# Sigma Lenses?



## Golfcart (Jul 15, 2012)

I'm sure this has been talked about a lot, but I feel I may have a bit of a different twist to the question.  I currently own a D7000 with a 35mm 1.8 and the 18-70 3.5-4.5 Nikon lens.  I would like to purchase the 17-50mm 2.8 lens from Sigma.  I'm not shooting a lot of Weddings at this point, actually not really shooting any besides friends and family.  The majority of my work consists of Family portraits.  So I'm wondering if you think Sigma would do me just fine until I get more paying customers.  I have friends that swear up and down on the quality of Nikon lenses, but the truth is I really don't have the money for it right now.  Would my best bet be to save for Nikon glass?   Or settle for Sigma?  My goal is to become a professional photographer, but I know I need to upgrade to full frame body as well.  I know the next question would be, how soon do I see myself going full frame?  I would say 2 years.  

Thanks any input would be greatly appreciated!


----------



## slackercruster (Jul 15, 2012)

Sigma lenses from the 80's were so so on the low end of the range. I didn't like them that much. Nowadays, Sigma lenses are pretty nice glass. I use lots of them as well as Pentax's top glass. Check out the reviews at Photozone to see the rundown on any certain lens.


----------



## Bynx (Jul 15, 2012)

I have 3 Sigma lenses, 10-20mm, 28 prime, and 28-300mm. The first is a great lens. The 28mm prime not so much. And the 28-300 again is a great lens. The first lens is a recent purchase, while the other two are about 10 or 11 years old. I dont know which lens for your purpose, but there is nothing wrong with Sigma. As slackercrusher says, check out reviews on the lens you want to purchase. And remember -- bodies come and go, but good glass is forever.


----------



## KmH (Jul 15, 2012)

Third party lens electronics are reverse engineered. There was a recent post where a 3rd party lens that worked fine on a Nikon D90, didn't work fine on a D7000 because of a reverse engineering, forward compatibility issue. The camera makers don't provide proprietary information to the 3rd party gear makers.

A primary way Sigma and other 3rd party gear makers are able to sell for less is by accepting a broader range of tolerances in the specifications of the materials and they use, their part manufacturing processes, and their assembly quality controls.

Consequently there is a greater variability in the performance of each lens within a model line. You would hope you don't get a lens that got materials, optics, and assembly that came from each end of the tolerance range, because that lens would likely not perform well.

Many disregard the issue of gear value depreciation. In general, 3rd party lenses depreciate in value quicker than camera maker lenses.

The much less expensive 3rd party lenses simple cost less to make because they use lower grade materials and workmanship. Optical elements in many inexpensive lenses are made of plastic (resin) instead of glass.

In the recent past Sigma had some significant quality control issues, though it seems they have gotten it back under control. However, Sigma does not have resources comparable to the major camera makers do


----------



## Bo4key (Jul 15, 2012)

Have a look at the Tamron 17- 50 f2./8 Non-VC model as well, I just picked up a copy and am extremely happy with my purchase. I believe they are close to the same price range.


----------



## Golfcart (Jul 15, 2012)

I will be sure to check out the reviews.  

No, I haven't really looked at any third party lenses with the exception of Sigma.  

So, worse case scenerio:  the lens does not work up to my standards (slow focus, cant focus etc) can I normally return the lens without a problem?  

I'm just a little nervous about spending that much money on something I won't like, but at the same time I'd like to think it would work flawlessly and be much cheaper!


----------



## SCraig (Jul 15, 2012)

Personally I don't think you would be "Settling" for Sigma or Tamron.  They both make excellent lenses.  I have two Sigma lenses that I use a lot and would be lost without them.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 15, 2012)

KmH said:
			
		

> Third party lens electronics are reverse engineered. There was a recent post where a 3rd party lens that worked fine on a Nikon D90, didn't work fine on a D7000 because of a reverse engineering, forward compatibility issue. The camera makers don't provide proprietary information to the 3rd party gear makers.
> 
> A primary way Sigma and other 3rd party gear makers are able to sell for less is by accepting a broader range of tolerances in the specifications of the materials and they use, their part manufacturing processes, and their assembly quality controls.
> 
> ...



Quoted to reinforce.

In other words... What he said.

Sigma lenses are "fine" as a group and occasionally good and even excellent.  But it varies by model, and unfortunately as kmh said- by copy.

Buying a sigma lens is part research and part luck.

I wouldn't personally go any lower than sigma. 

All this said, if you're new to this you may not really notice the difference between good and ok glass.  I usually tell folks not to bother with high end stuff until you can tell the difference.


----------



## Golfcart (Jul 15, 2012)

Thanks for all the input!  I'l be sure to let you guys know which lens I end up purcahsing.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 15, 2012)

Nikon has some cheap lenses that really perform poorly.  Nikon also makes some lenses that are so good they are breathtaking.

Now go back and reread that sentence substituting Sigma for Nikon.  The sentence is still just as true.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 15, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:
			
		

> Nikon has some cheap lenses that really perform poorly.  Nikon also makes some lenses that are so good they are breathtaking.
> 
> Now go back and reread that sentence substituting Sigma for Nikon.  The sentence is still just as true.



Fair point but it sort of skips the fact that the overall body of Nikon lenses exceeds the overall body of sigma ones.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 15, 2012)

manaheim said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


From a shear volume perspective, I think Nikon has made more lenses that were flops than Sigma, but that's kind of besides the point.  As far as I know, there is only one good 70-300 and that is the lastest VR one that Nikon made.  All of the rest have been 'under achievers' to put it kindly.  And that includes both Sigma and Nikon's offerings.

Generally, Sigma's EX lines compare well to Nikon's pro lenses.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 16, 2012)

So how many Sigma lenses do you have?

I have one.  It was the only one I found that was as good or better than what Nikon had available. (of the ones I needed)

Though I did buy the nikkor macro over the sigma  and honestly I felt that one was a tie.  I ultimately opted for the nikkor because the sigma was too close for my work.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 16, 2012)

manaheim said:


> So how many Sigma lenses do you have?
> 
> I have one. It was the only one I found that was as good or better than what Nikon had available. (of the ones I needed)
> 
> Though I did buy the nikkor macro over the sigma and honestly I felt that one was a tie. I ultimately opted for the nikkor because the sigma was too close for my work.



I have two.  The Sigma 150 2.8 Macro and the Sigma 120-300 2.8.  Both of which are phenomenal, and Nikon doesn't make a direct competitor, so it's difficult to perform an apples to apples comparison, but in general, they are typically regarded as jewels of the Sigma line up.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Jul 16, 2012)

I have a Sigma 10-20 Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 and love it. It is a well received lens for many landscape photographers.


----------

