RockinRobinG Loc: The Middle of Nowhere, Nebraska

I've always had Nikkor lenses. Can someone tell me the difference between the quality of a Nikkor and a Sigma lens? I've heard that a Sigma is a lesser quality than a Nikkor. True? Just asking.

sinatraman Loc: Vero Beach Florida, Earth,alpha quaudrant

not neccesarily. like nikon sigma is primarily an optics company. they do have a line of dslrs that use a different type of sensor than anybody else. depending on the lens depends on the quality. i have both nikon and sigma and one tonika lens sigma tamaron and tonika are well made third party lenses, after that you run into cheaply made communist chinese knock off garbage. If you go to popphoto.com, popular photography magazines website, they have a buyers guide for cameras and lenses. you can see the test results that popphoto lab does for each review. their test results have a good reputation.

PipesCJ7 Loc: Cordova, Alaska/Shoreline, WA/ Merritt, BC

Hi Rockinrobin, I am a firm believer in you get what you pay for. I have invested heavily in Nikkor lenses and have never had any negative issues. I travel into some of the harshest environments in BC, Alberta, Alaska and Washington St. and along with my D3 and D300 they have survived some rigorous tests without a failure.

RockinRobinG Loc: The Middle of Nowhere, Nebraska

Thanks S-man. I appreciate the info. Will check it out.

RockinRobinG Loc: The Middle of Nowhere, Nebraska

Thanks Pipes. I've always had Nikkor lenses too (for the old 35mm) and they really held up for me. Glad to hear they will stand up to the harshes environments as I kind of think the sub-zero weather here in Nebraska can probably be considered harsh too! Oh silly me...usually out shooting when I'm snowed in! <Laf'n> Thanks for sharing the beautiful images too.

nikondaddy Loc: Mayfield,Kentucky

Nikon lenses are the top choice for nikon period. But because of digital technology all lenses makers put out quality lenses and Sigma and Tamron are not inferior. Your confidence ina lenses make the nikon price worth it and if you can,t afford a new non Nikon lense then buy a used nikon they are tough and can last a long time under all conditions.

RockinRobinG Loc: The Middle of Nowhere, Nebraska

Thanks NikonDaddy. I most likely will stay with the Nikon lens. I didn't know anything about Sigma lenses. I appreciate your input.

PhotoArtsLA Loc: Boynton Beach

I shoot only Nikkor these days. I have tried the top rated lenses of third party manufacturers, including Sigma and Tokina, and you can instantly see the difference from Nikkors, particularly in the lab. The lure of cheaper prices gets to all of us from time to time. The color, contrast, and tack sharpness of the better Nikkors does not translate to the competing brands. When dealing with the "universal mount" third party lenses, the adapters can have just a little bit of play... this spells "not as good as Nikkor" from the start.

On the other hand, if you shoot only in the bright, sunny world of f/16... naw... you still want the Nikkor.

Remember, though, that Nikon makes amateur as well as pro lenses, and the better lenses do cost a pretty penny.

That said, Zeiss makes some decent glass for Nikon...

Mr Clickie Loc: Twin Cities, MN

Hi RRG, I tend to mix bargain with quality at times and love my Sigma zooms. I simply can't afford all the fast Nikkor glass. (I do have some Nikkor 1.8's that I love too). I recently heard about the older Sigma lenses not always communicating correctly with Nikon equipment. I was told this was resolved a few years ago after Sigma started paying royalties to Nikon and Nikon started giving Sigma the chip they needed to have trouble free connections. I know some need and can pay for all Nikkor but for me (without a loupe), I'll mix and match, count my pennies and click away. :-)

verbbaitum Loc: Sidney, NE (for now)

I agree. You get what you pay for and the Nikkor lens are worth the money.