average Nikon vs. good Sigma lens?

average Nikon vs. good Sigma lens?

Hello!

I'm planing to buy a Nikon D40 with a kit lens 15-55/f3.5-5.6 ( *
w w w .foto-oehling . com /cgi-bin/Oehling.storefront/469488b6020d995427400a00011e05cf/Product/View/157702)
and one additional lens to cover the range from 55mm up to 200mm.

Now, I have a terrible dilemma between following two lenses:

1. NIKON AF-S DX VR 55-200/4.0-5.6 G IF ED
* w w w .foto-oehling . com /cgi-bin/Oehling.storefront/FR/Product/160114
( * w w w .nikonusa . com /template.php?
cat=1&grp=5&productNr!66)

2. SIGMA AF 50-150/2,8 APO DC EX HSM
* w w w .foto-oehling . com /cgi-bin/Oehling.storefront/FR/Product/156149
( * w w w .sigmaphoto . com /lenses/lenses all details.asp?
id318&navigator=6)

Price is different, but it is not primer criterion, I wouldn't mind
spending more if I know why I did it.
Other characteristics of the lens (like optical/mechanical/practical
use etc) are what it IS important for me.

If you have some experience with both of these lenses, please help me
with this decision.
Feel free to recommend the third option, if it exists.

Thanks in advance.
Cheers!

Re: average Nikon vs. good Sigma lens?

Bojan Reljic wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I'm planing to buy a Nikon D40 with a kit lens 15-55/f3.5-5.6 ( *
> w w w .foto-oehling . com /cgi-bin/Oehling.storefront/469488b6020d995427400a00011e05cf/Product/View/157702)
> and one additional lens to cover the range from 55mm up to 200mm.
>
> Now, I have a terrible dilemma between following two lenses:
>
> 1. NIKON AF-S DX VR 55-200/4.0-5.6 G IF ED
> * w w w .foto-oehling . com /cgi-bin/Oehling.storefront/FR/Product/160114
> ( * w w w .nikonusa . com /template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr!66)
>
> 2. SIGMA AF 50-150/2,8 APO DC EX HSM
> * w w w .foto-oehling . com /cgi-bin/Oehling.storefront/FR/Product/156149
> ( * w w w .sigmaphoto . com /lenses/lenses all details.asp?id318&navigator=6)
>
> Price is different, but it is not primer criterion, I wouldn't mind
> spending more if I know why I did it.
> Other characteristics of the lens (like optical/mechanical/practical
> use etc) are what it IS important for me.
>
> If you have some experience with both of these lenses, please help me
> with this decision.
> Feel free to recommend the third option, if it exists.
>
> Thanks in advance.
> Cheers!
>

Being a Canon freak, I don't know much about Nikon lenses, however the
Nikon is a standard zoom lens with a maximum aperture of f4 at 55mm and
a maximum aperture of f5.6 at 200mm.

The Sigma lens, on the other hand has a constant f2.8 aperture
throughout the range.

On the face of it the Sigma lens is the faster lens, which could be
important to you if you want to take shots in low light or if you want
to utilise the depth of field capability of a fast lens.

You might want to do some research on these two lenses before you buy, a
couple of sites I use for comparison and review purposes are;

* w w w .dpreview . com
* w w w . fr edmiranda . com

Ken Rockwells website also has a load of reviews of Nikon lenses which
you may find interesting.

Word of warning with respect to Sigma lenses, they do have a reputation
for being not as strict with quality control as OEM lenses. This means
that you may get a lense that exhibits softness no matter what settings
you use or colour fringing. It can take a couple of goes to get a
decent 'copy' of a lense from Sigma.

Also, Sigma don't license the lense mount from the manufacturer (at
least they don't from Canon anyway) which means that they have to
reverse engineer the interface, contacts etc to get a working 3rd party
lens. This has the knock on effect that your Sigma lens may not always
work with your latest camera until it's been updated by Sigma.

Hope this helps and good luck!

--
Regards,

JasonB

To reply replace NoSpam4me with blueyonder

Re: average Nikon vs. good Sigma lens?

thanks a lot

On Jul 11, 10:17 am, JasonB <jas...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Bojan Reljic wrote:
> > Hello!
>
> > I'm planing to buy a Nikon D40 with a kit lens 15-55/f3.5-5.6 ( *
> >w w w .foto-oehling . com /cgi-bin/Oehling.storefront/469488b6020d995427400...)
> > and one additional lens to cover the range from 55mm up to 200mm.
>
> > Now, I have a terrible dilemma between following two lenses:
>
> > 1. NIKON AF-S DX VR 55-200/4.0-5.6 G IF ED
> > * w w w .foto-oehling . com /cgi-bin/Oehling.storefront/FR/Product/160114
> > ( * w w w .nikonusa . com /template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2166)
>
> > 2. SIGMA AF 50-150/2,8 APO DC EX HSM
> > * w w w .foto-oehling . com /cgi-bin/Oehling.storefront/FR/Product/156149
> > ( * w w w .sigmaphoto . com /lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3318&navig...)
>
> > Price is different, but it is not primer criterion, I wouldn't mind
> > spending more if I know why I did it.
> > Other characteristics of the lens (like optical/mechanical/practical
> > use etc) are what it IS important for me.
>
> > If you have some experience with both of these lenses, please help me
> > with this decision.
> > Feel free to recommend the third option, if it exists.
>
> > Thanks in advance.
> > Cheers!
>
> Being a Canon freak, I don't know much about Nikon lenses, however the
> Nikon is a standard zoom lens with a maximum aperture of f4 at 55mm and
> a maximum aperture of f5.6 at 200mm.
>
> The Sigma lens, on the other hand has a constant f2.8 aperture
> throughout the range.
>
> On the face of it the Sigma lens is the faster lens, which could be
> important to you if you want to take shots in low light or if you want
> to utilise the depth of field capability of a fast lens.
>
> You might want to do some research on these two lenses before you buy, a
> couple of sites I use for comparison and review purposes are;
>
> * w w w .dpreview . com * w w w . fr edmiranda . com
>
> Ken Rockwells website also has a load of reviews of Nikon lenses which
> you may find interesting.
>
> Word of warning with respect to Sigma lenses, they do have a reputation
> for being not as strict with quality control as OEM lenses. This means
> that you may get a lense that exhibits softness no matter what settings
> you use or colour fringing. It can take a couple of goes to get a
> decent 'copy' of a lense from Sigma.
>
> Also, Sigma don't license the lense mount from the manufacturer (at
> least they don't from Canon anyway) which means that they have to
> reverse engineer the interface, contacts etc to get a working 3rd party
> lens. This has the knock on effect that your Sigma lens may not always
> work with your latest camera until it's been updated by Sigma.
>
> Hope this helps and good luck!
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> JasonB
>
> To reply replace NoSpam4me with blueyonder