Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8-4.0 Aspherical AF Lens for Nikon-D AF

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Jon Hirschman, Jul 27, 2003.

  1. Would this be a good first lense (and only lense for a while) for a nikon
    N80?

    Thanks.
     
    Jon Hirschman, Jul 27, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. I bought one of these for my wife, and it was the single worst lens I have
    ever seen, soft at all focal lengths, edge or center, slow, noisy AF, we
    sold it after only a few months. The purchaser of that lens, oddly, was on
    this NG, and agreed with that assessment wholeheartedly! Are you budget
    constricted? If so, there are other, better lenses in the same price range,
    but with slower apertures. Nikon makes a very good example at that focal
    length combination, but it costs more. Tokina makes a very good 28-80 f2.8,
    but it sells in the $500 range.
     
    Skip Middleton, Jul 27, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I got one of these for my 16 year old son's Canon really cheap. This is a very
    poor lens, worse than the standard kit lenses. Results are no better than a
    cheap point and shoot camera.

    It seems that an N80 deserves a much better quality lens.

    Larry
     
    LarryLarry2003, Jul 27, 2003
    #3
  4. Jon Hirschman

    T P Guest


    No, it is optically dreadful. The 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D AF Nikkor is a
    superb buy at the price and, compared to the truly dreadful Sigma, is
    a stellar performer.

    If you think you can get an optically good 28-105mm AF lens for less
    than the price of the Nikkor, think again.
     
    T P, Jul 27, 2003
    #4
  5. Jon Hirschman

    John Bean Guest

    Tony's "asigmatism"[1] is showing again. The Sigma is certainly not
    top of its class, but neither is it "truly dreadful". It's a cheap
    lens, and it shows, but it is also a considerable improvement on the
    "kit" lenses supplied with most consumer SLRs. Like all budget zooms,
    it's awful wide open, but that may not worry you if you rarely enlarge
    beyond 7x5. Like many budget zooms, it's more than acceptable stopped
    down beyond f/8. Like all budget Sigma lenses, it has little residual
    value if you decide to sell it.
    Maybe we need a more precise definition of "good"? You pays yer money
    and takes yer choice.


    [1] Tony always says that all Sigma products are crap, so it must be
    true. How they have remained in business all these years is little
    short of a miracle ;-)
     
    John Bean, Jul 27, 2003
    #5
  6. yes, a miracle...

    like the miracle of McDonalds. And the miracle of Wal-Mart processing.
     
    Martin Francis, Jul 27, 2003
    #6
  7. Here, Tony is right. This lens was considerably worse than the "kit" lens
    that came with my wife's Canon ElanII, the 28-80 f4-5.6. Calling "truly
    dreadful" is not an exaggeration. Trust me, I know, I've seen the
    results...

    --
    Skip Middleton
    www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip Middleton, Jul 27, 2003
    #7
  8. Jon Hirschman

    Bob Sull Guest

    Hey John,

    Based on the comments from others that have taken time to respond, some
    with actual experience with this lens, Tony is right. The lens is
    question is junk.

    This is not to say that all Sigma is junk, we are only considering this one.

    Bob
     
    Bob Sull, Jul 27, 2003
    #8
  9. Jon Hirschman

    MG Guest

    "> Here, Tony is right. This lens was considerably worse than the "kit"
    lens
    Well---it seems that definition time is upon us again. Definitions such as
    dreadful when you describe the Sigma and superb when you describe the
    Nikkor. It seems that one of the "dreadful" Sigma 28-105mm 2.8/4 was given
    to me by a client. It also seems that I have the Nikkor lens also. I also
    shoot with a D1 and a Fuji S2 and here are my purely subjective results
    after using both on the same subject.

    Sigma is soft wide open---not "dreadfully so" but soft at 2.8 wide and 4
    long.
    Nikon does not have 2.8 wide or 4 long but it is sharper wide open---not
    dramatically but sharper.
    Sigma build quality is not as good as the Nikkor---surprise, surprise,
    surprise! But this lens I have from Sigma is older, has been around a bit
    with no cracks, no rub marks the same as the Nikkor.
    Sigma focus is fairly fast, I would rate the Nikkor a tad faster but not by
    much.
    Zoom is stiffer on Sigma.
    With the two digital cameras, I have made enlargements on a Fuji Frontier of
    10X15 of both lenses on same subject and guess what-----hard to tell even
    with TP's cure-all, a good loupe which is which. I guess it could be
    correction at the lab but the lab digital expert (my wife) thinks the
    machine was set up with same settings.
    I do not know how the Sigma would work with a full frame film camera since I
    got it after my F5 was sold. I do know that there is some softness on the
    edge with the 28-105 Nikkor but again, not bad.
    Just for giggles and grins, I used the lens of choice mentioned here with my
    wife's only remaining Canon camera, a Rebel G and a throw away 28-80 Canon
    which was used one time only when she was shooting Canon and put away to not
    see the light of day again. Now the results with the 28-80 defined
    dreadful.

    Maybe I got an excellent free Sigma, maybe I got a dreadful 28-80 Canon,
    maybe it would be different if all tests were with film based cameras but
    those are my admittedly subjective results. Do I use the Sigma? Not really
    since I have a 20-35 and a 35-70 2.8 Nikkor in my bag and I do little
    photography without at least a 300mm lens attached. Now I can see a
    difference with the 20-35 and 35-70 lenses but then again, they both are
    much better than my 28-105 Nikkor. Would I buy the Sigma? If I had to
    choose between the Canon 28-80 or the Sigma, I would certainly buy the
    Sigma. But normally, I would not buy the Sigma but I believe it is much
    better than what most say. My results (actual hands on results instead of
    magazine reports or hearsay) says it is better than what I see on this news
    group.

    Now my wife who free lances full time when not sorting out lab problems uses
    a Tamron 24-135mm for about 90% or her paid work but uses the 180mm 2.8 for
    pleasure and a wonderful 300mm f4 Nikkor for wildlife. She probably would
    not use the Sigma.

    MG
     
    MG, Jul 27, 2003
    #9
  10. Jon Hirschman

    John Bean Guest

    Based on a short spell of taking pictures with this lens, all
    requiring actual experience of it, Tony is wrong. The lens in question
    is not junk.
    That is not to say that all Sigma is not junk, I was only referring to
    this one. Who is "we" by the way?

    There are *much* better lenses than this; there are also far worse. Do
    not draw conclusions from what others say, judge only for yourself.
     
    John Bean, Jul 27, 2003
    #10
  11. The word is, "cheap", not, "miracle". - There are some people who will
    always go for the cheapest item/service they can find, no matter what the
    quality. These people are the natural prey of those who can always find a
    way to produce something a little cheaper (and poorer) than everyone
    else......
     
    William Graham, Jul 27, 2003
    #11
  12. There's part of the rub, I've only seen the lens used with film, so the
    edges are not cropped as they are on your digital. So if the edges are a
    little soft on yours, think to what extent they must be on a "sensor" that
    is 50% bigger.
    As far as your film experience goes, mine is the opposite.
    side by side the difference was apparent, even with infrared film
     
    Skip Middleton, Jul 28, 2003
    #12
  13. Jon Hirschman

    T P Guest

    Maybe not by your low standards?

    Forgive my assumption that most photographers have at least a passing
    interest in the optical quality of the lenses they use. Obviously,
    you don't fall into that category.

    I repeat, this is a truly dreadful optic that no self-respecting
    photographer should ever consider buying. Those photographers who
    have *no* self respect are not my concern.
     
    T P, Jul 28, 2003
    #13
  14. Jon Hirschman

    T P Guest


    .... and everyone else's. You're in a minority of one.
     
    T P, Jul 28, 2003
    #14
  15. Jon Hirschman

    John Bean Guest

    Two. Do try to keep up.
     
    John Bean, Jul 28, 2003
    #15
  16. Ok, I think I might have found a better choice. But I wanted to run it by
    everyone here. Thanks for your patients. How about the Nikon
    28-105/3.5-4.5 1:2 Macro AFD Nikkor Zoom Lens as my first and only lense
    (for now) for a nikon N80.
     
    Jon Hirschman, Jul 29, 2003
    #16
  17. On the surface you are right, that is the reasoning that led me to buy that
    lens for my wife, replacing the 28-80 that you have. But a far better
    choice, and the one that we bought, was the Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5, one stop
    slower, but a far better quality lens.
    If you make that same choice, make sure you get the 3.5-4.5, not the
    4.5-5.6, an inferior lens, even if it is made by Canon.
     
    Skip Middleton, Jul 29, 2003
    #17
  18. Oops, in the gerflluffle, I forgot you were using a Nikon, not a Canon!
     
    Skip Middleton, Jul 29, 2003
    #18
  19. Much better choice!
     
    Skip Middleton, Jul 29, 2003
    #19
  20. If this lens is the same as the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D IF AF, that B. Peterson
    lists in his Nikon Handbook, then he speaks very highly of it. He says it
    delivers marvously sharp, crisp images at a reasonable price.....I was not
    aware that it had macro capabilities, however, so it's possible that you are
    speaking of a different lens.......
     
    William Graham, Jul 29, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.