm).
In the eternal battle between Canon/Nikon, no one ever brings up how good the Nikon CLS system is, but I'm going to say it, BETTER than Canon.

Let the week of yellow shit storms begin...
Link Posted: 7/17/2011 4:11:30 PM EST
I was out shooting photos today in a dark tent and my camera had a hard time focusing on the my intended subjects. I think it is time I invest in a good flash since even my lens could not help me out. I still have a lot to learn.
Link Posted: 7/17/2011 4:47:56 PM EST

Originally Posted By Elduke:
I was out shooting photos today in a dark tent and my camera had a hard time focusing on the my intended subjects. I think it is time I invest in a good flash since even my lens could not help me out. I still have a lot to learn.

Two separate issues. A faster lens will help with the AF issue. A flash will not help with AF - and if your camera is having problems focusing, the flash may just give you a well illuminated out-of-focus image.

Which lens and what focus mode were you using today, if you don't mind me asking?
Link Posted: 7/17/2011 5:07:01 PM EST
Originally Posted By JAFFE:

Originally Posted By Elduke:
I was out shooting photos today in a dark tent and my camera had a hard time focusing on the my intended subjects. I think it is time I invest in a good flash since even my lens could not help me out. I still have a lot to learn.

Two separate issues. A faster lens will help with the AF issue. A flash will not help with AF - and if your camera is having problems focusing, the flash may just give you a well illuminated out-of-focus image.

Which lens and what focus mode were you using today, if you don't mind me asking?


Don't forget about the built in AF light on some if not all of nikon's SB series lights (if used on camera)

Damn thing works like a charm.
Link Posted: 7/17/2011 5:43:07 PM EST
Sigma is good on the prime lenses.. Their 50mm prime is an good lens for photographing in nightclubs.. Friday, I got some great images from a burlesque show..

Zooms are hit and miss.. Even OEM lenses (Canon/Nikon) can be interesting.. Borrow some glass and watch the results..

And as another poster pointed out.. Get as much glass lenses as you can.. They don't really drop in price that much compared to bodies..

Link Posted: 7/17/2011 6:07:48 PM EST

Originally Posted By Zack3g:
Originally Posted By JAFFE:
Originally Posted By Elduke:
I was out shooting photos today in a dark tent and my camera had a hard time focusing on the my intended subjects. I think it is time I invest in a good flash since even my lens could not help me out. I still have a lot to learn.

Two separate issues. A faster lens will help with the AF issue. A flash will not help with AF - and if your camera is having problems focusing, the flash may just give you a well illuminated out-of-focus image.

Which lens and what focus mode were you using today, if you don't mind me asking?

Don't forget about the built in AF light on some if not all of nikon's SB series lights (if used on camera)

Damn thing works like a charm.
But what's the range - isn't the illuminator a bit limited? I guess I was assuming a large tent (like a party tent) - and I've never had good consistent AF in a situation like that. But of course my use of the flash may have been a part of the problem... (I may learn something here )

Link Posted: 8/6/2011 1:13:39 PM EST
Why no primes?
Link Posted: 8/9/2011 8:55:56 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/9/2011 9:14:10 PM EST by Stlrain0341]
Originally Posted By Elduke:
Should I stick with Nikkor lenses or will Sigma lenses give me the same image quality? I know Nikkor lenses are more expensive but is the IQ better than Sigmas?


Depends what you're going for. I'm just starting out, and decided that I really needed a cheaper travel lens while I was learning. Ended up with the Tamron 18-270. Its not the sharpest by any means, but it does well in some areas, its cheap enough that I'm not terrified of breaking it, and its helping me get a better feel for what lenses I want next. Its also very lightweight and compact. I supplement it with a 1.8 50mm when I need a faster lens.

A good idea is to get on flickr and check out groups that use whatever lens you're looking at, gives you an idea on what to expect.
Link Posted: 8/10/2011 3:06:36 PM EST
I have 2 sigma lenses and they are AWESOME.
Link Posted: 9/28/2011 8:14:18 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2011 8:16:34 PM EST by Elduke]
Originally Posted By JAFFE:

Originally Posted By Elduke:
I was out shooting photos today in a dark tent and my camera had a hard time focusing on the my intended subjects. I think it is time I invest in a good flash since even my lens could not help me out. I still have a lot to learn.

Two separate issues. A faster lens will help with the AF issue. A flash will not help with AF - and if your camera is having problems focusing, the flash may just give you a well illuminated out-of-focus image.

Which lens and what focus mode were you using today, if you don't mind me asking?


I was using a 50mm f/1.8d lens with the camera set to Aperture Priority what I should have done was bump up my ISO which I did not know until I asked my local camera store clerk. I had the exact same problem taking photos in a dimly lit room at my cousin's reception party.

Link Posted: 9/28/2011 8:21:26 PM EST
Originally Posted By Stlrain0341:
Originally Posted By Elduke:
Should I stick with Nikkor lenses or will Sigma lenses give me the same image quality? I know Nikkor lenses are more expensive but is the IQ better than Sigmas?


Depends what you're going for. I'm just starting out, and decided that I really needed a cheaper travel lens while I was learning. Ended up with the Tamron 18-270. Its not the sharpest by any means, but it does well in some areas, its cheap enough that I'm not terrified of breaking it, and its helping me get a better feel for what lenses I want next. Its also very lightweight and compact. I supplement it with a 1.8 50mm when I need a faster lens.

A good idea is to get on flickr and check out groups that use whatever lens you're looking at, gives you an idea on what to expect.


I am thinking about picking up the Tamron 18-270mm lens which would be a great walk around lens since I would not have to change lenses that often if I am on vacation. How do you like the lens so far? I am also interested in picking up a Sigma 8-16mm wide angle lens (12 to 24mm) on my D7000. I definitely will invest in lenses first and then invest in a second body in the near future. My only question is at what point should I pick up another body (when I master every nuance of my current body or when I have a large collection of FX lenses)?

Link Posted: 9/28/2011 8:36:04 PM EST
I prefer Tamron to Sigma when looking at a budget "prosumer" lens.
Everything on Tactigirls.com was shot with a Tamron 28-75
Link Posted: 9/28/2011 10:08:34 PM EST
You mentioned the 24-70. I have the Sigma 24-70/2.8 and I really like it... takes some exceptionally nice looking photos.
Link Posted: 9/30/2011 3:54:20 AM EST
depends very much on the lens, personally I've never had a problem with any of the sigma lenses I've owned.
Link Posted: 10/1/2011 6:27:43 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/1/2011 6:29:00 AM EST by Stlrain0341]
Originally Posted By Elduke:
Originally Posted By Stlrain0341:
Originally Posted By Elduke:
Should I stick with Nikkor lenses or will Sigma lenses give me the same image quality? I know Nikkor lenses are more expensive but is the IQ better than Sigmas?


Depends what you're going for. I'm just starting out, and decided that I really needed a cheaper travel lens while I was learning. Ended up with the Tamron 18-270. Its not the sharpest by any means, but it does well in some areas, its cheap enough that I'm not terrified of breaking it, and its helping me get a better feel for what lenses I want next. Its also very lightweight and compact. I supplement it with a 1.8 50mm when I need a faster lens.

A good idea is to get on flickr and check out groups that use whatever lens you're looking at, gives you an idea on what to expect.


I am thinking about picking up the Tamron 18-270mm lens which would be a great walk around lens since I would not have to change lenses that often if I am on vacation. How do you like the lens so far? I am also interested in picking up a Sigma 8-16mm wide angle lens (12 to 24mm) on my D7000. I definitely will invest in lenses first and then invest in a second body in the near future. My only question is at what point should I pick up another body (when I master every nuance of my current body or when I have a large collection of FX lenses)?



I love it, honestly. It has drawbacks sure, but as long as you know its limitations you can do quite well with it. Its slow, and its at its sharpest around F7-11, so in low light you're not going to get super clear images, but then again the VR is OUTSTANDING, so you can shoot at lower shutter speeds and still get good results.

I took it with me to Canada and got some great results. All of the Canada pictures were shot with this lens.

My Flickr

Link Posted: 10/3/2011 3:48:07 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/3/2011 3:51:14 PM EST by Elduke]
Originally Posted By Stlrain0341:
Originally Posted By Elduke:
Originally Posted By Stlrain0341:
Originally Posted By Elduke:
Should I stick with Nikkor lenses or will Sigma lenses give me the same image quality? I know Nikkor lenses are more expensive but is the IQ better than Sigmas?


Depends what you're going for. I'm just starting out, and decided that I really needed a cheaper travel lens while I was learning. Ended up with the Tamron 18-270. Its not the sharpest by any means, but it does well in some areas, its cheap enough that I'm not terrified of breaking it, and its helping me get a better feel for what lenses I want next. Its also very lightweight and compact. I supplement it with a 1.8 50mm when I need a faster lens.

A good idea is to get on flickr and check out groups that use whatever lens you're looking at, gives you an idea on what to expect.


I am thinking about picking up the Tamron 18-270mm lens which would be a great walk around lens since I would not have to change lenses that often if I am on vacation. How do you like the lens so far? I am also interested in picking up a Sigma 8-16mm wide angle lens (12 to 24mm) on my D7000. I definitely will invest in lenses first and then invest in a second body in the near future. My only question is at what point should I pick up another body (when I master every nuance of my current body or when I have a large collection of FX lenses)?





I love it, honestly. It has drawbacks sure, but as long as you know its limitations you can do quite well with it. Its slow, and its at its sharpest around F7-11, so in low light you're not going to get super clear images, but then again the VR is OUTSTANDING, so you can shoot at lower shutter speeds and still get good results.

I took it with me to Canada and got some great results. All of the Canada pictures were shot with this lens.

My Flickr



I definitely will have to play with the Tamron when I go to my local camera shop next time it sounds like a wonderful lens if I work within the limitations. Thank you for the recommendation. I just need to decide which 35mm lens to pick up now.

P.S. I just came back from Canada not too long ago but I was in Vancouver, British Columbia and I sure could have used the wide angle portion of the Tamron for some of my photos. I still need to learn and remind myself about composition since I am not using a point and shoot camera (I hope I did not offend anyone with my comment and I apologize in advance if I did).
Top Top