Just been squandering hard earned in preparation for the holidays. After a few brick wall and focusing tests they don't appear to suffer from the Sigma QC problems

A quick shot taken with the 30 mm wide open to test the AF

Very nice:thumbup:

That dirty 30 looks sharp.

The 10-20 is a really nice lens. I sold my one a little while ago and now I miss it:( I'll defo be buying another wide angle soon, they're good fun to shoot with.

Post some images when you've had time to shoot with them.

Have you read any reviews on these? Just had a look as I am always interested to know which are good buys, and they don't get overly good write ups :s

About the 30mm

"The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is a special-purpose, fast, fixed normal focal length lens for small-format digital SLRs. It sells for about $420.

This Sigma lens works well when used as intended for hand-held shots in dim light. It's lightweight and works fast and easy, especially with the Nikon D40 and D40x, except that it doesn't focus very well or accurately.

If you shoot Canon, forget this Sigma and get the superior Canon 28mm f/1.8 EF for less money.

If you shoot Nikon, forget this dumpily-made Sigma and get the newest Nikon 35mm f/1.8 for half the price. "

About the 10mm

"The Sigma goes to 10 mm, the widest of all. It really goes to an honest 10 mm. When comparing lenses the difference is obvious. Unfortunately the Sigma feels the cheapest (which it is), even though it's the second heaviest. The Sigma's build materials and quality do not build confidence. Like it's focal length, it also has the shortest warranty. It's also the least sharp if you look too closely. Here's my dilemma: the whole point of all these lenses is to go wide. Sigma is clearly the winner for the widest of the wide, however its optical and mechanical quality scare me

Unfortunately it feels cheap, even though it's reasonably heavy. It makes funny noises when focusing, has crummy lens caps, a weird, ugly painted finish and doesn't inspire my confidence. It's warranty is only one-third as long as the next shortest warranty. If Sigma isn't confident that it will last more than a year, I'm not either.

The Sigma is also the least sharp. You won't see this unless you look hard. If you do then get the Nikon. If not, the Sigma can make spectacular images, especially at 10 mm. Because it's not as sharp at the sides my D200 won't always focus properly with any other than the center AF sensor"

I thought Sigma were supposed to be alright? This has kinda put me off...and I don't really want to be buying Nikkor lenses forever cos they cost a bloody fortune!!

It all depends who and where you read the write ups

If you visit Nikon Cafe you will find both lenses have a lge following with the sigma 10-20 being preffered by many over the new Nikor 10-24. The 30 also as rave reviews, HOWEVER as you have found out both lenses have many detractors especially with regard to their QC problems with some people claiming to have had to return several copies. Interestingly enough this seems more prevalent in the US.

The problems being Barrel distortion and pin cushion distortion, and soft corners on the 10-20, and many front focus issues on the 30. (some of these are put down to the very shallow DOF and poor technique)

Either way I decided to risk it as I wanted a wide angle fast prime and a wide angle zoom other than the fisheye and Nikon don't satisfy the criteria on the former and reviews on the latter are more mixed than the sigma. The first thing I did on getting the lenses was to take test shots of a brick wall and various focus shots from varying distances to satisfy myself I had a good copy, otherwise they would have been returned

I am glad to say that imo both lenses are indeed excellent copies, and will suite my needs for my upcoming jollies perfectly.

PS Both Sigma lenses get a 3 year warranty in the UK, Nikon get 1 year. In the US I believe Sigma get 1 year and Nikon 5 ?? Go figure.

Edited 26 August, 200916 yr by postmanpat

got those off ken rockwell cos there's loaads of stuff on there. I was genuinely surprised to see such negative comments about sigma as thought most people had some! As I say I have never looked into them as only ever half heartedly though 'oh I'll get one sometime as an alternative' so would have to read up properly at the time. Have spent enough on lenses lately! Lol! Will try to stick to nikkor as much as I can though I think, unless there's a stupidly expenive one that I really want!

Search ken Rockwell on the cafe as well

I think with some Sigma lenses (like the 2 above) if you get a good copy they are probably as good if not better than the equivalent Nikkor BUT they don't seem as consistent, having said that I have read reports of people returning the 10-24 Nikkor and of manufacturing defects in the 20 mm. So as with everything you pays your money ...........

Other Sigmas don't seem to suffer quite as much the 150 mm macro is meant to be a peach and I have read reviews that prefer the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 to the Nikkor and at around half the price it is hard to ignore

Mind you in some cases you just can't beat the Nikkor, like the 85 mm primes for the Bokeh :P

Edited 27 August, 200916 yr by postmanpat

We've kinda made friends with a bloke in Jesspos who is (obviously) a photographer, so he's the one who has recommended lenses to me. I was going to get the 85mm, but he suggested the 105, especially as it has macro function too, so thats how I ended up with that one! With the 50mm, I read some stuff on t'interweb and it sounded good for the money so that was more of a stop gap, but tbh I love it!

For as long as I can remember, people have been saying Sigma lenses are not good quality. Sigma keep trying, and for some reason there's still a camp that says they're rubbish. I have an old Sigma 28mm prime for my film camera that I've always been very happy with, and I've just bought a Sigma zoom for my DSLR, but I'm not a pro. I'm surprised Nikor are being unfavourably compared to Sigma though.

I'm surprised Nikor are being unfavourably compared to Sigma though.

To be fair I think there is an element of value for money in their comparison in that if you want to pay double for pixel peeping then get the Nikkor. Mike Kobel does an interesting test of the the 24-70 here :Sigma, Nikon, Canon: 24-70mm 2.8 compared Mike Kobal

As for the 10-20 vs 10-24 this on the Cafe is an interesting read. http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=233067&highlight=10-24

I think the Sigma is slightly ahead reading those comments, but as said you have to get a good copy of the Sigma, I am beginning to wonder if European lenses are from a differant assembly line though as we get the EX version with a 3 year warranty whilst the US seem to complain about a cheap finnish and a 1 year warranty :confused:

Edited 27 August, 200916 yr by postmanpat

I just wish I could use all my Dad's Zeiss lenses on my cameras :( They are amazing. They make all the digital ones feel like cheap plastic toys. I really must take the Contax out again sometime

Well you could always buy Zeiss instead of Nikkor :P

The 100 mm macro is only £1200 + Tax

Having said that the 85 mm f1.4 is as cheap as the Nikkor :rubchin: Shame it is manual focus

(Thought I had found a good priced store for a minute looking for Zeiss, till I added a 105 Nikkor to my basket at for £535 only for the site to then add 15% VAT at the checkout :nono:)

Edited 27 August, 200916 yr by postmanpat

Well, I have still got them and can still use them, just on film rather than digital. They do feel lovely though. All metal and the focus rings move sooo smoothly! mmm!

Sigma 30 mm @ f1.4 1:1 crop

Nikkor 85 mm @ f1.8 1:! crop

Edited 28 August, 200916 yr by postmanpat

I bought a dirty thirty a year or so ago and have been immensely pleased with it. The focus is spot on and it's really sharp, even at f/1.4. And they have nice bokeh - good guitar shot, Andy

The only downside of it is that it is a DC lens, so no good for full frame 35mm or FX sensors and that's why I'm not using it much at the moment.

I've been toying with changing it for the 50mm f/1.4. The Sigma has better bokeh than the Nikon, but probably not as sharp at the edges IIRC.

KR is like marmite. You love him or hate him