Sigma or Nikon
Hi - just thought I would ask for your opinions. I am thinking about buying a 14-24mm and have been trying to work out which is better between the Nikon and Sigma. I have watched a review on YouTube and felt at the end of it the Sigma was maybe a little better and its certainly cheaper.
I was wondering if anyone had used either or both and what you thought. Is the Nikon lens worth the extra money?
I would be using it mostly for music photography if that has any bearing on your comments.
Thank you in advance.
I was wondering if anyone had used either or both and what you thought. Is the Nikon lens worth the extra money?
I would be using it mostly for music photography if that has any bearing on your comments.
Thank you in advance.
Hi 779HOB,
Here is our review of the Nikon lens and sample photos with the Sigma lens, which might help you with your decision:
Nikon 14-24mm review
Sigma 14-24mm sample photos
Thanks
Emma
Here is our review of the Nikon lens and sample photos with the Sigma lens, which might help you with your decision:
Nikon 14-24mm review
Sigma 14-24mm sample photos
Thanks
Emma
I own the Nikon. It is built like a tank but is still a 12 year old optical design.
There is a Nikon upgrade coming - but in Z mount.
There is a Nikon upgrade coming - but in Z mount.
That Nikon 14-24mm is one of the "holy trinity" and so has been designed to withstand hard professional use. Such lenses tend to keep their performance into old age.
I've only ever owned one Sigma lens, the 15-30mm, and that was soon giving me soft pictures. My wife grew so sick of hearing my complaints that she bought me a Nikon lens to replace it!
I've only ever owned one Sigma lens, the 15-30mm, and that was soon giving me soft pictures. My wife grew so sick of hearing my complaints that she bought me a Nikon lens to replace it!
Thanks for the comments. I am borrowing a sigma this weekend to give it a try. I watched this review earlier - doesn't real make the decision easier! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltQnWij0IUc
I'd suggest that the choice should depend on the amount of use that the lens is likely to get.
You only get the benefit of Nikon durability if your lens has a lot of hard use or if you intend to keep it for some time because Nikon optics tend to hold their value. Many professional photographers (like me) are careful with their kit but I have yet to encounter an assistant who shares this attitude.
If you're an enthusiast, I'd suggest buying the lens that you find nicer to use.
You only get the benefit of Nikon durability if your lens has a lot of hard use or if you intend to keep it for some time because Nikon optics tend to hold their value. Many professional photographers (like me) are careful with their kit but I have yet to encounter an assistant who shares this attitude.
If you're an enthusiast, I'd suggest buying the lens that you find nicer to use.
Quote:
There is a Nikon upgrade coming - but in Z mount.
While the original purchase decision has likely been made, the S 24-70 f2.8 has come, been widely tested as a substantially better performer than the F mount options - and is quite expensive at around £1,700 new.
The reason for making this late post is that optics for the new wide mount short flange to sensor optics from Nikon, Canon and the L mount products are generally clearly optically superior to "traditional" lens mount optics.
Sony is already partly in front with a wide range of short flange to sensor optics but will gradually loose out with some lens designs which cannot take advantage of the wider mount optics coming on stream.
Some years ago, the Zeiss site had a performance comparison between the various lens series. There was a huge difference between the M mount and ZF mount 50mm Planar. This was put down to the optical compromises that were needed to accommodate the reflex mirror. Medium-format lenses performed even less well.
I'd expect a similar difference between S mount and F mount Nikon lenses
I'd expect a similar difference between S mount and F mount Nikon lenses
Quote:Some years ago, the Zeiss site had a performance comparison between the various lens series. There was a huge difference between the M mount and ZF mount 50mm Planar. This was put down to the optical compromises that were needed to accommodate the reflex mirror. Medium-format lenses performed even less well.
I'd expect a similar difference between S mount and F mount Nikon lenses
You are likely right - particularly for any wide angle zoom or wide angle prime.
Quote:
Quote:Some years ago, the Zeiss site had a performance comparison between the various lens series. There was a huge difference between the M mount and ZF mount 50mm Planar. This was put down to the optical compromises that were needed to accommodate the reflex mirror. Medium-format lenses performed even less well.
I'd expect a similar difference between S mount and F mount Nikon lenses
You are likely right - particularly for any wide angle zoom or wide angle prime.
I notice that Nikon's mirrorless primes have about twice as many elements as the F mount equivalent so they're probably more highly corrected. I suppose they have to give us something extra for the higher price!
Quote:
I notice that Nikon's mirrorless primes have about twice as many elements as the F mount equivalent so they're probably more highly corrected. I suppose they have to give us something extra for the higher price!
The street price below £2,000 is about 12.5% more than the F mount VR version.
Extras for the money include twin independently operating AF motors for excellent optical quality at all focus distances, Arneo coating - and becoming widely regarded as optically the best 24-70 f2.8 available. This seems part due to the wider lens mount and short lens mount to sensor distance of the Nikon Z range.
