Sigma lenses: garbage or good alternative

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Lenses

Sigma lenses: garbage or good alternative

(67 posts) (40 voices)

Tags:

« Previous 123 Next »

TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

Michael DeRose said:
anyone recent, try these lens out? I was sort of looking at the new 150mm macro.

I have heard the 150mm is a very good lens and have seen some great shots from it. If you are looking for a long macro that and the Tamron 180 are suppose to be really good.

Sigma Does primes very, very well. Their Pro line up is optically top notch - build is slightly lower but they assume you are not going into a war zone. The only thing is to always check focus as soon as you get it as you may need to get it re-aligned but on new lenses that is usually free or just the cost of shipping.

BrownewellPhoto said:
What's the word on the new 120-300 f2.8 for Nikons?

I have been looking into this lens as well and the only thing I have heard is that it will get out of alignment if it gets jostled allot with the front element being so heavy. (Think of continual transport by air/shipping to locals.) If you don't have that, many have said it is a good lens.

Sigma low-end zooms are lower in quality than Nikon for sure but are still good options for people on a budget. You get what you pay for, but sometimes you don't need a Corvette to go to the grocery store.

Posted 1 year ago #
Michael DeRose

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 277
offline

hmm i think you might have sold me on it tao. I am debating back and forth on to either get the nikon 105 macro or the new sigma 150 macro. I want to take insane closeups of eyes and then other normal macro stuff. (bugs, flowers, etc etc) I think i might have to test them out from borrowedlens.

Posted 1 year ago #
casperwb

preferred member
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 558
offline

Michael DeRose said:
hmm i think you might have sold me on it tao. I am debating back and forth on to either get the nikon 105 macro or the new sigma 150 macro. I want to take insane closeups of eyes and then other normal macro stuff. (bugs, flowers, etc etc) I think i might have to test them out from borrowedlens.

.
.
if you get the Sigma 150mm Macro, let us know what you think

interesting, it would be 225mm on a DX, nice working distance, but you would need some fast shutter speed or flash to hand hold.

or work with a tripod all the time.

I have been looking at them and the 180mm Tammy, however I do not always have good light and I find macro flash is somehimes clumsy in the field. Tripods are most times difficult to setup as the ground is most times not flat, and by the time you have it setup the opportunity is gone.

for flowers, you have to have day the wind stays at home.

give us a feedback on it, not the kind the people do in the lab, but your thoughts when you take it out and use it the way they are normally used, in the field.

Posted 1 year ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Sigma lenses are still too hit-or-miss for me to recommend them over any Nikon. Save your money and invest in Nikkors.

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

Michael DeRose said:
hmm i think you might have sold me on it tao. I am debating back and forth on to either get the nikon 105 macro or the new sigma 150 macro. I want to take insane closeups of eyes and then other normal macro stuff. (bugs, flowers, etc etc) I think i might have to test them out from borrowedlens.

That makes a difference if you are considering the 105vr. Get the 105vr. The VR alone is it's greatest bennifit.

It is by far one of the sharpest lenses that are made. I absolutely love mine and never will give it up. On DX it is a very long lens for macro and I take my 60mm out for flowers. The only reason I have ever wanted longer reach is to try to shoot some bugs. The one thing that happens the longer you get is image compression. For macro, I prefer the more 3d feel you get from a shorter lens.

Posted 1 year ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

I have old sigma 150 macro. Its really nice. Sigma has a new 150 OS/VR version. but I have not seen any reviews yet. Like all manufactures they have some gems in their lineup. most have been mentioned here. I would stay away from the others in the sigma lineup :-)

One lense in sigma's stable that has not been mentioned is their Sigma AF 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM OS. It reviewed well and its SHARP!! in the centre. A bit soft at the edges at the widest apertures (I think it was designed for their new SD1 45MP camera which has an 2:3 aspect ratio) but I can't really think of any photos where i would want maximum wide aperture and maximum edge sharpness .. besides macro and I already have a macro lense for that. :-) I am keen on getting one when funds are available :-)

Another one of the gems in their line up is the 50-500 telezoom performs better than their 150-500. There os also a new OSVR version of the 50-500 but I have not seen teh reviews of that lens either . so ... yeah.

While I am at it I would like to mention their 50-150 F2.8 not the new OS one but the old one. Its discontinued and I cant find a copy anywhere.. its small light and does not change lenght/volume when focusing or zooming.

Oh their new 24-70 is also good their old one is bad..

Posted 1 year ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

As heartyfisher said the Sigma 17-50 F2.8 seemed like a great lens. I tried it and it was very sharp and had a fast focus. I can't comment on long term durability or anything, but I really like the lens and it seemed like a steal for about half the price of the Nikon version. I liked it much more than the tamron version.

Posted 1 year ago #
abetanco

senior member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 63
offline

My sigma 10-20 (slower one) gives me good results.

Anyone with experience with the newest 150-500? My longest lens is nikon 70-300 vr but is somewhat soft at 300.

Posted 1 year ago #
casperwb

preferred member
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 558
offline

abetanco said:
My sigma 10-20 (slower one) gives me good results.

Anyone with experience with the newest 150-500? My longest lens is nikon 70-300 vr but is somewhat soft at 300.

use it stopped down , that helps, if you have the light that is.

Posted 1 year ago #
dormant

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 182
offline

I was recently digging about in my box of old unused camera stuff. I have a Sigma 75-300 zoom lens that I bought when I got my first Nikon in the late 80s. The rubber used for the grips on this lens has gone horribly sticky. I live in a hot humid climate, but none of my Nikon gear of a similar age has suffered rubber ickyness.

Just a warning if you buy Sigma and expect to use it for 20+ years.

Posted 1 year ago #
jerl

preferred member
Joined: Dec '10
Posts: 425
offline

In general, I try to avoid Sigma and other third party lenses unless they offer something specific that Nikon (or another first party) doesn't do. I don't think it really makes sense to try to save money by buying a cheaper lens, when there is a good chance when you will become unhappy with it in the future and buy the first party version later, whether due to issues due to optics, ergonomics or reliability.

That being said, I only own 3rd party wide DX zooms- I got my slow 10-20 back when Nikon only went down to 12mm, I got the Tokina 11-16/2.8, since Nikon still only goes down to 3.5, and not with a constant aperture at that.

Posted 1 year ago #
dormant

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 182
offline

Apart from the icky zoom, I have four Sigma lenses.

I have old 24mm and 28mm primes, which get used occasionally.

I have a 10-20 DX, which I bought following the same reasoning as jeri. I'm fairly happy with that.

In a moment of weakness, I bought a used 170-500mm zoom. It was cheap, it is very soft and it hardly ever gets any use.

I have since vowed never to buy non-Nikon lenses.

Posted 1 year ago #
DutchNikon

preferred member
Joined: Apr '11
Posts: 241
offline

dormant said:
The rubber used for the grips on this lens has gone horribly sticky.

Just a warning if you buy Sigma and expect to use it for 20+ years.

If this is a "Zen"Finnish lens, you can make it "Un-sticky" again by cleaning it with a keyboard cleaner which contains "Iso Propanol".
This removes a residu that sweats out of the stuff used for the "Zen Finnish".. Once Signma found out about this problem, they stopped applieing this "Zen"finnish stuff...

I did this once to my older Zen-finnish lenses and they never became sticky again....

BTW : You can also use pure Iso-propanol , if you can find it, diluded with some distilled water ( Aqua Dest..).

Posted 1 year ago #
Graphicnatured

senior member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 89
offline

Tried the 50mm 1.4 side by side with the Nikon and preferred the Sigma. Loved the Bokeh and filter size matched all my other lenses. The problem was, I had to try three of them before I got the sweet one. Not a problem because I didn't need it immediately and bought them through Amazon so returns were easy. I would have no problem recommending this lens to someone who has the ability and time to try with the possibility of a return. I know it sucks, but I feel it was worth it as I have captured some great photos of my baby with this glass.

Posted 1 year ago #
Super Shooter

preferred member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 277
offline

I bought a Sigma 10-20 that focused spot on but it was too soft wide open so I exchanged it. The second copy was sharper wide open but I ended up returning it for a full refund because the focus wasn't as snappy as my first copy.

Posted 1 year ago #
Godless

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 241
offline

admin said:
Sigma lenses: some love them, others hate them.

And some of us love and hate them. I have had bad and good Sigmas.

I love the 20mm f/1.8 EX DG ASP RF on DX. Just perfect for a crop normal, and sharp enough at about f/2.5. Also sharper than Nikon 20mm f/2.8D @ 2.8

I love the 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM (very fast AF, sharper than Nikon AF-S 85mm 1.4G @ 2.0 and at half the price of the Nikon). AF hunts often though.

I have loved two Sigma 150mm EX APO IF DG HSM macros as well. Both the Canon and Nikon versions were faultless from the box, just perfect (except for the slow AF).

I hated the cheap Sigma 70-300mm telezoom, which had slow and inaccurate AF and poor image quality. One of the first lenses that I bought for a Canon Rebel and a huge disappointment at that.

I got a bad 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM (motor died on me, warranty fixed that and I sold it with the 5Dmk2)

I loathed the 12-24mm EX DG HSM, which was one of the most abysmal things on 5Dmk2. The corners were so bad that the lens ruined a few potentially excellent shots. The older Sigma 15-30 was much better. Finally I ended up with a lovely Sigma 14mm f/3.5 instead.
Sold that too when I switched from Canon to Nikon.

I have tested the big cheapo Sigma zooms (50-500, 120-400 and 150-500) and have come to the conclusion that the money is better invested in almost anything else. For example, now I have the super-sharp Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4 IF-ED and a Kenko DGX 1.4x TC for bird shots and this combo works for me.

Posted 1 year ago #
Godless

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 241
offline

Ahh I messed up

Posted 1 year ago #
aetas

preferred member
Joined: Dec '09
Posts: 273
offline

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.

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

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.

Posted 1 year ago #
aetas

preferred member
Joined: Dec '09
Posts: 273
offline

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

Posted 1 year ago #
casperwb

preferred member
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 558
offline

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.

Posted 1 year ago #
kyoshinikon

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 1,200
offline

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

Posted 1 year ago #
noxin

preferred member
Joined: Nov '09
Posts: 246
offline

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.

Posted 1 year ago #
Godless

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 241
offline

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)

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

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.

Posted 1 year ago #