Sigma VS Nikon?

[Paul Sorensen]

Okay, Marko, I am dying to ask this. If you cannot afford to replace a $500 lens, how can you afford to purchase a $1500 lens in the first place?

I tend to agree that you will not likely see the difference between the two, but there there are likely real differences in extreme conditions and in build quality. You seem to be indicating that sharpness is not an issue for you, so I am even more inclined to think that the Sigma will do the trick just fine.

 

[kozesluk]

look at AF Nikkor 2.8/20-35 D, it's 17-35 precessor. very good lens.

 

[JimCee]

Marko: I purchased the Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0 EX DG HSM lens more than a year ago. I got a really great deal on Amazon (the actual seller was, in fact, Sigma U.S.). I haven't had any regrets. The Sigma lens is very sharp and has given me great results.

There have been several tests of this lens, including one by Popular Photograpy (Dead Link Removed) and another by photodo.com (http://www.photodo.com/topic_17.html). The online version of the test by Popular Photography, unfortunately, no longer shows their SQF chart for the lens.

These tests all show the Sigma 17-35mm to be quite capable (note that these tests are for the latest 77mm filter diameter lens, NOT the previous 82mm lens!).

Jim

 

[Soeren]

Marko just be aware that the Sigma lens won't take the abuse as well as your F5.
I had two Sigma lenses for my first Nikon a 24mm and a 105 Macro and they did great for years untill I did a comparison.
I have always found it odd that people buy pro cameras for their ruggednes and then go cheap when it comes to the most important part, the lens. Not that there is anything wrong with Sigma lenses or Nikon F5 for that matter. Its just ..............just like putting everyday standard korean tyres on a F1 car.
Kind regards

 

[nicefor88]

Hi,
I've used a 17-35 nikkor with good results and also a Sigma 20-35 a few years ago with equivalent good results. It is hard to tell the difference in sharpness and loss of light in the corners but I feel the nikkor showed less barrel-type distortion than the sygma (they both do show this problem, cannot avoid this with ultrawide). Photo magazines will probably test these lenses with special electronics and tell us about some "great differences" between lenses but little our eyes can detect...
:rolleyes:

 

[eye_of_wally]

FWIW I own several Sigma lenses and I am quite happy with all of them. They represent a great value. Will a lens that costs 3X as much be better? Yes but that is why it costs 3X as much.

 

[Markok765]

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?

1. Yes, mainly the 17mm side of things, for the wide effect, for interiors, many people, and mainly the interesting look and usage of a wide lens.
The film would probably enable me to learn more and practice more, but the lens just gives a particular look, and it improves my photography as my style of photography goes well with very wide lenses.

Paul Sorensen,
I guess I would be able to replace the Sigma lens, but it would take a while to come up with the money. It would take even longer to come up with cash for the Nikkor version.

I don't mind loss of light in corners, actually I enjoy it with my XA.

 

[Soeren]

FWIW I own several Sigma lenses and I am quite happy with all of them. They represent a great value. Will a lens that costs 3X as much be better? Yes but that is why it costs 3X as much.

Yes thats true. I was quite happy with mine too. Though the 24mm was optically ok it was crappy built but a fun little lens with a 18cm close up ability
The 105 was also optically ok and you wouldn't notice its drawbacks unless you did a side by side. After that it was quite obvious for me even on standalone pics the biggest drawback was the manual focussing turning the opposite direction than nikors, I really hated that. They also wore badly becoming sloppy and rattly. The costdifference between Nikors and Sigmas are mostly the mechanical quality and a little better optical quality though it is only obvious when compared direct. The big Q's are "Am I satified with the results from the lens" and " Will it stand up to my use or is it likely to break after a short while"
best regards

 

[Mick Fagan]

Søren, I have three Sigma lens for my Nikon cameras, all of them focus in exactly the same direction as my nine Nikkor lenses. This was a big factor in me choosing the Sigma brand over the other non Nikon manufactured lenses. Have they changed their focusing system?

I have the Sigma 24mm which I bought in 1985, it isn't the same build quality, the glass I know isn't the same as the Nikkor lenses. The same goes for my 18mm Sigma.

I do know that value for money, and, within reason, the quality, the Sigma lenses of that generation were not too bad, in fact quite good.

I realise that you are talking about another generation of lenses, but I don't think there would be much more of a difference these days. Maybe in fact not as great a difference.

My 24mm Sigma has been overseas about 15 times, travelled about 300,000 klms on a motorcycle on some very bad roads and tracks in Australia. It is often in the tail pack of my pushbike and seems to hold up quite well.

Marko, if the Sigma is $500.00 and you manage to make $100.00 a month, then that is 5 months of savings, if you decide on the Nikkor, then you are looking at close to 1½ years of savings.

The answer for someone of your age and monetary situation is reasonably clear, I think you already know the answer to your question.

Mick.

 

[RMD]

Markok....

I've got the Minolta mount version of the Sigma lens,and I have found it to be an excellent performer. As an amateur I am not qualified to comment on its performance against the Minolta /Sony equivalent but I've not found any problems scanning & printing to A3.
You can check out two relevant reviews here - you pays your money and takes your choice.

http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/reviews.asp?IDLens=27

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikk...s-17-35mm-f28-d-if-ed-review--lab-test-report

 

[panastasia]

I stay away from ultra-wide lenses for my 35mm because I use that format for candid photos of people, mostly. The way people are distorted when place at the ends of the horizontal frame in landscape mode with a 28mm is barely tolerable for my eyes (wide heads and bodies; long extremities), therefore I'm always stepping back to keep them more centered in the frame. I use ultra-wide lenses in another format, with controls (camera movements) to correct much of the linear distortion.

On a different note: I was given a 28-100 zoom - a brand I never heard of - that I truly fell in love with. It's a joy to go out with one lens that replaced 3 others, so much so that I don't really notice a difference in image quality when compared to other photos taken with more expensive brand name lenses. The focusing collar is rather loose because it lost much of the lubrication, and when shooting in wide mode vignetting is apparent when stacking two filters, or using a polarizing filter and lens shade. It gets the job done at party situations and my flash unit will cover the wide view. I find that I frequently zoom in to 100mm for shots of individuals. If I had to change lenses to do that many of my best shots would be missed. The lens I'm speaking of is so versatile that it's the only one I use now. I got rid of all the others. This is just my personal opinion about 35mm format wide angle lenses in particular. I shoot MF for more serious photography, but continue to use my 35mm because I have this excellent zoom lens attached to it. If I were you, knowing what I just described, I'd go for the Sigma. Probably not the 17-35 though, for my own reasons. It's also big bucks for a 35mm lens, IMHO.

Paul

 

[Soeren]

Søren, I have three Sigma lens for my Nikon cameras, all of them focus in exactly the same direction as my nine Nikkor lenses. This was a big factor in me choosing the Sigma brand over the other non Nikon manufactured lenses. Have they changed their focusing system?

I have the Sigma 24mm which I bought in 1985, it isn't the same build quality, the glass I know isn't the same as the Nikkor lenses. The same goes for my 18mm Sigma.

I do know that value for money, and, within reason, the quality, the Sigma lenses of that generation were not too bad, in fact quite good.

I realise that you are talking about another generation of lenses, but I don't think there would be much more of a difference these days. Maybe in fact not as great a difference.

My 24mm Sigma has been overseas about 15 times, travelled about 300,000 klms on a motorcycle on some very bad roads and tracks in Australia. It is often in the tail pack of my pushbike and seems to hold up quite well.

Marko, if the Sigma is $500.00 and you manage to make $100.00 a month, then that is 5 months of savings, if you decide on the Nikkor, then you are looking at close to 1½ years of savings.

The answer for someone of your age and monetary situation is reasonably clear, I think you already know the answer to your question.

Mick.

Yes Mick the older Sigmas focus as the Nikors but the newer ones do not. In fact my 24 was the older one (24 II? don't remember) but my 105 was the newer generation. I bought both in 2000.
Best regards