On 17 Dec 1998 03:03:38 GMT, innacoma@aol.com (InnaComa) wrote:

>I have a question about nikon lenses. I'm looking at prices for the equivalent
>sigma lenses, and they're so much cheaper. Are nikon lenses THAT much better?

Often, yes! Occassionally a Sigma may be almost as good optically (I like the Sigma 8mm f4...). Often, the Sigma is not well made (I was
looking at a Sigma 28-105 f2.8-4 someone had just acquired, and the
bayonette was loose - a screw was stripped, making it impossible
to do a quick repair). I tried a Sigma 28-70 f2.8 recently, and it
was not very good at the widest stops (the point of buying such a
lens...;-) - the Nikkor 35-70 f2.8 was much better at wide stops.

>I'm looking at the 28-70, and the new sigma, with internal focusing is $312 at
>B&H. My guess is that when the nikon comes out with their 28-70 in a month or
>so, it's gonna be close to a grand.

Maybe more - but from the look of it, it may be VERY good...

>Can someone please help me understand the
>difference between the two? On one hand I think the nikons MUST be that much
>better because they're so expensive and it seems all the pros use nikon or
>canon lenses. On the other hand I wonder if it's the same deal where you go to
>the grocery store and see Ny-Quil for 8 bucks, and right next to it a generic
>"Ni-Calm" which has, letter for letter, the same ingredients. And it costs
>$2.50. Am I the only one wondering this? Any help is greatly appreciated.

No, most people wonder it, and if you are not critical of optical
performance (and are very careful when handling it...;-), the
Sigma may serve you well. The difference between inexpensive
and expensive lenses is often in the improved wide-aperture
(and sometimes mid-aperture...) performance in the expensive
lens, something that may not be of sufficient value for you...