I have had bad luck with non-Nikkor 35mm lens. Tokina I would trust. Zeiss, Schneider, etc., but most aftermarket lens are doing pretty poorly for friends trying to save money and two years later.....the lens is worthless. I have only had three Nikkor lens quit for any reason and two were destroyed by accidents that would have totaled any lens.

Anaxagoras said:
I've never understood why people buy an expensive camera then pair it to a cheap lens.

Cheap does not always equal bad. For example, my Samyang 8mm fisheye was dirt cheap, but it produces really excellent and sharp results from f/5.6 onwards. Really flare resistant too. One of the best purchases I ever made related to photography.

I recently bought an used AI-S Nikkor 24mm f/2 for 200 euros, which is dirt cheap. Again, an excellent piece of equipment for night landscapes (the sunstars are perfect).

Anaxagoras said:
I've never understood why people buy an expensive camera then pair it to a cheap lens.

If you're happy with a cheap lens, why not save even more money and buy a cheap camera for it?

Remember...

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

I think you are partly right .. but the thing is some of the 3rd party lenses fills gaps esp the sigma range.
eg DX 30mm F1.4, 150mm F2.8 vr/nonVr, 50-150 F2.8 VR/nonVr. Dx 17-50F2.8VR/nonvr , DX17-70 F2.8-4.0 VR. Go find the nikon versions of these lenses .. there are none.

I've never understood why people buy an expensive camera then pair it to a cheap lens.

If you're happy with a cheap lens, why not save even more money and buy a cheap camera for it?

Remember...

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

@adamz...I haven't used the 105 with a TC,but I use the Sigma 150 with a TC often,and though I don't have any samples online I've even even used a Canon 500D achromatic diopter along with that combo on some mantis shots that turned out well.

about the lenstip and their examples, certainly most of them look like s... and there was a huge discussion about that on the polish version of that site, and... the administrators think that they don't need to post better pictures, neither to post raw files

@shutterdancer - have You tried using the N105 with TC, I like the combo and gives me a lot of working distance, even for capturing butterflies and other small animals/birds/critters

shutterdancer said:
Btw,I sure wouldn't want to try selling the Sigma 150 based on those samples on Lenstip, no offense....just saying.

Agree on that. I would not try to sell anything based on the Lenstip review sample images. Check the others out at your leisure and you ´ll see what I mean. I guess the Lenstip guy is a better engineer than photographer.

@Adamz....you said it nicely, the Sigma fills a gap that Nikon left open.If they made a 150mm micro (as they like to call it :>),I would probably own one.

The Nikon 105mm is a great lens,no doubt about it,but those extra inches of working distance that I get with the Sigma come in very handy with skittish critters.If you only shoot static subjects then it doesn't matter.

The 200mm micro Nikkor is excellent also,but too bulky for me.

Btw,I sure wouldn't want to try selling the Sigma 150 based on those samples on Lenstip, no offense....just saying.

TaoTeJared said:
Doesn't that just knock out every single 3rd party lens for you? lol (I have about the same litmus test but I will only buy 3rd party lenses used and 40% or lower on their cost. That way I know I can recoup everything if I don't like it and sell it again.)

okay

did not want to say it, but I have the Tokina 100 AT-X pro f2.8

built like a tank, heavy for its size, has never been used in autofocus mode.

fantastic lens

compared to the Nikon 105mm latest lens, a steal of a deal.

$4XX vs $9XX

yeah, that is lower by more than 40%

@godless - as much as I liker lenstip (especially that it comes from my country) as much direct linking to non affiliated sites is not permitted, especially when the other side blocks their images when they are link outside of their domains.

as for the 150mm sigma, it's a very nice lens with a very decent price tag. will I get it over N105/2.8 vr - certainly no, as I don't need the extra 45mm reach on one hand and need the vr on the other, but for some of You it may be handy - especially that there's no direct Nikon replacement

casperwb said:
for me, unless the quality of the lens, in build and IQ is close to Nikon and 40% cheaper, I am saving for the NIkon.

Doesn't that just knock out every single 3rd party lens for you? lol (I have about the same litmus test but I will only buy 3rd party lenses used and 40% or lower on their cost. That way I know I can recoup everything if I don't like it and sell it again.)

read the review, the big thing seems to be VR/IS or whatever you want to call it.

then everyone wants or complain about autofocus.

for me this is just marketing, for macro: manual focus and no VR.

I use my macro lens for macro only, I have other lenses that are autofocus with VR.

for me, unless the quality of the lens, in build and IQ is close to Nikon and 40% cheaper, I am saving for the NIkon.

the question is simple, how many people have Nikon lenses that are from the 80's and how many Sigma do you think will survive or hold their value that long?

TaoTeJared said:
I just saw that Pop Photo just did a review on the 150mm OS in this months issue for anyone who is interested. Fairly good review.

Lenstip reviewed that also. An excellent site for reviews.

*LINK REMOVED*

I just saw that Pop Photo just did a review on the 150mm OS in this months issue for anyone who is interested. Fairly good review.

So in summary...there are some good lenses there are some bad lenses. Sigma like other third party lenses have some QC/QA issues...inconsistent products until you spend lots of money. They do have some lenses that Canon and Nikon don't have for a certain range...so you have no choice if you want that range. I also looked into the Sigma 150, but then I figured I was spending almost what the Nikon 105 would cost so I might as well just get the Nikon I wanted. Hard for me to get over that sentiment for some reason.

I was just looking though and they have a new Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro lens for more than you can get the Nikon version for...not sure I would pay more for a Sigma lens than a Nikon that does the same exact thing, especially when the Nikon version is pretty stellar.

My Sigma 150-500mm is sharp out to around 450mm or so,then things go rapidly down hill and pretty much defeats the purpose of having a 500mm focal length lens if you can't use it.

Like Godless,I've gone with the Nikon 300mm f4 and Nikon 1.4TC.

Now on the other hand my Sigma 150mm lives on my camera 95% of the time,and I wouldn't trade it for any other macro lens no matter the brand or price!

noxin said:
I think Sigma still has a good number of lenses that are not offered by N or C and it seems that when they want to do a consistently good lens like the 150 macro or 85 1.4 they can.

good call, but it is too close to my present Macro and as TTJ said, a used Nikon might be a better bet than a new Sigma.

I have been keeping my eye on those used 200mm Nikons for about the same price as the new 150mm sigma.

noxin said:
I'm still considering the Sigma 20 1.8 or 24 1.8 lenses.

I have been looking at these two for a long time. I have heard the 24mm is a bit better wide open and has a closer focus. I have held off only since I just carry my X100 since that is right in the middle.

Add to the good list:
15mm f/2.8 fisheye - Very good build and optically great.

Dog list:
18-125mm 3.8-5.6 OS - low consumer, OS slow and didn't add anything. Huge barrel distortion.
Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4 EX ASP - Good copy that went bad (went out of focus). Huge barrel distortion. Zoom ended up breaking from carting it around upside down. Poor build design.

casperwb said:
if they are going to be used often and hard, then buy Nikon...if you are going to use them casually, or not put them through a lot of use, then buy the sigma...then there is the matter of cost, sometimes we buy not what we want, but what we can afford.

This is very true. I would add buy used. This is how I have collected most of my lenses. This is a great way to try lenses especially from 3rd party like Sigma since the price will at least be 2/3rds of new or lower.

Out of buying 30 or so lenses in the last 6 years over ebay, craigslist, on-line forums, etc, I have only had 2 issues with incorrect descriptions and both were resolved successfully. 4 lenses have needed CLAs, 1 died completely (I did use it in the rain once though) and almost all the rest have ended up being better than described. I never buy former "pro" equipment unless it was a back-up.

casperwb said:
there is also the sleeper lens, an offering by a third party manufacturer that is just a great lens as good as the lens made by the manufacturer,at a much cheaper price, I have not seen one these by Sigma, however I stand ready to be corrected on that point.

Got two sleepers for you: Sigma 85mm EX DG HSM & Sigma 150mm macro. Check them out.

@noxin : I love the 20mm 1.8 Sigma on DX (requires a body with AF motor though, and stopping down to at least f/2.5 is advisable)

I'm still considering the Sigma 20 1.8 or 24 1.8 lenses. sure they probably aren't as good as the Nikon 24 1.4, but they are 1/4 the cost. But it's still hard to get many first hand reviews. I own the discontinued 14mm 2.8 lens and I'm OK with it, not overly impressed and not too disappointed. I think Sigma still has a good number of lenses that are not offered by N or C and it seems that when they want to do a consistently good lens like the 150 macro or 85 1.4 they can.

There is truth to what casperweb says. If you are going to put your lenses through the toilet get nikkors...

my advice is to buy lenses on how you intend to use them.

if they are going to be used often and hard, then buy Nikon

if you are going to use them casually, or not put them through a lot of use, then buy the sigma

then there is the matter of cost, sometimes we buy not what we want, but what we can afford.

there is also the sleeper lens, an offering by a third party manufacturer that is just a great lens as good as the lens made by the manufacturer,at a much cheaper price, I have not seen one these by Sigma, however I stand ready to be corrected on that point.

So, my take on this is, I buy nikon cameras because of the great Nikon lenses, however, I do have one lens that is not Nikon, [the sleeper]

to close, buy the best you can afford, and if you can wait, save for the Nikon.

Thanks for the post TaoTeJared Its always nice to hear a future purchase is wise. Im dragging my feet over the low holiday season.

There are a lot of Photogs around me that are all becoming devout fans of the 85mm - Canon & Nikon models. Local shop convinced a couple to buy one and the images have been so good others have upgraded from their 1.8s as well. The shop is also offering $300 for a good used 85mm 1.8. $600 total for it - great deal.

I am picking up the sigma 85mm 1.4. Compared to the new nikon it is very similar. No it may not be 100% as good as the nikon but its pretty close. I have shot with both and I have a very hard time telling the difference. The non photo nerds in my family can't see it at all.
I think some people snub sigma because that is what we are trained to do. Plus I would like to save that 600dollars and invest it somewhere else. I did hear that you might have to adjust the camera for the lens perhaps but thats not a big deal to me. If your really worried that your going to get a bad copy but want to save the money then buy it locally and if its bad just exchange it.