[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have yet to see one 'excellent' lens from sigma. They all feel cheap, which they are. I shudder every time I hear the word sigma. ^_^

My 30mm f/1.4 Sigma's mostly metal body feels a lot more expensive than the mostly plastic bodies of most of their prime lenses, including the 50mm f/1.4, 35mm f/2, and even the newer AF-S 50mm f/1.4 which was a huge disappointment for me.

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

The Sigma 10-20 is decidely better feeling in hand than the counterpart Nikkor 12-24, which has loose control rings, and a more plastic-y feeling body. The 50-150 is an extremely nice feeling lens, and Nikon doesn't build an equivalent.

I can only add that I generally enjoy the finish and feel of Sigma lenses, or I wouldn't own three of them. I'm not sure how the non-EX lenses feel, but all the EX lenses I've handed have been quite nice. I also sold off my Nikkor 35 f2 and 35-70 f2.8 as didn't offer any significant image quality advantage over the Sigma 24-60 f2.8, which has usability advantages (focus doesn't rotate the filter thread, bayonet hood vs. screw-in, common 77mm filter).

I don't doubt that Sigma have made some crappy lenses in the past, as they seem to have quite a reputation to overcome. But these days they seem to make quite a few fine lenses, and unique lenses that the likes of Canon and Nikon don't. I've had no problems with sample variation, and they are reported to have a very quick turnaround when such issues come up.

In the end, I've found Sigmas that can get the shot I want, and generally in a cheaper, more convenient, and IMO better handling package than what I could get from Nikon. FWIW I might as soon had the Tokina versions of the Sigmas I now own, as they have even more impressive build quality, but their reputation for bad flare and CA performance killed that for me.

 

[Arainach]

.....whaaaaat? I'm not going to deny that third-party makers can make great-feeling lenses - my Tokina 12-24 is one of the best lenses I've ever owned for any system - but the Sigma 10-20 feels small, fragile, and decidedly unconvincing. Both the Nikon and Tokina offerings feel decidedly more secure in my hands.

 

[laxx]

Tokina in general makes the best feeling lenses of the third-party companies, often bettering Canon or Nikon.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have yet to see one 'excellent' lens from sigma. They all feel cheap, which they are.

Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif Both the Nikon and Tokina offerings feel decidedly more secure in my hands.

I have Nikon, Tokina and Sigma lenses in my kit, and they're all well built. If build quality is important to you, look at Tokina's AT-X line and Sigma's EX line. All three of the manufacturers make inexpensive plastic lenses too. I have one of Nikon's cheapies myself. It's a great lens for walking around with because it isn't as heavy as the sturdier lenses.

See ya
Steve

 

[hembergler]

To change subject for a moment (this 1st party v. 3rd party debate is getting old anyway), I picked up the 50mm f/1.8 AF-D today. Although I can't autofocus with it on the D40, all I can say is wow. The fastest glass I had before this was the 18-55mm kit lens @ 18mm, which was f/3.5.

The difference between f/3.5 and f/1.8 for light and DOF is incredible. I have a feeling I'll be using this one a lot

 

[BigSurSpoon]

It's a good lens and it's cheap too! I've shot quite a bit with this lens and I couldn't be happier.

 

[laxx]

I wish the Canon version was built better.

 

[jterp7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif My 30mm f/1.4 Sigma's mostly metal body feels a lot more expensive than the mostly plastic bodies of most of their prime lenses, including the 50mm f/1.4, 35mm f/2, and even the newer AF-S 50mm f/1.4 which was a huge disappointment for me.

care to elaborate on what's lacking with the newer af-s 1.4? I have the older 50mm 1.4 and has so far served me well, the 18-200 on the other hand...

still looking for a fast and cheap 2.8 zoom all arounder

 

[jude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif My 30mm f/1.4 Sigma's mostly metal body feels a lot more expensive than the mostly plastic bodies of most of their prime lenses, including the 50mm f/1.4, 35mm f/2, and even the newer AF-S 50mm f/1.4 which was a huge disappointment for me.

I love my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 so much (which I originally picked up when I was using Canon) that I almost immediately picked up the Nikon-mount version when I made the big switch. (I'll be posting my Canon-mount Sigma 30mm f/1.4 in the Gear FS/T forums here later today.)

In short, at least for the 30mm f/1.4 (which is the only Sigma lens I've personally ever tried or used), I liked it so much I bought it twice.

 

[lan]

I'm now considering the Nikon 35mm f/2.0D for a few reasons

- I like the colors and bokeh of people's sample images
- It's cheaper than the other options Sigma 30/1.4, Nikon 35-70 2.8
- It's compact and light
- It works on full frame

I'm going to probably use it at this years NYC Halloween Parade. I like 35mm on crop cameras for people/events.

 

[milkpowder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jude /img/forum/go_quote.gif I love my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 so much (which I originally picked up when I was using Canon) that I almost immediately picked up the Nikon-mount version when I made the big switch. (I'll be posting my Canon-mount Sigma 30mm f/1.4 in the Gear FS/T forums here later today.) In short, at least for the 30mm f/1.4 (which is the only Sigma lens I've personally ever tried or used), I liked it so much I bought it twice.

How sharp is it wide-open on the D300?

 

[OverlordXenu]

lan, I LOVE my 35/2. It is easily the best Nikon lens I use. At least, for me. It is wide, fast, sharp, small, and light. Apparently the 28/2.8 is even sharper...and I don't know how that is possible.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jterp7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif care to elaborate on what's lacking with the newer af-s 1.4?

Hard to say since it isn't out yet and no one has had a chance to shoot with it yet, but on paper, the Sigma has much better (and much bigger) optics. The Sigma has no vignetting problems and uses aspherical elements for better sharpness from corner to corner. The new Nikon appears to be very similar to the 30 year old design, just with AF-S focusing.

See ya
Steve