| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/27/2009 10:10:48 PM · #1 |
Hello,
Besides the name and PRICE, what difference in results should I expect from each of these lens'?
compare |
|
|
|
09/27/2009 10:18:11 PM · #2 |
Dare I say, in many cases, price. I have both and find build to be exceptional regardless of choice. Though you may find the Nikon to be slightly better, I emphasize slightly on a side by side comparison, most would not be able to see the difference. If you are restricted by a budget, Sigma would do you just as well as Nikon at a significantly more accesible price.
Hope that helps. |
|
|
|
09/27/2009 10:29:14 PM · #3 |
| I did not compare these two directly, but I did compare Sigma at 70mm to Nikon 70-200mm at 70mm, and the latter was distinctly sharper. Maybe it was a bad copy - reviews say that it is plenty sharp, I don;t know... Other than that, Sigma seemed fine - well build, very bright, fast and quiet focus. Oh, one more Sigma's downside - huge diameter (82mm) so good filters would cost a bit more than for Nikon. I've decided to wait and get Nikon (they seem to be be out of stock at the moment in most places). |
|
|
|
09/27/2009 10:45:49 PM · #4 |
You get what you pay for......really.
I have always found the compromise lenses to be......a compromise.
Not that the Sigma?Tamron/Whatever isn't a good lens, it's just that *every* time I've bought a third party lens, I have always bought the factory lens later.
EVERY time.
YMMV
|
|
|
|
09/27/2009 11:45:27 PM · #5 |
| LOL thanks all - I'll keep listening. |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 12:25:39 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
Hello,
Besides the name and PRICE, what difference in results should I expect from each of these lens'?
compare |
Regarding the specific lenses that you are refering to, the most important difference is that the Nikon is a full frame lens while the Sigma is a digital (smaller) frame (1.5 factor), that is, if you ever upgrade to a full frame camera you would be able to use your Nikon but would have to toss the Sigma or use it to take lower resolution pictures only. The oposite is also true, the Nikon
I have no knowledge about the Sigma optical performance but I can tell you that my brothers Nikon 24-70 as well as my own 28-70 perform like no other lens. |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 12:33:19 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
Originally posted by kenskid:
Hello,
Besides the name and PRICE, what difference in results should I expect from each of these lens'?
compare |
Regarding the specific lenses that you are refering to, the most important difference is that the Nikon is a full frame lens while the Sigma is a digital (smaller) frame (1.5 factor), that is, if you ever upgrade to a full frame camera you would be able to use your Nikon but would have to toss the Sigma or use it to take lower resolution pictures only. The oposite is also true, the Nikon
I have no knowledge about the Sigma optical performance but I can tell you that my brothers Nikon 24-70 as well as my own 28-70 perform like no other lens. |
no-no, this 24-70 sigma is a full frame as well. I am sure, I used it on my d700
|
|
|
|
09/28/2009 12:43:29 AM · #8 |
| Picky people rather pay extra for the Nikon knowing that the lens is guaranteed to be solid since the best lens makers work for Nikon, Canon, Fuji, etc...while 3rd party makers make the Sigma, Tokina, etc. of course all made with the same blueprints, but I guess the constructors of the Sigma aren't as good as those of Nikon. Just my guess as to why the differences in prices. |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 12:46:36 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by LevT:
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
Originally posted by kenskid:
Hello,
Besides the name and PRICE, what difference in results should I expect from each of these lens'?
compare |
Regarding the specific lenses that you are refering to, the most important difference is that the Nikon is a full frame lens while the Sigma is a digital (smaller) frame (1.5 factor), that is, if you ever upgrade to a full frame camera you would be able to use your Nikon but would have to toss the Sigma or use it to take lower resolution pictures only. The oposite is also true, the Nikon
I have no knowledge about the Sigma optical performance but I can tell you that my brothers Nikon 24-70 as well as my own 28-70 perform like no other lens. |
no-no, this 24-70 sigma is a full frame as well. I am sure, I used it on my d700 |
Really? sorry, I stand corrected. |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 01:24:27 AM · #10 |
I got the sigma lens last week to upgrade from the kit lens. I have not complaints with it at all. I have not really had anytime to put it though its paces or do any large prints with it, but from what I can tell optical quality is really good (sadly it did not make the a better photographer :(
The reason I got it over the Nikon was the price, as I think only pros can really justify the need for the Nikon as it should be better (or Nikon will have to lower the price).
SJ |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 06:07:30 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by SoulJance:
as I think only pros can really justify the need for the Nikon as it should be better (or Nikon will have to lower the price). |
It's not a need......it's just wanting that little bit of extra quality or sharpness that goes along with the more exacting standards of build quality.
My experience is with the lower end of Nikon's lenses......their kit and general use zoom lenses, and they're just nicer to use and produce better work.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/25/2025 01:54:07 PM EST.
