# NiKKor vs Sigma Lenses



## yangmanrui (Mar 18, 2008)

I have  a NIKON D80 body and I need to chose one of these lenses:

1) Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5
2) Nikkor 18-135mm F 3.5 
3) Sigma 18-125mm F 3.5 

Which one would you suggest and why? ( I need something universal for my trip  - I would like to take pictures of both cities and landscapes.)




thanks,

Man RUi


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 18, 2008)

None of the above. They are all slow and relatively low quality lenses.

Try out a Sigma 18-50 DC EX HSM F/2.8 Macro.


----------



## yangmanrui (Mar 18, 2008)

What do you mean by slow?
Man rui


----------



## sabbath999 (Mar 18, 2008)

Slow means that they don't let in very much light when their aperture is wide open.


----------



## yangmanrui (Mar 18, 2008)

What would be the problems with little light?


----------



## digital flower (Mar 18, 2008)

I have both #1 and #2. Both are pretty good lenses. The Sigma has Macro capabilities if that is important to you and the Nikon has more zoom. If it is your only lens I would go for the Sigma (#1) out of those two. I don't know about #3.


----------



## RKW3 (Mar 18, 2008)

yangmanrui said:


> What would be the problems with little light?



If your trying to shoot in dimly lit locations and your subject is moving, you could have a lot of problems. If your lens doesn't let much light into the camera then you will have to either a) choose a slower shutter speed, which can result in motion blur if you don't have a tripod or you have a moving subject, or b) choose a high ISO setting and the higher ISO number you choose, the more light your camera will absorb, but more noise will appear (you'll probably choose a combination of a and b.)

Here's an example of how the amount of light differs from different apertures (if you keep shutter speed & ISO the same in each photo, of course):








So usually you just want a "faster" lens (ie. the 1.4 in the diagram is the "fastest" because it allows the most light) so you will get more oppurtunities to take blur-less and noise-less photos. Sorry if I rambled on in this post.


----------



## Socrates (Mar 18, 2008)

RKW3 said:


> (if you keep shutter speed & ISO the same in each photo, of course)



I think I'm going to start prefacing every statement with "if nothing else changes..."


----------



## yangmanrui (Mar 18, 2008)

Thanks for the explanation. This is excellent.   Now, one more question - if I have a NiKon camera, would Nikkor lenses perform better than the same lenses from different manufacturer?


----------



## RKW3 (Mar 18, 2008)

Socrates said:


> I think I'm going to start prefacing every statement with "if nothing else changes..."



Umm ok. I'm not as smart as you, remember.


----------



## Socrates (Mar 18, 2008)

yangmanrui said:


> Thanks for the explanation. This is excellent.   Now, one more question - if I have a NiKon camera, would Nikkor lenses perform better than the same lenses from different manufacturer?



Let me put it to you this way...
I bought Nikon bodies _because_ I wanted to use Nikon lenses.


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 18, 2008)

yangmanrui said:


> Thanks for the explanation. This is excellent. Now, one more question - if I have a NiKon camera, would Nikkor lenses perform better than the same lenses from different manufacturer?


 

Depends on the lens. In general, yes... but NOT in the case of that 18-50 that I mentioned. It has been tested by 3 or more photography magazines and won EVERY time in tests against the best from Nikkor and Tamron.

This is why it is important that that YOU do the homework and research to find out what are the best choices based on your needs.


----------



## Heck (Mar 18, 2008)

I just got the Sigma 18-50 mm F2.8 EX DC lens, Im not a pro and its stepping up from the kit lens but all I can say is wow! Out the box im impressed with the shots in low light and its my first macro lens to boot. For the money I think its a close call as to what lens is better. Theres a ton of info out there and its worth looking into sigma,


----------



## RKW3 (Mar 18, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Let me put it to you this way...
> I bought Nikon bodies _because_ I wanted to use Nikon lenses.



I bought a Nikon body for the _option_ of buying Nikon lenses. Just because you buy a Nikon body doesn't necessarily mean you should always buy their lenses, especially when brands like Tamron and Sigma can make some _very_ good glass (I should know, I have one whole Sigma lens!!!1!).

Of course if I was a professional who could afford a D3, I would invest in the best Nikon glass. But most of the time people are using fairly cheap D40's and D80's, if money wasn't an issue then you would likely see them using a D300. So when your buying lenses that aren't amazing, professional quality lenses, I don't see why you can't expand your options and look at other brands that, in some cases, can equal or almost equal the quality and performance of a Nikon brand lens for a usually cheaper price.


I hope I made sense.. And BTW the mean smiley guy in the title is a joke, lol


----------



## Mav (Mar 19, 2008)

As for magazine reviews, they don't come even remotely close to capturing everything there is about a lens and image quality.  The mags are also sent cherry picked samples from companies like Sigma, so I really don't care what some silly magazine says about lenses, just like I really don't care about what some silly magazine says about cars, just like I really don't care about what some magazine says about.... <<_insert whatever you want here_>>.  Noticing a trend?  Magazines = marketing BS = trying to sell you stuff. :thumbdown:  So if a magazine says something is nice, that's good and all, but it really doesn't matter to me.  If any magazine is reviewing "Brand X" and they also accept advertising money from "Brand X", you also have a direct conflict of interest which can lead to biased reviews.

Anyways, here's a "low quality" shot from my Nikkor 18-135 from a recent trip.







And as it turns out, even a crappy f/5.6 lens is perfectly fine for walking around a city at night.  NO VR really needed either!













And the range during the day is great too...

18mm






135mm






If you want a one lens solution for a trip at a reasonable price, the Nikkor 18-135 could be it.  I know I love mine.   It's also has nice smooth looking bokeh for great portrait photos, unlike every other kit lens that Nikon makes, and unlike a lot of the cheaper f/2.8 zooms.

That said, I'm considering buying a few different Sigma lenses, the 50-150 f/2.8 HSM in particular.  It suits my needs, I like the range, I've seen pretty good image samples from them online (not magazines), and Nikon has nothing even remotely close for the same money.


----------



## Socrates (Mar 19, 2008)

RKW3 said:


> I bought a Nikon body for the _option_ of buying Nikon lenses. Just because you buy a Nikon body doesn't necessarily mean you should always buy their lenses, especially when brands like Tamron and Sigma can make some _very_ good glass (I should know, I have one whole Sigma lens!!!1!).
> 
> Of course if I was a professional who could afford a D3, I would invest in the best Nikon glass. But most of the time people are using fairly cheap D40's and D80's, if money wasn't an issue then you would likely see them using a D300. So when your buying lenses that aren't amazing, professional quality lenses, I don't see why you can't expand your options and look at other brands that, in some cases, can equal or almost equal the quality and performance of a Nikon brand lens for a usually cheaper price.
> 
> ...


 
Your logic makes a lot of sense but my thinking is a bit different.  I just feel more comfortable with Nikon glass.  Less thinking on my part.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm also concerned about cash.  I continued to use my film SLR for four years while also using a $250 P&S digital because I was financially hurting a bit.


----------



## yangmanrui (Mar 19, 2008)

What would be wrong with the first picture?


----------



## Mav (Mar 19, 2008)

Nothing really.  I was being sarcastic and mocking of a previous comment.


----------



## sabbath999 (Mar 19, 2008)

Mav said:


> Anyways, here's a "low quality" shot from my Nikkor 18-135 from a recent trip.



Your images are making me a bit homesick... I was raised on the islands... where were you exactly? Also, do you have a gallery of those shots?


----------



## Naicidrac (Mar 19, 2008)

Go with the 18-135mm Nikkor.  It is easy to get caught up in all the marketing.  Get what you can afford and make good art.  Remember art is what we are after.


----------



## Mav (Mar 19, 2008)

sabbath999 said:


> Your images are making me a bit homesick... I was raised on the islands... where were you exactly? Also, do you have a gallery of those shots?


Thanks!   Those were from Taiwan this past February, and I'm still working on sorting and processing.  Hopefully by the end of the month I'll have a full gallery up.  It's a huge project sorting 2900 photos down to the 100 or so best keepers.   And then after that I need to completely re-org my gallery.  It's a mess. :blushing:


----------



## yangmanrui (Mar 19, 2008)

Thank you for your answer, it was exactly what I wanted to hear and what I have ultimately done. After much much much reading, asking and  investigating, I finally found the winner. CLICK TO SEE MY NEW CAMERA
Thanks everyone for their input.

man rui


----------



## Mav (Mar 19, 2008)

Nice!  You'll be able to get tons of great photos with that combo. :thumbup:


----------



## sultan (Mar 19, 2008)

Good choice. Great range and decent quality for a reasonable price.

I don't trust Sigma; sometimes they make good lenses, sometimes they make junk. And it's hard to find reliable reviews of sigmas.


----------



## eminart (Mar 19, 2008)

yangmanrui said:


> Thank you for your answer, it was exactly what I wanted to hear and what I have ultimately done. After much much much reading, asking and investigating, I finally found the winner. CLICK TO SEE MY NEW CAMERA
> Thanks everyone for their input.
> 
> man rui


 

Nice!  I wish I'd had a few more dollars to put into lenses when I bought my D80 a couple of weeks ago.  I had to settle for the 18-55mm to get me started.  I'm currently researching more lenses, and plotting to win the lottery to pay for them.


----------



## royalWITHcheese2 (Mar 19, 2008)

I have no experience with the other lenses, but I don't agree with the fact the the 18-135 is low quality...it might not be fast, but it is certainly not low quality. I have this lens and it has always given me good performance, so of the three I would suggest this one, considering you get the wide angle and decent range that you would want for a walk around lens.


----------



## skiboarder72 (Mar 19, 2008)

I'd go with the 18-200mm VR... if you get any of the above lenses your going to want the 18-200mm sometime down the line for a walk around lens


----------



## Mav (Mar 19, 2008)

eminart said:


> Nice!  I wish I'd had a few more dollars to put into lenses when I bought my D80 a couple of weeks ago.  I had to settle for the 18-55mm to get me started.  I'm currently researching more lenses, and plotting to win the lottery to pay for them.


The 18-55 is still a great little lens.  I took _tons_ of great photos with mine and started out with an 18-55 too, so don't let it or anyone else discourage you.  I sold both of mine, but will probably end up getting the new VR version used once they're available fairly cheaply for when I want to go light.


----------



## Mav (Mar 19, 2008)

skiboarder72 said:


> I'd go with the 18-200mm VR... if you get any of the above lenses your going to want the 18-200mm sometime down the line for a walk around lens


not here.  In fact I specifically avoided the 18-200VR in favor of the 18-135 because in a lot of ways it's nicer, while also only being 1/3rd the street price.


----------



## yangmanrui (Mar 19, 2008)

a) 18-200 was an option, but here is why I did not go with it. 

b) If I get really good and if I am still interested in photography down the road, I will sell the 18-135 and buy something more professional.


----------

