Nikkor vs Sigma lenses

[argusp2]

Can anyone tell me the difference, if any, between these two brands? Is one better than the other? I am looking at a package for their 28 - 70mm and their 70 - 300mm lenses.
I am getting a Nikon D50 and I have two kits to choose from the kit with the sigma lenses is $50 more.

Thanks!

 

[YEKCIM]

I have a new D50 (two, actually), three Nikkor lenses, and a Sigma. I believe the bottom line, as usual, is that you get what you pay for. Nikon and Sigma both have good lenses, and some not so good. Follow the dollars. I have read some good things about the Sigma 70-300 Apo (red ring) and, if I had not been able to get the 70-300VR Nikkor, I'm pretty sure I'd have ended up with the Sigma. Beyond that, I'm not too sure about the quality of the lenses you mention.

Something else to keep in mind is the 1.5X crop factor on the two lenses you are looking at. Nikon uses APS sized sensor, so the focal length X 1.5 is the "35mm equivalent" in terms of field of view. Ergo, the 28-70 becomes 42-105mm and the 70-300 becomes 105-450mm. You gain on the telephoto end, but lose significantly in wide angle.

How does the "package" price stack up to buying a D50 body, a Sigma 17-70mm and the Sigma 70-300mm separately?

$450 D50 body (B&H)
$325 Sigma 17-70 (Sigma4Less)
$180 Sigma 70-300 Apo (Sigma4Less)
$955 Total

~YEKCIM

 

[tinksdad]

I've gotten good info and reviews from SLRGear. Another would be Popular Photography. Check both all the lenses for your camera.

Others will give more links.

FWIW, I decided that I'm sticking with Nikon lenses. Good glass is forever!

 

[handicap18]

Generally speaking, Nikkor lenses are better. However, Sigma does make some excellent lenses. That being said, if I were to choose between a Nikkor 28-80 and a Sigma 17-70 for my D50 I would go with the Sigma 17-70. 28mm to start with a Nikon dSLR body isn't wide enough for me. The Nikkor 18-55mm that is the "kit" lens for the D50 is a good lens. When I got my D50 I initially went with the 18-70mm for the longer reach. I have since moved up to the 18-135mm. I think if I had known about the Sigma 17-70 when I got my D50 I would have went with it. Its a bit faster at the wide end (f/2.8 at 17mm vs f/3.5 at 18mm with the Nikkor).

The newest version of Sigma's 70-300mm is pretty good, about as good as Nikon's 70-300mm AF (the one without VR). The Nikkor 70-300 with VR is a great lens, very sharp and the VR is awesome, however its a $500-550 lens. For years I used a Quantaray (Ritz Camera's house brand that I believe is made by Sigma) 70-300. I got a lot of great shots from it, but for me it was time to upgrade.

One lens I want to get is a 70-200mm f/2.8. Sigma's version is excellent and is also almost $1000 less than Nikon's (though the Nikkor version has VR). If I can't afford that or Nikkor's 80-200 f/2.8 (less expensive but still around $1100 for the AF-S version) then I will definately go with the just under $800 Sigma.

Its not always cut and dry, but Sigma does make some good glass, as does Tamron.