Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Sigma or Nikon lenses?

Reply
Thread Tools

Sigma or Nikon lenses?

 
 
C.S.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2004
I'm curious to know if people can really notice a difference between
these two? Lets take for example the 12-24 that each provides. Is the
Nikon worth the extra money? I would be using the lens on a Fuji S2.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2004
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (C.S.) writes:

> I'm curious to know if people can really notice a difference between
> these two? Lets take for example the 12-24 that each provides. Is the
> Nikon worth the extra money? I would be using the lens on a Fuji S2.


I don't know yet, haven't had enough money to buy even the Sigma. Let
me know if you figure it out .

The various pictures from the Sigma I've looked at online look rather
hopeful. It's currently on the list to get when I have money to
blow. I'm not holding my breath.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <(E-Mail Removed)>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
max
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2004

"C.S."
> I'm curious to know if people can really notice a difference between
> these two? Lets take for example the 12-24 that each provides. Is the
> Nikon worth the extra money? I would be using the lens on a Fuji S2.


I guess with some lenses some people can see the difference.
The best thing is to go to your dealer and ask to check the
lenses you are interested in. But generally you get more for
your money with Sigma imo. I've got 4 nikon and 3 sigma
and doubt anyone would be able to point out which are which.
I have had the oportunity to test the Nikon 500/4 against a
Sigma 500/4,5 they feel and work differently and the half f/stop
extra on the Nikon is very very nice, but it is bigger and heavier
and 3 times the price, images look very similar.
I think I read somewhere the sigma 12-24 is a fullsize lens whereas
the Nikon is a DX lens for use only on digital halfsize cameras,
maby something to consider. ;o)-max-


 
Reply With Quote
 
Fred A. Miller
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2004
C.S. wrote:

> I'm curious to know if people can really notice a difference between
> these two? Lets take for example the 12-24 that each provides. Is the
> Nikon worth the extra money? I would be using the lens on a Fuji S2.


Yes!

Fred

--
"...Linux, MS-DOS, and Windows XP (also known as the Good, the Bad, and
the Ugly)."
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paolo Pizzi
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2004
max wrote:

> I think I read somewhere the sigma 12-24 is a fullsize lens
> whereas the Nikon is a DX lens for use only on digital halfsize
> cameras, maby something to consider. ;o)-max-


I have the Sigma 12-24 and I bought it after extensively
comparing it to the equivalent Nikkor. The latter is a half-stop
faster at 12mm and a constant f/4, while the Sigma is 4.5-5.6.
That's where the advantages of the Nikkor pretty much end.
While the optical performance is similar, the Sigma shows much
less distorsion (to the point of being hardly noticeable at all)
through the entire range and, best of all, it can be used with a
film camera or full-size sensor. When, in a few years, Nikon
finally releases a consumer-level full-size sensor DSLR, the
Nikkor 12-24DX will become an expensive paper weight.
As a matter of fact, I find myself using the Sigma most of the
time with my F100, where it's a TRUE 12mm rectilinear and
it's...a blast!! If I bought the Nikkor, I could have only used
it on my D100 (with a much less dramatic 18-36mm range.)

Last but not least, you can find the Sigma for $650 while
the best price you can get for the Nikkor is still above
$1,000.


 
Reply With Quote
 
KBob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2004
On 26 Feb 2004 21:11:47 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (C.S.) wrote:

>I'm curious to know if people can really notice a difference between
>these two? Lets take for example the 12-24 that each provides. Is the
>Nikon worth the extra money? I would be using the lens on a Fuji S2.


Sigmas are quite often bummers (see PhotoDo), but the 12-24 fills a
unique niche in that it provides full-frame coverage and is thus not
obsolete when the major manufacturers shift to full-frame sensors, and
is also useful with film. Tests that I've read seem to show only
small differences in optical quality between this and the Nikkor 12-24
that is limited to half-size CCD coverage. Don't expect exceptional
results from either lens in terms of vignetting and edge resolution.
I've never been a fan of Sigma lenses, but I'd make an exception in
this case. The 12-24 has nearly always been given excellent reviews,
and for $600 it seems a bargain. Build quality appears to be
excellent on this lens, also.

If you're looking for an extreme WA, the Sigma appears at this time to
be the way to go.
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2004
[POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <y_H%b.98491$(E-Mail Removed)> on Fri, 27 Feb 2004
14:54:35 +0100, "max" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"C.S."
>> I'm curious to know if people can really notice a difference between
>> these two? Lets take for example the 12-24 that each provides. Is the
>> Nikon worth the extra money? I would be using the lens on a Fuji S2.

>
>I guess with some lenses some people can see the difference.
>The best thing is to go to your dealer and ask to check the
>lenses you are interested in. ...


While that's good advice, you really need to take pictures with the two lenses
to make a proper comparison.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
[PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
<http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
 
Reply With Quote
 
rene maark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2004
Hi,
I use a FinePix S2 Pro with:
1/ Sigma 70-300mm
2/ Sigma 15-30mm
and I am satisfied. Both the lens are OK as for the sharp and drawing lines.
I can recommend you both, really. I made a photographs 20 x 30 inch for
exhibition with success.
Regards,
rene

"John Navas" <(E-Mail Removed)> píse v diskusním príspevku
news:IQN%b.4239$(E-Mail Removed)...
> [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <y_H%b.98491$(E-Mail Removed)> on Fri, 27 Feb 2004
> 14:54:35 +0100, "max" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >"C.S."
> >> I'm curious to know if people can really notice a difference between
> >> these two? Lets take for example the 12-24 that each provides. Is the
> >> Nikon worth the extra money? I would be using the lens on a Fuji S2.

> >
> >I guess with some lenses some people can see the difference.
> >The best thing is to go to your dealer and ask to check the
> >lenses you are interested in. ...

>
> While that's good advice, you really need to take pictures with the two

lenses
> to make a proper comparison.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas
> [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
> <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sigma or OEM Sigma as Quantaray Mikevt1 Digital Photography 4 10-17-2006 10:04 AM
Sigma 18-125/3,5-5,6 and Sigma 70-300 APO Super Macro IIusers friglob Digital Photography 3 02-06-2006 08:12 PM
Nikon 8800 vs Nikon 990 vs Canon 8MP Rebel vs Nikon D70 fj40rockcrawler@gmail.com Digital Photography 10 06-07-2005 06:53 PM
Sigma 24-60 DG compare with sigma 24-70 DG rolento Digital Photography 1 11-13-2004 02:40 AM
Nikon or Sigma 12-24? C.S. Digital Photography 5 01-04-2004 10:37 PM



Advertisments