Nikon or Sigma?

nemesis32 · 24th September 2004

Hi guys

Interested in getting the 12-24mm, any one using these two lens and care to comment on the price, value for money, performance etc? Thanks in advance.

espn · 24th September 2004

Go for Nikkor, always

marcwang · 24th September 2004

Well.... I dont own either, but I'm interested in getting a 12-24 as well, so I've done some research. Here's the information I've gathered.

SIGMA PROS: Nice built than Nikon, Very Sharp Lens especially when stopped down, very good distortion control, much less CA than Nikon, HSM focusing is quick, can be used with FF

SIGMA CONS: Performance at 24mm is not that fantastic, slow aperture, cant use filters

Nikkor PROS: Very very sharp (sharper than SIGMA), AFS faster than HSM, Faster than SIGMA aperture

NIkkor CONS: CA is disturbing, DIstortion is quite pronounce, price

I'm leaning towards the SIGMA.

glennyong · 24th September 2004

Originally Posted by nemesis32

Hi guys

Interested in getting the 12-24mm, any one using these two lens and care to comment on the price, value for money, performance etc? Thanks in advance.

if u haf $$... ALWAYS go for Nikkor !!! and i mean ALWAYS !!!

if tight on budget.... Sigma or Tokina would be good....

BUT..... its NIKKOR for NIKONs... lol...

nemesis32 · 24th September 2004

Sometimes being brand-loyal may not be the right choice.

I know for a fact that Sigma lens (esp the HSM series) are very well regards so is the macro 90mm from tamron.

In any case, what's the price difference for the two lenses?

Miles · 24th September 2004

Sigma 12-24 and nikon 12-24 price about 500-600 difference

no prices for guessing which is the more expensive one.

geoyip · 24th September 2004

Originally Posted by nemesis32

Hi guys

Interested in getting the 12-24mm, any one using these two lens and care to comment on the price, value for money, performance etc? Thanks in advance.

I recomend the nikkor

ANEWUSER · 24th September 2004

Well why not you try them out in some camera shops. Take some photos with both brand of lens and compare the output at your own time at home. It is really up to you.

2100 · 24th September 2004

Marcwang said it all.

Witness · 25th September 2004

looks like the sigma will be a good alternative...but wat are the specs like???
any idea how much the sigma is>>

quekky · 25th September 2004

u missed out 1 nikon con: cant use on film at below 18mm

espn · 25th September 2004

Originally Posted by quekky

u missed out 1 nikon con: cant use on film at below 18mm

Why would you want to use the 12-24 on a Nikon film body when there's the 17-35 available? It's not a con, it's about using the right tool.

DX is meant for digital so don't dream of using it on a film body and achieve the same results.

Watcher · 25th September 2004

To be honest, this topic has been discussed ad nauseum in DPReview. Almost a weekly kind of thing

Firstly, let me say that I own the Nikkor. I got it before the Sigma came out. Although the Sigma can do a FF and is significantly cheaper, there are other cons as well. Weight, size, speed, no proper way of mounting front filter when coupled with the pop-eye design...

.

I've linked one of the DPReview thread here for your reading pleasure. The Nikkor has almost no light falloff at the corner, is sharper, more contrasty and should have higher resolution as well.

The pro for the Sigma is that the distortion on a cropped frame is almost non-existent and is great for architectural shoots.

BTW, someone had asked me about these two before. I brought this person to a shop to try both. He ended up with the Nikkor even after I tried to persuade him otherwise

Watcher · 25th September 2004

Originally Posted by quekky

u missed out 1 nikon con: cant use on film at below 18mm

Eh from here:

Quote:

We do not recommend use of DX Nikkor with 35mm (135) format cameras.

Watcher · 25th September 2004

Originally Posted by Witness

looks like the sigma will be a good alternative...but wat are the specs like???
any idea how much the sigma is>>

It seems that the price has gone up for the Sigma. In the Canon forum, someone just bought it at MS Color for S$1250 incl GST. That is higher than what I had asked 4 months ago (at $1100 incl GST).

2100 · 25th September 2004

Originally Posted by Watcher

It seems that the price has gone up for the Sigma. In the Canon forum, someone just bought it at MS Color for S$1250 incl GST. That is higher than what I had asked 4 months ago (at $1100 incl GST).

Yea, MS quoted me $1050 w/GST 6 months ago. Even "expensive" Konota was 1150 then.

I think same case for sigma 50-500, you'd be very lucky if you can get one at 1.6k. It was lower.

yulee · 25th September 2004

You tried TCW?

deadpixel · 25th September 2004

Originally Posted by 2100

Yea, MS quoted me $1050 w/GST 6 months ago. Even "expensive" Konota was 1150 then.

I think same case for sigma 50-500, you'd be very lucky if you can get one at 1.6k. It was lower.

Prices for most sigma lenses have gone up. The 105mm macro was around $600 4 months ago, now some shops are asking $800+ for it.

Maybe because of good reviews and an increase in popularity and demand.

Picard · 25th September 2004

...used Sigma and Tamron and...regretted using them. Something about the quality of their optics which makes doens't give the 'kick' and the durability.

Save for a Nikon and trust a Nikon. What you save in $$ you'll lose in quality. Don't make the same mistake I've made and inherited expensive paper weights and door stops.

Save for a Nikon.

nemesis32 · 27th September 2004

Thanks guys>

I think it more or less confirmed what i have known to a certain extent.

Nikon is better but have some distortion and cannot use on film camera. Like what ESPN says, when using film, i will probably use a conventional wide angle or even the 18-70mm so thats not much of a issue.

I guess time to save money on the Nikon len.

24th September 2004	#1
nemesis32 Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Singapore Posts: 3,483	Nikon or Sigma? Hi guys Interested in getting the 12-24mm, any one using these two lens and care to comment on the price, value for money, performance etc? Thanks in advance.

24th September 2004	#3
marcwang Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: East Singapore Posts: 1,023	Well.... I dont own either, but I'm interested in getting a 12-24 as well, so I've done some research. Here's the information I've gathered. SIGMA PROS: Nice built than Nikon, Very Sharp Lens especially when stopped down, very good distortion control, much less CA than Nikon, HSM focusing is quick, can be used with FF SIGMA CONS: Performance at 24mm is not that fantastic, slow aperture, cant use filters Nikkor PROS: Very very sharp (sharper than SIGMA), AFS faster than HSM, Faster than SIGMA aperture NIkkor CONS: CA is disturbing, DIstortion is quite pronounce, price I'm leaning towards the SIGMA. __________________ Marc Wang Photography

25th September 2004	#10
Witness Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: www.maverickatwork.com Posts: 6,768	looks like the sigma will be a good alternative...but wat are the specs like??? any idea how much the sigma is>> __________________ w maverick.photography b maverick.blogging

25th September 2004	#13
Watcher Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: The heart of the Abyss Posts: 2,319	To be honest, this topic has been discussed ad nauseum in DPReview. Almost a weekly kind of thing Firstly, let me say that I own the Nikkor. I got it before the Sigma came out. Although the Sigma can do a FF and is significantly cheaper, there are other cons as well. Weight, size, speed, no proper way of mounting front filter when coupled with the pop-eye design... . I've linked one of the DPReview thread here for your reading pleasure. The Nikkor has almost no light falloff at the corner, is sharper, more contrasty and should have higher resolution as well. The pro for the Sigma is that the distortion on a cropped frame is almost non-existent and is great for architectural shoots. BTW, someone had asked me about these two before. I brought this person to a shop to try both. He ended up with the Nikkor even after I tried to persuade him otherwise Last edited by Watcher; 25th September 2004 at 08:48 AM.

25th September 2004	#19
Picard Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Clementi, Singapore Posts: 290	I've ever... ...used Sigma and Tamron and...regretted using them. Something about the quality of their optics which makes doens't give the 'kick' and the durability. Save for a Nikon and trust a Nikon. What you save in $$ you'll lose in quality. Don't make the same mistake I've made and inherited expensive paper weights and door stops. Save for a Nikon. Last edited by Picard; 25th September 2004 at 12:57 PM.

24th September 2004	#2
espn Deregistered Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Planet Nikon Posts: 22,045	Go for Nikkor, always

24th September 2004	#6
Miles Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: EAST Posts: 236	Sigma 12-24 and nikon 12-24 price about 500-600 difference no prices for guessing which is the more expensive one.

24th September 2004	#8
ANEWUSER Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 57	Well why not you try them out in some camera shops. Take some photos with both brand of lens and compare the output at your own time at home. It is really up to you.

24th September 2004	#9
2100 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 3,116	Marcwang said it all.

25th September 2004	#11
quekky Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: www.irphotography.com Posts: 1,377	u missed out 1 nikon con: cant use on film at below 18mm

25th September 2004	#17
yulee Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Singapore Posts: 446	You tried TCW?

27th September 2004	#20
nemesis32 Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Singapore Posts: 3,483	Thanks guys> I think it more or less confirmed what i have known to a certain extent. Nikon is better but have some distortion and cannot use on film camera. Like what ESPN says, when using film, i will probably use a conventional wide angle or even the 18-70mm so thats not much of a issue. I guess time to save money on the Nikon len.