Sigma VS Nikon?

[Markok765]

I want to buy a Sigma 17-35mm F2.8-4 AF lens for my Nikon F5, and I was wondering about the quality vs the nikon product. Image quality is a high factor, but build quality is also a factor since I will be using this lens in all kinds of conditions, from rain and snow to parties. Is the quality good enough? It's only $500 compared to the Nikon one at a lot more.

 

[Colin Corneau]

You get what you pay for.

'Nuff said.

 

[Markok765]

Yes, but is the nikon lens 3X as good as the Sigma? Am I really going to notice a difference? It may not be as good, but is it good enough?

 

[Monophoto]

How much of your photography would be done with that lens?

Do you make your living from photography?

If so, could you afford to replace the less expensive lens?

 

[Markok765]

Almost all of it, it would be replacing my 28mm F2.8D Nikkor, and would give me a ultrawide to almost normal focal length range.
I would use it mostly at parties, events, photojournalism.

I'm a teenager, so I don't make my living from photography, but I do make money every month or two from it, usually in the $100 range.

I couldn't afford to replace the less expensive lens.

 

[Colin Corneau]

I make my living from photography, and there's a reason brand lenses are more expensive -- they're better.

Better optics, better construction, better durability over time. That's been my observation.

It's also been my observation over time that you don't save anything from cheaping out at the outset. As much as it hurts to spend a lot on gear (and that's a hurt I know well) it's nothing compared to having to do it all over again sooner than you should have to.

If you're prepared to live with photos that don't look as good as they could (and you notice that in trying light conditions), or a lens that gets wobbly or falls apart from the amount of use a working pro puts it through, then save money. But again: it's been my experience you'll only spend the difference (and more) down the road, anyway.

 

[David Brown]

Am I really going to notice a difference?

Probably not ...

 

[MattKing]

Marko:

It is relatively difficult to make a good quality rectilinear 17mm lens for 35mm. To include that focal length in a zoom is probably much more difficult, unless some major compromises are made.

Do you need 17mm coverage enough to be willing to sacrifice quality at the 24mm, 28mm and 35mm focal lengths?

Do you need 17mm at all? Also, how big is that lens?

Matt

 

[Markok765]

I do need 17mm, and I have a 28 if I really need quality in that range. I really want a ultrawide, and having all those other focal lengths is just a bonus.

The lens is a nice combo with my F5, around 12 cm out if i recall correctly.

 

[archphoto]

@Matt: yes those lenses are made today. I have a 7-14mm f:4 for D, it is distortion free through-out the entire range, $1500,- and looks like a f:2/200mm......
Security guards understand nothing of this lens until you show them what you just did.
@Marko: those ultra-wides are adictive, esp. when you photograph a lot of interiors like I do.

Peter

 

[Markok765]

Peter: Yeah I know, I'm thinking riots, skateboarding, and parties!

 

[flatulent1]

You're taking the F5 to parties? Wow. That's an intimidating camera. I don't know the lens you're considering; I have the Nikkor 18-35 on my F4, a very nice little lens, and fairly inexpensive. Certainly not the equal of primes, not the equal of the much more expensive 17-35, but a very nice lens. Some people are into critical sharpness, others are more interested in the images themselves, for what they represent. If you're not enlarging beyond 8x10, if you're not shooting digital, if you're not shooting for a stock agency or some other professional work, then the lens you're looking at is probably just fine. Understand this: photography for many of us is a life-long venture. You're young, you will be replacing that lens some day with something better, hopefully when you can better afford it. If you can't afford the very best today, don't worry about it. When you find it is no longer adequate for your work, you can always sell it.

(Note: I love critical sharpness as much as the next guy, but I also shoot with folders. Ain't no sech thing as 'critical sharpness' with one o' them. )

 

[Markok765]

Sharpness is nice, but if sharpness is equal or better as the Jupiter 8 wide open then thats good enough for me!
The F5 isn't that intimidating, sure its large, especially with the SB-600 on it, but people don't act differently vs shooting them with a P&S, and its nice for parties with the flash and a nice wide. It's pretty much a awesome P&S then.

I'm doing 11x14 at the largest, so this lens should be fine!

 

[JBrunner]

Marko, the Sigma lens isn't as good as the Nikon, but it is plenty good enough for what you are doing at present.

 

[Markok765]

Marko, the Sigma lens isn't as good as the Nikon, but it is plenty good enough for what you are doing at present.

Hmm, what things require the Nikon lens over the Sigma lens?

 

[JohnArs]

On the long run you will be happier with the Nikkor. Its more a lens for a livetime then a Sigma.
Just my expirience with Sigma is not at all good.

Good luck, Armin

 

[JBrunner]

Hmm, what things require the Nikon lens over the Sigma lens?

Nothing. Work on what counts, the places where you can really improve. Less sexy, more results.

 

[Paul Jenkin]

My dad always used to sat that "quality pays not costs". In my experience, he's absolutely right.

I'm presuming that as you're considering both lenses that you can afford either? If that's the case, get the Nikkor as it will out-perform the Sigma in almost every respect and will, should you ever need it, have a considerably higher residual value (in % and actual cash terms) than any 'independent' lens.

There's nothing "wrong" with the Sigma and I expect it would do a good enough job. However, if you got some results back that you didn't like, you'd always wonder whether the Nikkor would have been that bit sharper, faster to focus, have lower flare, better contrast......

 

[JBrunner]

Marko, at your age and experience level my bet is that what little money you have for your photography is better spent on film. Don't be a gear head magic bullet chaser, be a photographer.

 

[bdial]

Marko, at your age and experience level my bet is that what little money you have for your photography is better spent on film. Don't be a gear head magic bullet chaser, be a photographer.

This is the very best advice in the entire thread.

Here are some questions you might ask yourself.
1. Will a 17 -35 zoom improve my photography?
2. If so, in what ways?
3. If not, why not?
4. If it will improve my photography, will it impove it more than $<price of Nikon zoom>'s worth of film?
5. If i spent the difference in cost on film, which would yield more improvement in my photography, film or a Nikon lens?

 

[JohnArs]

Sorry JBrunner

I have about 12 Nikkor lenses and only 4 Sigmas and I had troubles till now with only 2 of the Sigmas and with not any Nikkor and some of them are 20 years old, does this count also for a mister Brunner or not?

Cheers Armin

 

[JohnArs]

The lens is more important then the camera body, especially on this tiny format!

My 2cts. on this one, Armin

 

[JBrunner]

Sorry JBrunner

I have about 12 Nikkor lenses and only 4 Sigmas and I had troubles till now with only 2 of the Sigmas and with not any Nikkor and some of them are 20 years old, does this count also for a mister Brunner or not?

Cheers Armin

All of your lenses are significantly older than Marko. I also suspect you have an income. Ultimately the choice will be his, but personally I'd like to see him develop as a photographer, rather than be a guy holding a camera with a nice lens. There is much more to this picture than you realize. It is advice specifically for a person who's history, skills, and tendencies I am very familiar with, and it is only advice. Also, it does go a against the sacrosanct tendency of photographers to focus on gear rather than the actual ability to make meaningful photographs, which is a pestilence on APUG or most any photography forum. I think it is a psychosis that serves to move the focus away from where the shortfalls usually really are. When Marko's skills reach a point where his lens is actually a limiting factor he can revisit. If it were you asking, my advice would be different, does this count for a mister Ars or not?

 

[Russ - SVP]

Have you looked at the superb Tamron SP 17-50 f/2.8 AF lens.

Kiron Kid

 

[keithwms]

Marko, get the lens you can afford, move on, and enjoy your photography.

With any piece of gear, there is always a "better" ... this is the OCD side of photography. And yet there is very seldom any correlation between the cost and "quality" of the lens and the effectiveness of the photograph.