Is it a crime to use Sigma lenses on a Nikon D3???

Dangleman

Dangleman

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,316
Name
Dan
Edit My Images
No
Lo folks

I've recently shelled out for a D3 after a great deal of umming, ahhing, soul searching, convincing Mrs Dangleman etc.
It really is an awesome camera as we all know. I won't bore you with the details, but I'm having major mid-range zoom lens quandry now. I really want the new Nikon 24-70 2.8, but at this stage I really can't afford to lay down a grand after buying the D3. There's the Nikon 28-70 (the 'beast') which you can get from HK for about £750, but again this is too much at this stage. How much of a 'crime' would it be to pair it with a Sigma 24-60/70 2.8 for the forseeable future. I've already got a Sigma 70-200 2.8 and was using this this weekend, with really good results to be honest.

I know you shouldn't compromise on glass, but what differences are there really. I don't think a Nikon 2.8 provides 4x the image quality of a good Sigma lens, but that's what the money ratio is, hence the quandry. What do you people think?
 
2 questions to ask yourself....

1) Do you absolutely need the sigma right now?
2) Do you really want the sigma? Or is it just a quick fix?

I think that if you cant afford something but dont really NEED it either then why not just save up for it?!

I know, I know, you got the bug and its not what you want to hear! :p

Im a canon person, I want L glass and if it means waiting then I will...not that I want to!!!

SB
 
johnb said:
Sorry, no comment to make re the lenses, just loved the name "Mrs Dangleman"
Click to expand...

:D

I kind of *need* a mid zoom sharpish. I only currently have the Nikon 18-70 DX. I don't want to be using DX lenses on the full frame D3 as it drops down to 5mill pixels crop mode. Many people would say I've gone about upgrading the wrong way, ie should have got better glass first. I was about to do this (I already have a D200, and D70) but the high ISO performance and full frame lured me in, and I started thinking about the long term viability of DX lenses. The type of photos I mainly do now (corporate/ commercial/ event stuff) is often indoors with bad light, and the D3 excels at this, more so than a D200 with a great lens.
 
I don't use Nikon BUT I just know if you buy the Sigma, sooner or later you'll end up with the Nikon glass anyway, if you do, you'll take a hit on the Sigma when you sell it, and you will, then the Nikon glass will have cost you even more, just keep saving and wait until you can afford hwat you really want:)

I use Canon and shoot almost exclusivley with L glass, I have 2 non L lenses which will shortly be sold to make way for the incoming L's to replace them, you know it makes sense to wait:thumbs:

How much use will you get out of the Sigma befoe you buy the much wanted Nikon glass, very little I guess which will make it an expensive mistake :bonk:
 
Dangleman said:
How much of a 'crime' would it be to pair it with a Sigma 24-60/70 2.8 for the forseeable future?
Click to expand...

There's no crime here as you didn't buy a canon :P

It all comes down to whether money is an issue and how badly you need it. Are you needing a lens in this range for work? Or going away somewhere where you will be using it? I would imagine that you'd be very happy with the Nikon, but not 4 times as happy...
 
To be honest, I dont know enough about Nikon glass to say whether there is a big improvement over Sigma glass, but i do know that if i bought something i thought was second best i'd regret it and eventually end up buying what i really wanted to start with. On that basis, 'saving' up front is a false economy......
 
Good advice people, and that's why I went for the D3 over the D300, as that's the one I really wanted and would have regretted not getting (plus I don't think the leap from D200 to 300 was big enough to warrant it).

Still not sure what to do lens wise though.:bonk: Just to add to the confusion there's also the Tamron 28-75 2.8 which gets good reviews, and the Tokina 28-80 2.8. I already have a Tamron 90mm Di macro lens, and it produces really nice images, which again makes me think a decent copy of a third party lens can be good enough. Maybe I should rent a top quality Nikon for a day or so and see if there is night and day difference? (there's a calumet fairly near me)
 
Sounds very sensible to rent - at leats you can cop a feel that way :)

I've heard very good things about Tokina, but never had the pleasure
 
I would just wait really. No point getting rushed when you would wait and have the lens you want. I've waited before and it was worth it. I waited for my 10.5mm for soooo long and it was soo worth it.
 
the sigma 24-70 is an astonishing lens for the price, I can't tell the difference between my 24-70 and 50mm in regards to IQ and sharpness with out pixel peeping. If your willing to risk going through the hassle of sigmas quailty control issues (my first copy was terrible and sent it back) then you can get a absolute bargain. Buying second hand can greatly reduce the chance of getting a duff copy, and can be picked up for well under £200 on ebay.
 
I could wait (hate waiting though:)), but I've got a few jobs coming up in the next few months where I will definitely need a standard mid-range zoom. I guess I could use the 18-70 DX in 'crop mode' meantime, but it's not the best lens and doesn't open wide enough for the shallow depth of field shots I like to do. Arrrrg.

Does anyone have experience of the 28-70 2.8 Nikon, and first hand experience of how it compares to third party lenses of similar spec? I'm looking at this as opposed to the new 24-70 as 1.) It's about £250 cheaper, and 2.) I'm guessing Nikon will stop making this lens now that the newer 24-70 is out so there may be even better deals on it. Perhaps?
 
Dangleman said:
I could wait (hate waiting though:)), but I've got a few jobs coming up in the next few months where I will definitely need a standard mid-range zoom. I guess I could use the 18-70 DX in 'crop mode' meantime, but it's not the best lens and doesn't open wide enough for the shallow depth of field shots I like to do. Arrrrg.

Does anyone have experience of the 28-70 2.8 Nikon, and first hand experience of how it compares to third party lenses of similar spec? I'm looking at this as opposed to the new 24-70 as 1.) It's about £250 cheaper, and 2.) I'm guessing Nikon will stop making this lens now that the newer 24-70 is out so there may be even better deals on it. Perhaps?
Click to expand...

The 28-70 was considered an absolute dream to use on SLR's and is pin sharp, but was a little to long for most on a dslr, which is why the 17-55 became so popular. The latest 24-70 was basically designed with the D3 in mind, but worth £1200 I'm really not sure. Especially when the canon equivilant is being sold for half of that.
 
I'd wait for the £££ for the Nikon lens personally. I had a 24-70 sigma lens, and replaced it with a 28-70 Nikon and the difference to my eyes was pretty big. The Nikon was just sharper and had much better colours I found. When I got my D3 I also went with a 24-70 to go with it. To my eyes it isn't a huge leap ahead of the 28-70, but maybe a little better. I tried the 28-70 and the 24-70 on the D3 and found them so close I was torn. In the end I sold the 28-70 as I figured I'd have an extra couple of mm at the wide end. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the 28-70 though, and used you could pick up some good bargains.

Pete
 
I'd say get the sigma, but make sure you try it out and you're truely happy with it. If not, walk away. It is a good lens and more than worthy of being on a D3.
 
I've no idea on the differences of Nikon vs Sigma but I know that Ken Rockwel did a comparison between a series of Nikon Pro Normal Zooms recently on a D3 (24-70 AF-S, 28-70 AF-S, 35-70 AF-D and 2 manual focus equivalents).

He basically sumarised that the they are all about the same and not distinguishable in real life. Rather than worrying about Sigma vs Nikon perhaps given your type of photography (mostly people and product where the 24 & 28 will distort) and the fact the D3 is FF then you should look about for a good S/H example of the 35-70 - I picked mine up for about £200. You can then save the pennies for the big Nikons and still have the quality now.

OFFER - If you are near me we can meet up one day and I'll let you have a try with the 35-70 to see if it meets your requiremetns before you start the search. PM me if you are interested.
 
The 35-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor got rave reviews - it was designed for 35mm SLR's, should go a treat on your D3...

But, no. There is nothing wrong with putting quality Sigma glass on your shiny D3.
 
Ooooh, have just found a Nikon 28-70 2.8, second hand (from an online shop, uk) in good nick for about £590 delivered.
This is the lens I had in mind. Still too much really at this stage though. What should I do?
 
If it were me I'd sell the D70+18-70 and get the Nikon. The only downside to that is you loose the wide end when shooting with the D200.

Oh and when you say the 18-70 isn't the best lens, actually it's damn good. Sharp as anything, the only downside is the slow aperture.

Pete
 
icecavern said:
If it were me I'd sell the D70+18-70 and get the Nikon. The only downside to that is you loose the wide end when shooting with the D200.

Oh and when you say the 18-70 isn't the best lens, actually it's damn good. Sharp as anything, the only downside is the slow aperture.

Pete
Click to expand...

Funny you should say that as that's what I want to do (sell the d70 and 18-70 DX). Only trouble is I don't know where to sell it for a good price. I've never sold anything on ebay before, so that might be difficult
as I don't have any sort of positive 'rating'. Anyone on here wnat to buy it? :)

Also, I will be using the mid zoom on the D200 quite a lot so I will lose quite a lot on the wide end if I stick a 28-70 on it. Decisions decisions. The Sigma 24-60 is starting to look more attractive now.

Also, you're right about the Nikon 18-70 DX, it is very sharp but the aperture lets it down as you say, and it feels a bit tinny. As it's a DX lens it also only works in crop mode on the D3.
 
Have you tried it on the D3 in FX mode to see if you get more usable area? THe 12-24 actually works full frame on a D3 from 18> IIRC.
 
icecavern said:
Have you tried it on the D3 in FX mode to see if you get more usable area? THe 12-24 actually works full frame on a D3 from 18> IIRC.
Click to expand...

I have aye. From memory it gets useable from around 24 up, but it just looks weird - you can see the sensor 'housing' or some such in the viewfinder, and I don't want to have to worry about going under 24 and getting terrible vignetting. I guess using it DX mode is ok for now, you only get 5megapixel images, but that's enough for many and only slightly less than the D70 anyway.
 
icecavern said:
And the other option is maybe get a 24-85mm F2.8-4 Nikon as a stopgap ;)
Click to expand...

Ha ha, stop it :) I've looked at that option too! Lovely focal range that, but have seen a few reviews that aren't too great. I just don't know now. I love agonising about this stuff, gives you something to 'worry' about doesn't it.
 
i had the sigma 24-70 f2.8 on my canon 5D and it was fine, yes the L lenses were slightly sharper and better quality, but for the extra money, i don't think they were that much better. just requires a little extra in photoshop, but way up whether 5min in photoshop is worth the £700+ extra cost. Now that i am moving to Nikon i might just get the Nikon version of the 24-70 sigma.
 
Dangleman said:
Funny you should say that as that's what I want to do (sell the d70 and 18-70 DX). Only trouble is I don't know where to sell it for a good price. I've never sold anything on ebay before, so that might be difficult
as I don't have any sort of positive 'rating'. Anyone on here wnat to buy it? :)
Click to expand...

Stick the camera and lens up on the TP sales forum, assuming they're both in good nick you should get £150 or so for the body and £100ish for the lens :)
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Stick the camera and lens up on the TP sales forum, assuming they're both in good nick you should get £150 or so for the body and £100ish for the lens :)
Click to expand...

He'd have got a lot more than that last year when he wrote this :naughty:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top