Help - trying to determine whether Sigma lenses are worth the buy

[Ratpack]

I am currently looking at some new prime lenses and Sigma has a few that I like, but not sure if they are worth the cost savings over OEM, Nikon in this case. I am looking at the 20mm 1.8, 105mm 2.8 and something in the 70-90mm range 1.8-2.8. Anyone care to comment on their Sigma lenses. Even if it isn't one that is listed, tell me what you think of Sigma. Keep in mind I am the average amateur at best.

Thanks!

 

[Gdad]

I just got my first Sigma lens for my D70 - the 10-20mm. My initial reaction is that I really like it. Just the feel of the lens, it has kind of a matte finish and feels very solid. Autofocus is smooth and quiet. It came with a very nice padded case.

Not that I am really that familiar with nice glass- otherwise I have the Nikkor 18-70kit lens, the Nikkor 50mm 1.8, and a Tamron 18-200 - but this just 'feels' like it's better built. Since I bought it I am seriously thinking about waiting on their new 18-200vr (and giving up on ever finding the Nikon version) Just my $.02

 

[jann1033]

i don't know if this happens on Nikon but on canon there has been historically a problem with some focus hunting...i had one that did that and it was maddening...however some of their lenses are highly recommended so i think you have to just look up as many reviews( with photos if possible) for them as possible and see what the general consensus is for each lens

i had sworn i would never buy another 3rd party then bought a phoenix( worse than sigma supposedly ) 100mm macro cause it was well recommended on a bunch of sites and i love it, who'd a thunk it? it was less than 1/2 the price of canon like model...

i will say though, even if you are the average amateur, a good lens makes better photos no matter who is taking it. i think part of the reason i kind of left photography for a while was the results i got with that awful sigma lens..it was totally frustrating....not that i am winning prizes now but i am much happier with at least some of my photos than i was with that lens...so from now on i'm saving up for a good lens no matter what the brand to replace my mediocre ones

 

[YEKCIM]

Like Gdad, I have the 10-20mm and so far happy with it, for same reasons he stated. Can't comment on other Siggy's, but had very seriously considered the 17-70mm Macro when making my "bulk" Nikon gear purchase. It gets favorable reviews, and the 1mm difference between it and the Nikon 18-70 was appealing; now that I have the 10-20, of course, it doesn't matter, and I have much longer reach with the 18-135.

~YEKCIM

 

[mabas9395]

From what I've read (and this is a topic I've researched up on) both 3rd party lenses and OEM lenses have some winners and some stinkers. Sigma is probably the highest regarded 3rd party lens (speaking of canon mounts). So if you get a good Sigma lens, it will be worth the buy. But if you get a good OEM lens, it will also be worth the buy.

Take the UWA mentioned a few times, the 10-2x. Sigma has one for about $200 less than canon but the canon is 2mm longer (20 vs 22), is faster (4-5.6 vs 3.5 - 4.5) and comes with the comfort you may (or may not) get from OEM. With the sigma you get a lens pouch, a lens hood and even though its slow aperture may require a tripod more often, with the $200 you saved you can get a decent set of legs.

In short, with an OEM lens you usually get more so you pay more. But that doesn't mean a 3rd party lens isn't worth what you pay for it. You just need to decide if the extra features of the OEM lens is worth the extra cost, if it isn't, go for the Sigma and enjoy your lens and the cash you saved.

That being said, my wife has been asking me what I want for my birthday (eight days to go) and I'll probably go for the Sigma 10-20 (if we can scrape up the cash).

 

[Cheeky in TN]

I have a Sigma for my Canon and like it alot. I have the 28-70 2.8 and use it as much as I use my Canon IS 28-135. My one issue is and I do not know if it is me, the lens, or just how it is; but when I shoot at 2.8 my focus range is REALLY NARROW. I mean I have had my daughter and son side by side and have one of them out of focus even thought they are at the same distance.

 

[Master Mason]

I don't know about their primes. I have the sigma 18-125 and use it as my walk around lens and have been very happy with it. Unfortunately, Canon doesn't make a lens in this lenght, they have the 28-135, but that wasn't wide enough for a walk around lens IMHO, if I had a 5D it would be great, but not with the 1.6 factor....

I debated on the 70-200 f/2.8 as both canon and sigma make one, and opted for the higher price on the OEM and the L glass, and have been more than happy with my choice. Even as much as that lens ways it is the one I use the most right now, and my wife absolutely loves using it....

So, I think it gets down to what your looking for, your budget, and your long term planning. I knew that I would have good glass for a long long time.

 

[handicap18]

Sigma does make some very good lenses. I'm looking into getting one of the wide angle primes (20mm, 24mm or 28mm, all are f/1.8). I've heard some decent things about the 105mm and their 70-200mm f/2.8 has gotten very good reviews. If your looking for something in the 70-90mm range take a serious look at Tamron's 90mm f/2.8 Macro. The newest version is the Di which is enhanced for digital. I have an older version and it is an AWESOME lens, excellent focusing and sharp enough to cut your eye. Its regarded as one of if not Tamron's best lens and rates right up there with Nikon's 60mm f/2.8 and 105mm f/2.8 macro's and its less expensive.

 

[0bli0]

i love most of Sigma's EX range. i have a 120-300 2.8, 50-500, 12-24, and 15mm fisheye. i have also heard good things about the 105mm EX dg.

 

[alan]

I bought the 18-200mm, really hated it. Pictures taken with it just did not look sharp on-screen at 100%. Having said that, we got a few printed out and they looked great on paper, but that's not the way we use photographs any more.

I have a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8, and have no complaints about that - I use it for stage photography. However, it's a much less ambitious (in terms of zoom) and more expensive lens.

regards,
/alan

(Saving up for someone's 70-200mm f/2.8!)

 

[Groucho]

I have a Sigma for my Canon and like it alot. I have the 28-70 2.8 and use it as much as I use my Canon IS 28-135. My one issue is and I do not know if it is me, the lens, or just how it is; but when I shoot at 2.8 my focus range is REALLY NARROW. I mean I have had my daughter and son side by side and have one of them out of focus even thought they are at the same distance.

That's normal, the wider your aperture, the smaller the depth of field. Now imagine what it's like when you get down to F1.4.

All the lens manufacturers, including the OEMs, have good lenses and bad lenses, so I don't think it's possible to make a blanket generalization that you should buy one over the other. It all depends on the specific lenses you're comparing.