Sigma 24-105 F4 - v- Nikkor 24-120 F4: I'm requesting some opinions. These two lenses seem similar on the surface. The Nikkor can be bought a little cheaper. Has anyone out there had...

raindog

I'm requesting some opinions. These two lenses seem similar on the surface. The Nikkor can be bought a little cheaper. Has anyone out there had experience with either of these two lenses? If so, what are your thoughts on the good, bad, and ugly of working with it? If you had it to do over, would you use the same choice?
Thanks.

jfn007 Loc: Close to the middle of nowhere.

I checked out a few websites and the consensus was the Sigma is the better buy. Here is an interesting video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e-s0GkhVDI

raindog wrote:

I'm requesting some opinions. These two lenses seem similar on the surface. The Nikkor can be bought a little cheaper. Has anyone out there had experience with either of these two lenses? If so, what are your thoughts on the good, bad, and ugly of working with it? If you had it to do over, would you use the same choice?
Thanks.

GPS Phil Loc: Dayton Ohio

raindog wrote:

I'm requesting some opinions. These two lenses seem similar on the surface. The Nikkor can be bought a little cheaper. Has anyone out there had experience with either of these two lenses? If so, what are your thoughts on the good, bad, and ugly of working with it? If you had it to do over, would you use the same choice?
Thanks.

I tried both lenses, the Sigma was sharper and focuses well.
However it is not a small light lens, reasonable, but not small. I use the Sigma on my Df and it does an excellent job.

Phil

pmackd Loc: Alameda CA

GPS Phil wrote:

I tried both lenses, the Sigma was sharper and focuses well.
However it is not a small light lens, reasonable, but not small. I use the Sigma on my Df and it does an excellent job.

Phil

Lens design 101. The bigger the zoom range, the more difficult to achieve sharpness and freedom from distortion over the whole range. The Sigma only goes out to 105 mm while the Nikkor to 120mm. Personally I find myself frequently shooting my Nikkor 24 to 120 at 120 and wishing I could go a little further. I would not give up the 120 for a small sharpness advantage I could probably never see in the prints I make up to 20 x 30 inches.

drmarty Loc: Pine City, NY

pmackd wrote:

Lens design 101. The bigger the zoom range, the more difficult to achieve sharpness and freedom from distortion over the whole range. The Sigma only goes out to 105 mm while the Nikkor to 120mm. Personally I find myself frequently shooting my Nikkor 24 to 120 at 120 and wishing I could go a little further. I would not give up the 120 for a small sharpness advantage I could probably never see in the prints I make up to 20 x 30 inches.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

RKL349 Loc: Connecticut

raindog wrote:

I'm requesting some opinions. These two lenses seem similar on the surface. The Nikkor can be bought a little cheaper. Has anyone out there had experience with either of these two lenses? If so, what are your thoughts on the good, bad, and ugly of working with it? If you had it to do over, would you use the same choice?
Thanks.

I have the Nikon 24-120mm f/4, and yes, I would buy it again. I use it as my walk around lens on my D610.

reindeer Loc: London U.K.

The Sigma is sharper (art series) but heavy and big with less reach. Question of individual preference but I prefer Reach to slight sharpness advantage. Build quality of both is good. Having considered and tried both I use Sigma 18-300 , losing a bit in sharpness but gaining in usefulness because I do a lot of candid and street photography.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I shoot the Nikon 24-120 off my Nikon D800. My brother used it to photograph my son's wedding last fall. I took over after the wedding. This lens took one of the sharpest pictures I have ever taken of my son and his wife. I could have blown it up to a 16X24 without trouble. I have always used Nikon glass. Owned a sigma once, resale was not good. Nikon used sell higher because the quality is better. Nikon is one of the few companies that grind their own glass. Nikon is first a scientific instrument company and second a photography company. Can sigma say the same. When NASA needed a accurate rangefinder in space, it was a Nikon. First camera in space, Nikon and Hasselblad. Sigma has yet to achieve this distinction. I am not knocking Sigma here, just giving out some useful information. You get what you pay for, go Nikon and you will be happy.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

jfn007 wrote:

I checked out a few websites and the consensus was the Sigma is the better buy. Here is an interesting video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e-s0GkhVDI

I would say ONLY if the extra reach is not needed.

GPS Phil Loc: Dayton Ohio

camerapapi wrote:

I would say ONLY if the extra reach is not needed.

While I agree with all that's been said, 15mm did not seem to make much difference. I do carry the 300mm VR for that extra reach, and it does make quite a difference. I also seem to always want a little more on the other end, 24 just doesn't seem to be wide enough, and the 20mm gets a lot of use. Now if I could just find a 20-300mm zoom that was super sharp! :lol:

Phil

checkingout_it_out

The extra reach does not matter much, as a cropped image from the sigma will be a bit sharper then the Nikon.

The only problem with the Sigma, is your pictures stay on the preview window longer than the Nikon, which can be annoying when changing focus points, etc. The Sigma is no lightweight but truly feels well built and solid.

I had this same decision for my D750 and ended up with the Sigma. From the sound of it, people seem to like both lenses.

ptcanon3ti Loc: NJ

I have a D750 and waited to get the Sigma over the Nikon. The Nikons were available a dime a dozen, the Sigma was like trying to find a needle in a hay stack. I'm glad I waited. It's exceedingly sharp and customizable with the Sigma USB dock.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

checkingout_it_out wrote:

The only problem with the Sigma, is your pictures stay on the preview window longer than the Nikon,...

:?: :?:

pmackd Loc: Alameda CA

GPS Phil wrote:

While I agree with all that's been said, 15mm did not seem to make much difference. I do carry the 300mm VR for that extra reach, and it does make quite a difference. I also seem to always want a little more on the other end, 24 just doesn't seem to be wide enough, and the 20mm gets a lot of use. Now if I could just find a 20-300mm zoom that was super sharp! :lol:

Phil

If Nikon develops one, be prepared to sell your house to buy the lens.

GPS Phil Loc: Dayton Ohio

pmackd wrote:

If Nikon develops one, be prepared to sell your house to buy the lens.

I almost had to do that with the last one (300mm VR f4). A great lens but it will be awhile before I can spend that much on a lens again. I always say that, just wish I would listen to myself :D

Phil