Sigma vs. Nikon lens

JulieLawsonPhotography · July 6, 2009

I need some sound advice on whether to purchase the more expensive 18-200 lens from Nikon or if the Sigma version is just as good. I would like to save a little bit of money to have some extra to go towards another lens. I do need this lens first though.....but I don't want to sacrifrice quality to save a few dollars.

swintonphoto · July 6, 2009

Check the reviews on slrgear.com - they state the the differences are minimal between the two lenses.

JulieLawsonPhotography · July 6, 2009

swintonphoto wrote:

Check the reviews on slrgear.com - they state the the differences are minimal between the two lenses.

thank you very much. =D

Qarik · July 6, 2009

JulieLawsonPhotography wrote:

I need some sound advice on whether to purchase the more expensive 18-200 lens from Nikon or if the Sigma version is just as good. I would like to save a little bit of money to have some extra to go towards another lens. I do need this lens first though.....but I don't want to sacrifrice quality to save a few dollars.

If you can go to a local dealer and try the lens to check for sharpness I wouldn't reccomend going against the sigma. My expereince is that sigma lens CAN be nearly as good as the nikkors as long as you get a good copy.

Mav · July 6, 2009

I'm a complete n00b so can't really share any useful opinion between the two lenses but I have the Nikon 18-200mm lens on my D90. Here are a couple galleries of pics taken with that set up:

http://mav21.smugmug.com/gallery/8636449_J82aw#569901897_7kyA5

http://mav21.smugmug.com/gallery/8539616_fCwUS#562412712_nBv4M

In my very limited opinion the nikon lens is great - I have no knowledge of the sigma.

Mitchell · July 6, 2009

Julie, I own the Nikkor 18-200mm, VR lens. I'd be happy to let you borrow it for a few weeks. Let me know if you are interested.

Art Scott · July 6, 2009

The one big difference is the low end aperture....5.6 (Nikon)vs 6.3 Sigma.....if my D300 had not came with an 18-200 vr I would have purchased the Sigma 18-250....since the apertrure range on the 18-200 is the same as the 18-250 I would have at least gotten that extra 50mm on the long end........might still do it......as I am feeling like a traitor to all the Sigma lensesI have owned now that I have Nikkor lenses

amd no SIGMA GLASS for the either of my D300's..............................yet

D:D

jeffreaux2 · July 7, 2009

Mitchell wrote:

Julie, I own the Nikkor 18-200mm, VR lens. I'd be happy to let you borrow it for a few weeks. Let me know if you are interested.

NOW THAT'S a helpful dgrinner!!!

JulieLawsonPhotography · July 7, 2009

jeffreaux2 wrote:

NOW THAT'S a helpful dgrinner!!!

I know! That is so sweet.

JulieLawsonPhotography · July 7, 2009

Mitchell wrote:

Julie, I own the Nikkor 18-200mm, VR lens. I'd be happy to let you borrow it for a few weeks. Let me know if you are interested.

Aww Mitchell, that is so nice of you.

You guys on here are always so nice. I'm would love to purchase the 18-200 lens before the wedding I have coming up in August so I won't have to switch lenses. I could get the Sigma now...but not the nikon yet. If I decide to wait and get the Nikon....I may very well take you up on that offer Mitchell.

Vertigo · July 7, 2009

Just getting my feets wet

JulieLawsonPhotography wrote:

Aww Mitchell, that is so nice of you. You guys on here are always so nice. I'm would love to purchase the 18-200 lens before the wedding I have coming up in August so I won't have to switch lenses. I could get the Sigma now...but not the nikon yet. If I decide to wait and get the Nikon....I may very well take you up on that offer Mitchell.

Great comments...I have learned a lot on this forums. Now I am ready to buy a similiar lens like the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8G ED AF-S . I love the wide angle effect and the fact that it goes all the way down to 2.8. Does anyone know what would be a good alternative from Sigma???? Since this one its out of my reach!!!!! I was thinking of the Sigma 17-70 mm http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3327&navigator=6 but it says Macro nor Wide Angle. Any difference.?

Cygnus Studios · July 7, 2009

There is nothing that I know of that compares to the Nikkor 14-24mm. It is superb in every way.
The Tamron 17-35mm is a pretty good lens and from what I have read the 17-50mm is a great choice.
The Sigma 17-70mm has good reviews.

ziggy53 · July 7, 2009

Vertigo wrote:

... I was thinking of the Sigma 17-70 mm ... but it says Macro nor Wide Angle. Any difference.?

The Sigma 17-70mm, f2.8-f4.5 DC Macro is a fairly good consumer grade lens and it holds image quality fairly well throughout its range. The problem is it is not a constant aperture lens and at the long end of the zoom (70mm) it is an f4.5. This can present a challenge for some camera's AF as it reduces the effective sensitivity of the focus section and smaller apertures also reduce accuracy versus a wider aperture. In good light it makes a nice walk-a-round lens.

I have a similar Sigma lens, the Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8 EX DC Aspherical and it is a true constant aperture throughout the range. This improves AF performance and accuracy, although this lens sometimes misses focus (not too often, fortunately.) There is a newer version of this lens with the "Macro" designation which allows closer focus. My copy is fairly sharp wide open and very sharp at f4.

The Tamron 17-50mm, F2.8 XR Di-II LD SP Aspherical (IF) is probably my first recommendation, and we have a few members here who own a copy. While AF may not be the fastest it is claimed to be accurate and fast enough for most uses.

Qarik · July 7, 2009

Vertigo wrote:

Great comments...I have learned a lot on this forums. Now I am ready to buy a similiar lens like the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8G ED AF-S . I love the wide angle effect and the fact that it goes all the way down to 2.8. Does anyone know what would be a good alternative from Sigma???? Since this one its out of my reach!!!!! I was thinking of the Sigma 17-70 mm http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3327&navigator=6 but it says Macro nor Wide Angle. Any difference.?

The sigma wideangle is the 10-20mm. It is variable aperture though. For more limited range but superior lens in just about eveyr way..the tokina 11-16mm is often pointed out. Note in most cases when using a wide angle you will be in the lower end of the zoom range anyway.

rickabt · July 7, 2009

Vertigo wrote:

Great comments...I have learned a lot on this forums. Now I am ready to buy a similiar lens like the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8G ED AF-S . I love the wide angle effect and the fact that it goes all the way down to 2.8. Does anyone know what would be a good alternative from Sigma???? Since this one its out of my reach!!!!! I was thinking of the Sigma 17-70 mm http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3327&navigator=6 but it says Macro nor Wide Angle. Any difference.?

.
Agree that pretty much nothing is going to stand up to the Nikon 14-24!....I would buy the Nikon 18-200 over the Sigma if forced to choose. I always stick to the fixed aperture fast zooms, though. I need the speed and the ability to get the narrow DOF.

ziggy53 · July 7, 2009

rickabt wrote:

.
Agree that pretty much nothing is going to stand up to the Nikon 14-24!....I would buy the Nikon 18-200 over the Sigma if forced to choose. I always stick to the fixed aperture fast zooms, though. I need the speed and the ability to get the narrow DOF.

Rickabt, welcome to the Digital Grin.

Thanks for the comments.

Art Scott · July 8, 2009

Qarik wrote:

The sigma wideangle is the 10-20mm. It is variable aperture though. For more limited range but superior lens in just about eveyr way..the tokina 11-16mm is often pointed out. Note in most cases when using a wide angle you will be in the lower end of the zoom range anyway.

Sigma released a new 10-20 this month.....it is a constant 3.5 aperture

clap

...and B/H has them..

barb

...or did this weekend.......

InsuredDisaster · July 16, 2009

JulieLawsonPhotography wrote:

I need some sound advice on whether to purchase the more expensive 18-200 lens from Nikon or if the Sigma version is just as good. I would like to save a little bit of money to have some extra to go towards another lens. I do need this lens first though.....but I don't want to sacrifrice quality to save a few dollars.

I've not tried the nikon, other than when I bought it, but I'm not that happy with the Sigma. The zoom is very "sticky" at one point. The nikon's got the full time manual override, which the Sigma does not. Small point I suppose. Personally, I wished I saved my money and when with Nikon instead. Sigma has a smaller apeture value at 200mm too. OS is decent, but pretty noisy and "clicks" a lot. Almost as loud as my D300's shutter noise. I suppose such a noisy OS/IS/VR system might be great if you needed brides or babies to look your way when you want to take their photo.

I'm not that happy with Sigma products anymore. Poor QC.

Himmelblau · July 21, 2009

InsuredDisaster,

If your Sigma OS is making a noise almost as loud as the shutter on the D300 then I'm afraid you have a problem. Also, my Sigma 18-200mm lens has a zoom ring and a manual focus ring that over-rides the auto focus.

Let’s not forget that many Nikon 18-200mm lenses suffer from lens creep, (the one I had suffered from lens sprint) the Sigma lens has a zoom lock switch to prevent the lens from creeping due to its own weight.

Brian

InsuredDisaster · July 22, 2009

Himmelblau wrote:

InsuredDisaster,

If your Sigma OS is making a noise almost as loud as the shutter on the D300 then I'm afraid you have a problem. Also, my Sigma 18-200mm lens has a zoom ring and a manual focus ring that over-rides the auto focus.

Let’s not forget that many Nikon 18-200mm lenses suffer from lens creep, (the one I had suffered from lens sprint) the Sigma lens has a zoom lock switch to prevent the lens from creeping due to its own weight.

Brian

I don't know what you've got, but on mine, there is a switch you have to throw to throw it to manual focus. If you don't, its nearly impossible to focus the lens. Its clear that you are forcing things beyond what they should do. And yes, the Sigma does have the Zoom lock.

And my other point is that I'm not happy with the QC. The zoom gets really tight from the 50-135 points. Not exactly indicative of the best QC. Add that to my experience with Sigma's 30 1.4 consistently missing the focus a lot of the time, and I'd say something is wrong with QC.

Of course, you might say that you've got 50 sigma lenses, all of them absolutely perfect. Good for you, more than 40% of all of the sigma lenses I've ever gotten have shown poor QC.

In contrast, I've never had a bad Nikon lens yet. I'd go with Nikon.

Himmelblau · July 22, 2009

InsuredDisaster wrote:

In contrast, I've never had a bad Nikon lens yet. I'd go with Nikon.

I have owned two Nikon 18-200mm VR lenses, the first was soft and the second suffered from lens sprint, (creep) I never held the first downwards so don't know if it had the same problem.

I was only offering my in-put and suggesting that your Sigma lens is faulty if the OS is making a noise.

Personally, I am happy with the Sigma 18-200mm lens and the Nikon SB-800 Speedlight that I got in place of the Nikon. However, I appreciate that everyone is going to have varying views depending on their own experiences.

Brian

Sigma vs. Nikon lens

Comments