Sigma Lenses

[epicwelshman]

It's worth noting too, that it depends where you live. Buying Sigma was more of a risk for me, as I live in the Bahamas and would have to ship a lens internationally to be repaired (not to mentioned pay duty each time it came back in).

Luckily, I got two great copies.

 

[DaReal_Dionysus]

Nice info guys, i appreciate it all! Contrary to belief there is a big reason why I'm asking questions all over the board! I like to get a multitude of opinions on different areas of photography as the more prepared you are the better your chances of being prepared for any type of situation that may come to pass.

I have shot for many years with Sony but made the move to Nikon and love it! I like to hear other Photographers opinions and love the debate over gear as it gives a wide open perspective from many view points that can only be very beneficial to me and anyone reading the post in the forum!

Once again thanks for all the information!!!

 

[Pikemann Urge]

I have a Sigma lens (80-200/2.8) and I love it. However, I'm actually posting because someone raised an issue with focusing. And this is relevant to all lenses: Nikons have multiple focus points, but only some of them are cross-type. The rest are line-type. The cross-type AF points are much more accurate even in modern bodies. I suspect that I and others have missed focus simply because of this issue. And if the lens used wasn't a Nikkor, confirmation bias might kick in and the lens might be blamed.

AFAIK the centre AF point is a cross-type and possibly the ones immediately around it. The rest, no matter how many, are line-types.

Just FWIW, folks.

 

[Kees Braam]

Hello Everyone and thanks for any help in advance! I was wondering what everyone thinks of Sigma Lenses! I'm very interested in the 50 to 500mm so i wanted just a general opinion from the forum! Is the color good with them and how well do they work with Nikon DSLR Camera's! Any info would be greatly appreciated!

Best Regards,

Dionysus

First of all it should be said that the Sigma 50-500mm is an absolutely unique product. Sigma is the only manufacturer of lenses that has such a model in their line. I've read some reviews of this lens in different Dutch magazines and all these magazines tell me the same: the lens is truly unique, quality wise and focal length wise. Abberations (purple edges) are hardly there and the build quality is also very solid. The OS (Optical Stabilisation) seems to work extremely well. The only slight disadvantage is that it doesn't work that well in low light without cranking up the ISO. But hey, we've got primes for that.

I haven't used this lens personally, but for the price (€1775 here in Europe) it can't be beaten. Build quality is great, the optical quality is even better. Plus, this lens covers a wide variety of focal lengths.

 

[DaReal_Dionysus]

No no no no no! And more no!

I used that 50-500mm F4-6.3 EX "Bigma" lens early on with a D80. It was effectively a good 50-300mm, anywhere beyond 400mm, it became soft and vignetting was very obvious - even on a D80.

I also had severe problems with the external paint-finish peeling away rapidly, despite best of care. I was then stuck with the run-around from the local distributor. The lens was just outside of its warranty period - and I demanded in no uncertain terms that the lens barrel be fixed at no cost to me - because I was aware that it was an issue affecting multiple Sigma lenses at the time. A lot of my endless following up with them (it took months of frustration), it finally was fixed - and on the day it came back, I traded it in on a 24-70 F/2.8G Nikkor.

I'd recommend Nikon's 80-400mm VR Zoom-Nikkor over the Sigma, provided you use it on D80/D90 or better type cameras.

avro707 thanks for the info and you were right about the construction and the quality of the lens! eight out of ten of my friends on the production lot have all had issues with the Bigma! The color on it is nothing impressive either and after 300-350 it's practically useless. I have seen the quality of the Nikkor 80-400mm and the 500mm and both are well worth the money! Thanks again for the info again

 

[Abstract]

No lens with a wide focal range is EVER good at their extremes.

BS that Nikon 80-400 mm is better at 400 mm than the Bigma 50-500 mm at 400 mm.


Oh, and Sigma lenses are absolutely OK. I own 3 of them, and all 3 are fantastic. In fact, given the choice between Nikon and Sigma, sometimes I'd go with Sigma despite the fact I could afford the lens from either brand (e.g. Sigma 50 mm f/1.4 vs Nikon 50 mm AF-S f/1.4). I wouldn't even hesitate if one brand sold a better option than another.

 

[cleanup]

I've chosen the following for my needs!

AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.4G - for wide angle

Eh? Not sure if 35mm is what people would call "wide-angle." Am I missing something?

 

[CrackedButter]

I have the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 HSM. It's a good lens, does the job admirably. There is a lot of discussion about the problems with focusing and build quality and it always seems to be a noisier than what we hear over the good stuff that Sigma puts out. Everybody has their bad eggs.

FYI, I think HSM is just as good as USM in Canon lenses. I sold my Canon 24-70 last year for the Sigma since I wanted to save some money and haven't suffered for switching.

 

[compuwar]

The color on it is nothing impressive either and after 300-350 it's practically useless.

I'd seriously suggest that your friends don't know how to shoot long lenses if they have issues with the Bigma after 350mm. I think I could probably count the number of times I shot mine at less than 500mm, and I've sold lots of prints made with it. It's certainly better at 500mm than my Nikon 80-400mm is at 400mm. A 500mm lens needs really stable support, and the Bigma is f/6.3 wide open and sharpest at f/8, so to get to a good shutter speed (and I'd say 1/500th is only good with stable support- faster is better) you need a lot of light.

Once you get past about 250mm, "long lens technique" starts to become very important. Technique is the single thing that keeps most photographers from getting sharp images. I've seen lots of people shoot the Bigma hand-held, and they get acceptable shots for them, but most of their shots wouldn't meet my own criteria. I always shot my Bigma from a tripod made for Medium Format or larger cameras. These days I shoot with a 400mm prime that's significantly sharper and requires a large tripod as well.

Paul

 

[TWLreal]

Eh? Not sure if 35mm is what people would call "wide-angle." Am I missing something?

Yes, you are.

24mm to 35mm is wide on 135.

 

[Designer Dale]

According to DPreview, 35mm is the long end of "wide angle" on a 35mm format. No matter what a lens company says.

Dale

 

[OreoCookie]

According to DPreview, 35mm is the long end of "wide angle" on a 35mm format. No matter what a lens company says.

You don't need to quote dpreview on that, it's common knowledge among photographers: 35 mm is on the long end of wide angle lenses or on the wide end of normal focal length lenses. Obviously that's for full frame sensors. On a crop sensor, it's roughly equivalent to 50 mm, i. e. a normal lens.

When I started photography, commonly available wide-angle lenses were 28-35 mm, 24 mm was already something more unusual (most bread-and-butter zooms started at 35 or 28 mm).

 

[TWLreal]

According to DPreview, 35mm is the long end of "wide angle" on a 35mm format. No matter what a lens company says.

See:

A 35mm on full frame is wide enough to be considered wide angle, albeit a standard wide.

35mm on 135 is wide.

 

[DaReal_Dionysus]

Yes, you are.

24mm to 35mm is wide on 135.

Thanks for pointing that out! Funny how people can say something with no fact and then someone like you use the facts! Nice TWLreal Thats how you do it!