Nikkor vs. Sigma and Other Lenses

[Zehn Ziegen]

Good-day,

For those of you not already familiar with the situation in which I will be photographing my subjects, a complete description is available under my post "Macro->Nikon, Canon, Pentax->Bodies, Lenses" in this forum (Digital SLRs) (though knowledge of this is not greatly important for the subject of this post). I believe the only piece of background information necessary is is that I am looking at either the D70 or D100, which have Nikon F mounts.

My question is in relation to lens quality versus price. I realise Nikon lenses (Nikkor) are extremely high quality and that lens quality is one of the most important (some people would say the most important) control of quality, etc.

I was hoping to get some opinions/input as to whether or not the high quality of Nikkor lenses would be necessary for my setup.

Specifically, this question arises from looking at (and having people try to sell me) Sigma lenses (any opinions about the quality of Sigma lenses would be appreciated). For instance, a Sigma 70-300mm 4-5.6 APO macro Nikon AF costs only CAD$300 (US$225), while I was told a comparable Nikkor lens would cost much more (~CAD$1000 (US$750) for a 80-200mm). Another example is that I could get a set of two Sigma lenses (around 28-50mm and 55-200mm) for ~CAD$450 (~US$335).

Are Sigma lenses so much "worse" relative to Nikkor lenses to justify the difference in price, or would they (or some other type of lens you would suggest) be suitable for my system?

Also, I was wondering if anybody knows of a good store/supplier of Nikkor lenses?

Any opinions and/or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. This site/forum has been extremely useful so far in ideas for my system, and I would like to thank everyone for their time and effort in reading and responding to my (usually somewhat long) posts.

Thank you for your time.

Auf wiedersehen,

James

[Sebastian]

James,

Your comparison is not valid. Comparing a 70-300 Sigma to a 80-200 Nikkor is apples and oranges. THe former is a variable-aperture consumer zoom, while the latter is a constant-aperture pro zoom. The Nikkor in this comparison will have much better quality in everything, from build to optics.

A much more fair comparison would be the Sigma 80-200 f/2.8 to the Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8. Similar lenses in purpose and quality.

So to answer your question, in your original comparison the Sigma will be inferior in optics to the Nikon. In my suggested comparison, the difference will become very small.

Good luck with your search. I haven't had much to contribute, but I am following along with great interest.

[Zehn Ziegen]

James,

Your comparison is not valid. Comparing a 70-300 Sigma to a 80-200 Nikkor is apples and oranges. THe former is a variable-aperture consumer zoom, while the latter is a constant-aperture pro zoom. The Nikkor in this comparison will have much better quality in everything, from build to optics.

A much more fair comparison would be the Sigma 80-200 f/2.8 to the Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8. Similar lenses in purpose and quality.

So to answer your question, in your original comparison the Sigma will be inferior in optics to the Nikon. In my suggested comparison, the difference will become very small.

Good luck with your search. I haven't had much to contribute, but I am following along with great interest.

Good-day,

Thank you for your reply. I assume then I would most likely be looking for a constant-aperture pro zoom, as this would provide the quality I require?

Looking at the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 (ap per your comparison), they appear to be priced as follows:

Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF-D
CAD$1100 (US$800)

Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF VR Zoom Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8D G-AFS ED-IF Autofocus Lens (Vibration Reduction)
CAD$2000 (US$1500)

***Note: there seem to be some differences here (i.e., the Nikkor says it has ED-IF and vibration reduction), so please do not hesitate to tell me if I am again comparing different "fruit types".

Anyways, aside from that, and as an overall, it seems Nikkor lenses are generally more expensive than comparable lenses by other companies...would a Nikkor lense really be worth it for my setup?

Auf wiedersehen,

James

[Sebastian]

Good-day,

Thank you for your reply. I assume then I would most likely be looking for a constant-aperture pro zoom, as this would provide the quality I require?

Looking at the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 (ap per your comparison), they appear to be priced as follows:

Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF-D
CAD$1100 (US$800)

Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF VR Zoom Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8D G-AFS ED-IF Autofocus Lens (Vibration Reduction)
CAD$2000 (US$1500)

***Note: there seem to be some differences here (i.e., the Nikkor says it has ED-IF and vibration reduction), so please do not hesitate to tell me if I am again comparing different "fruit types".

Anyways, aside from that, and as an overall, it seems Nikkor lenses are generally more expensive than comparable lenses by other companies...would a Nikkor lense really be worth it for my setup?

Auf wiedersehen,

James

Yeah, the Nikkor VR has vibration reduction, a very expensive option that will do nothing for you when mounted on a tripod. The cheaper 80-200 Nikkor is a much better option.

Yes, no matter what, you will pay more for Nikkor, simply because it's Nikkor. I say that not because the manufacturers inflate prices because they can, but instead because third-party manufacturers have to be able to compete on the price front and charge less for their offerings. Sigma makes excellent lenses, don't let that worry you. I was just making a point that if you're going to compare, you need to compare similar items.

[another view]

The less-expensive Nikkor (80-200 f2.8 AF-D with the tripod foot) is the one to get in your situation. It's probably only $100 more than the Sigma, so I wouldn't worry about it. Tell you what, get the VR version and I'll trade with you...! VR only helps you if you're holding the camera (no tripod) in low light, so it won't make a difference for you. Both lenses are among the sharpest that they make.

Usually the 3rd party lenses (Sigma, Tokina, Tamron) are very good, but Nikon would have the edge with AF speed and build quality (as in how much abuse they can handle). Neither of these points should be a problem for you.

[ustein]

When I bought my AF-S 80-200 f/2.8 I looked into Sigma and found the colors very different to Nikon. Sharpness is not everything. Having VR also comes in handy.

FYI: The Canon IS also works on tripods.

Uwe

[Dakzoo]

While I am certainly not a professional photographer, I do shoot quite a bit, mostly sports/action with some family portrait stuff. I have owned and used extensively the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and the Nikkor 80-200 2.8 and I can say without a doubt that the Nikkor is a much better lens. The sharpness and color correctness of this lens makes the Sigma pale in comparison. The Sigma tended to be much too contrasty for my taste, often blowing out highlights while making shadow area indiscernable.

For the extra $100 (the Nikkor currently has a $100 rebate) the Nikkor is a much better buy. Besides, it just feels better in the hands. Their are only two complaints I have about the lens - (1) You cannot remove the tripod mount - although I can swivel it to get it out of my way when using the zoom ring (2) Nikon does not make a teleconverter that will work with this lens in autofocus mode - I do use the Tamron 1.4x teleconverter and have been very pleased with the results thus far.

Spend the extra $100 and don't look back. If only Nikon had that 100-300 that Sigma has! It's a f/4.0 fixed and would be great for my baseball and soccer shoots, however, I'm not crazy about the Sigma lens so I'll just continue to use the teleconverter on the 80-200 Nikkor.

[littleguy]

Spend the extra $100 and don't look back. If only Nikon had that 100-300 that Sigma has! It's a f/4.0 fixed and would be great for my baseball and soccer shoots, however, I'm not crazy about the Sigma lens so I'll just continue to use the teleconverter on the 80-200 Nikkor.

If it were only an extra $100 I would go for it too!

From Cameracanada.com
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX APO IF HSM is $1,249.99 CDN
Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR is $2,265.47 CDN

Henry's has the Sigma at a cheaper price but higher for the Nikkor

The Nikon is more than double the costs of the Sigma before taxes. Now it has VR which is good for hand held shots but its still a big difference in costs. (I don't think you can find the non-VR model anymore or at least not new)

Are the pictures from the Nikkor that much better? $1000 better? I guess it depends what you are using your photos for...

Doesn't your 70-200 become a 105-300mm on a Nikon D series camera?