Sigma 15 fisheye

[balint]

Does anybody have hands on experience with this lens. I was searching photo.net for some feedback, but found only chit-chat.

I have a Nikon system, and so there are three possibile choices for a full frame fisheye lens:

Nikon 2.8/16
Sigma 2.8/15
Arsat 2.8/16

The Arsat lens is cheap, but isn't AI connected and in top many complain about the mechanics. So far seems that the Sigma gives the best price/performance ratio, supporting D metering, but since I never owned a Sigma lens, I would need some feedback about this specific lens, or Sigma lenses in general.

Many thanks

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I used to have a Sigma 75-300 zoom long ago and a 24/2.8 that I bought new in the 1980s and sold only recently. Optically, they're not bad for the price, particularly in the area of wide lenses, but build quality is lighter than most OEM lenses. In their early days, they had real problems with this, and that has damaged their reputation to this day (you'll see references all over the net to "SIGnificant MAlfunctions"), but I don't think they've really had those sorts of problems since around 1982. I'd avoid the Sigma long teles and tele-zooms, but the 24mm or 15mm are probably a good bet, if you can't justify the cost of the Nikon.

 

[Prime]

If I were in your position, I would buy the highest-quality lens, even if I had to wait and save to afford it. My experience has been that it pays to buy the best (and often, most expensive) gear the first time, rather than trading up to it.

Good luck!

 

[Eric Rose]

I've used both the Sigma and Nikon fisheyes. Save your pennies and get the Nikon.

 

[Karl_W]

Tom Hogan has a review of this lens over at www.bythom.com

From what I can understand it's quite a good lens. After all, how many times will you use a fisheye? So I say, go for the Sigma and save your money.

Regards,
Karl

 

[Robert Kennedy]

That is sort of what it comes down to isn't it?

Use.

Personally I could never see myself using a fisheye that much. It is a unique lens. And the Sigma is 1/2 the price of the Nikon. So if you are just going to use the lens once-in-a-while, it would seem the Sigma is a good way to go.

But if you are one of these people who use a fisheye somewhat regularly, I say save up and get the Nikon. There is no doubt that the Nikon is a better lens. And if this is going to be an important lens to you, then get the Nikon. Otherwise get the Sigma.

 

[balint]

I found a Zenitar 2.8/16 russian fisheye with Nikon mount and the shopkeeper was kind enoug to lend it to me for the weekend. I shoot a test roll and the results were great, inspite the stop down metering.

I have read some articles about this lens, owners are satisfied. The shopkeeper is asking 250 euros, which I found a bit pricy, considering that there was quite a bit of dust on the internal optics.

Would you consider this lens for 200? That's what I offered.