Nikon V Sigma

Nikon Dave

Nikon Dave

Suspended / Banned
Messages
674
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all , in the next few weeks i am going to purchase a 24-70 2.8 lens .The main problem i have is not knowing the main difference between the nikon at £1190 or the sigma at £500 ish .People report that the nikon is super sharp but why won't the sigma be sharp being f2.8 through the zoom aswell ?Both also have ultra quiet motors . I need a bit of expert help in deciding as there's a £700 difference at stake .
 
I have the un-motorised Sigma, and my old man has the Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8 - and I've used both in anger.

Personally, I can not see any difference in image quality or sharpness - The difference in price isn't worth it in my 'umble opinion :)
 
I've also heard this and then i've also heard different ,thanks for your input.
 
I tried a Nikon v Sigma at Jessops, downloaded the file when I got home and coulldn't tell the difference.
I had the same senario when I was buying speakers for my stereo... at the bottom end of the market compared to the middle market there was a distinct difference. The same from the middle to the high end. But once I was in the high end market place the price difference between them didnt seem justafiable as I couldnt hear any difference at all.
Maybe there are differences when using a 24 mp camera? But for my 12mp I would go for the sigma. Hope this makes sense
 
Two things:

1) AF speed - Nikon 24-70 is waaaaay fast. If you want to shoot moving stuff the Sigma won't cut it.

2) Flare - Nikon extra low dispersion (sp?) glass is waaay less subject to lens flare (as I discovered personally the other day)

If you look at the charts you'll see the Nikon also has far less drop off in the corners and edges too.

If none of this makes sense to you, get the Sigma and save some cash :)
 
I had lots of flare problems with Sigma lenses in the past when the Army tried to save some money...even in studio conditions...the lens coatings aren't as good and the glass itself isn't as good...
There is a reason why Nikon and Canon glass is so expensive - it's not just so those companies can make more money...
 
i picked up the nikon 24-70 f/2.8

great lens so fast....
 
desantnik said:
Two things:

1) AF speed - Nikon 24-70 is waaaaay fast. If you want to shoot moving stuff the Sigma won't cut it.

2) Flare - Nikon extra low dispersion (sp?) glass is waaay less subject to lens flare (as I discovered personally the other day)

If you look at the charts you'll see the Nikon also has far less drop off in the corners and edges too.

If none of this makes sense to you, get the Sigma and save some cash :)
Click to expand...

Yes crystal clear ! like the nikon lens i presume ;)
 
There is a lot more to good lenses than sharpness.

Any half decent lens will produce very sharp images in the centre of the frame at moderate f/numbers. And the most humble kit zoom will be very hard to distinguish from a £1000 L lens. The difference comes when you look towards the edges and corners, especially at low f/numbers. Check for chromatic aberration (CA).

Resistance to flare is another very important characteristic, which is hard to measure and compare in lens reviews - conventional test targets don't show it at all, yet every shot taken outside on a bright day will have some flare going on in some shape or form. Usually you can't see it without a direct A vs B comparison, but in a lesser lens it will be eating away at contrast all the time. If the sun is in the frame, or close to it, that will sort the good from the average very visibly.

Distortion is another thing, often unnoticed unless you shoot architecture with straight lines close to the edges of the frame.

Vignetting is another difficulty - darkening towards the conrers of the frame. It's hard to get lenses with a low f/number to do well here, and you need a big front element to collect peripheral light. Some lenses with apparently identical spec but one being much bigger, heavier and more expensive, will have less vignetting. Put another way, the f/number will equate much more closely to real total light transmission - not all f/2.8 lenses for example are as close to f/2.8 for exposure purposes as they appear to be (f/number is a theoretical ratio, not a true indicator of how much light is actually transmitted).

Then there's focusing speed and accuracy. And not all image stabilisation systems are as good as others (if they have it).

Build quality. You can usually see it and feel it, and that costs, but top quality lenses are often differently designed so that all movements are internal and the lens doesn't doesn't change length, which draws in air and dust as the lens is zoomed and focused. Some add weather sealing too.

A lot of optical shortcomings can be corrected in post processing, which was never possible with film. This can make some cheaper lenses appear to punch way above their weight.

All in all, if Sigma made lenses to the same total standard as Canon or Nikon etc, then they would cost the same. They are cheaper because they don't. The law of diminishing returns ensures that small improvements cost increasingly more money.
 
I have had quite a few sigma lenses and not one has given the results I would have expected, my first was the 70-200f2.8 and it was soft then came the 17-70DG and suprisingly this was my worst ever 2.8 lens so I opted for the same again but DC and it was just as bad.....at this point I was beginning to think it was either me or the camera so I bought a tamron 70-200f2.8 and wow it was amazing, extremely sharp on the D200 but I did a trade for the sigma 170-500 and that too was very sharp.
My walk about is a Nikon 18-135f3.5 and its just a fabulous lens at very low cost and it beats any sigma 2.8 imho
 
I've posted this elsewhere - I have had a play with the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 (more by luck than judgement) and tbh it did nothing for me. Focusing was accurate however the optics weren't overly sharp wide-open (stopped sown to f/4 it improved); in all honesty my Tamron 28-75mm comfortably beat it in all areas (most definitely, wide-open). The images from the Tamron have that added punch (contrast/tone) that make a picture for me, the Sigma was flat by comparison.
 
Out of interest, as I have both I compared a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S to a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX HSM (the good ones before they buggered them up by adding the "macro" feature and the snakeoil "DG" feature)

There is nothing is in at all, in all honesty. The Sigma is sharper and more contrasty but has more blue fringing around contrasty edges. Also has less vignettting wide open. Focus speed seems identical.

Test target:

http://www.odysseus-software.co.uk/LensTests/x80200/nikon80-200-vs-sigma70200.jpg

100% crop:

http://www.odysseus-software.co.uk/LensTests/x80200/nikon80-200-vs-sigma70200-100.jpg
 
I was asking this question about two months ago or so because I was in your position. I bought the D700 last month and was looking for the lens to go with it this month. I have read lots of reviews and features and it is clear that the sigma is a decent lens that people would be happy with but the nikon has a number of areas in which it noses ahead. The question is whether these improvements are worth the money. It's a similar question on other lenses in the range like the 18-200 I would give the result to the nikon on that one as well but it is even closer. Sigma lens are very good and I have a nice 20mm f1.8 myself but it costs money for those slight improvements and this is passed on to us!
 
For the actual lenses in question, I don't think there is any doubt the Nikon 24-70 is the better lens than the Sigma 24-70.

However.. you are looking at a £1000 difference (the 24-70 was £229 in Jessops recently), so this shouldn't come as a surprise. The Nikkor isn't 5x better than the Sigma. I'd say probably 3 to 5% better optically, although at 24mm the Sigma wins as it has less field curvature. At 70mm the Nikkor wins.

I'd bet with an A4 print and blind testing people couldn't tell which is probably a better test of value.
 
puddleduck said:
For the actual lenses in question, I don't think there is any doubt the Nikon 24-70 is the better lens than the Sigma 24-70.

However.. you are looking at a £1000 difference (the 24-70 was £229 in Jessops recently), so this shouldn't come as a surprise. The Nikkor isn't 5x better than the Sigma. I'd say probably 3 to 5% better optically, although at 24mm the Sigma wins as it has less field curvature. At 70mm the Nikkor wins..
Click to expand...

Well, that is pretty much typical of any high performance equipment - the best is disproportionally expensive and the difference is questionable - however thats the law of diminishing returns :)

Hoppy is right though, all of those things he mentions are the unscientifically measurable features of a lens but all things that are important to a photographer.

Back on the flare thing, I've never seen flare in ANY of the Canon or Nikon lenses I have used (ok, so maybe I have been lucky, but my statement is true) and seen it in every Sigma lens I have used at some point.
 
I should stop Reading this thread! I am going to start umming and erring about it soon £1200 for the nikon or £300 for the sigma and then enough money left for a sigma x-500 lens and maybe the AFS 50mm f1.4

now what do I do !!!!!!!
 
You've got a D700 and really that does demand decent quality lenses (ok, not like some other models I won't mention) but a D700 with one of the Nikkor "Holy Trinity" is a joy like you would not believe... well, that is if you have any soul in you :D
 
desantnik said:
You've got a D700 and really that does demand decent quality lenses (ok, not like some other models I won't mention) but a D700 with one of the Nikkor "Holy Trinity" is a joy like you would not believe... well, that is if you have any soul in you :D
Click to expand...

Thanks, that range is my magic range and I want the best that I can in that range
 
desantnik said:
You've got a D700 and really that does demand decent quality lenses (ok, not like some other models I won't mention) but a D700 with one of the Nikkor "Holy Trinity" is a joy like you would not believe... well, that is if you have any soul in you :D
Click to expand...

This is SO true...lol :D
 
cowasaki said:
Thanks, that range is my magic range and I want the best that I can in that range
Click to expand...

Also consider the 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S which IMHO is a nicer lens. Doesn't have the 24-70's curved field issues, and as a plus it an aperture ring so it works with film cameras, and build quality is (subjectively) better.

IMHO you can do very well with the 17-35 AF-S and 28-70 AF-S which were Nikon's top of the line lenses just two years ago. They didn't become bad overnight - they did become a lot cheaper due to a lot of folks really believing they need the 24-70 to take decent pics... thus selling the 28-70 for a nice price to "upgrade" ;)
 
Thanks for all your comments ,as it's such an expensive lens (whatever brand) i just wanted to have a clearer view on it .Basically if money were no object the nikon would be the only one for me ,if what i've heard about the sigma being 5% less quality for £700 it seems a no brainer ,thanks again guys!
 
You'll no longer be 'Nikon' Dave though - you know that, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top