Nikkor 17-35mm vs Sigma 15-30mm

[Pedro D]

Hi,

I am to think about buying more 1 lens to join the S2.

My choice goes for the Nikkor 17-35 Af-S 2,8 D, or for the Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF.

The question is the following one: is justified it great difference of price between these 2 lenses or not in final quality?

I am thankful since of already your opinion on this subject.

[Tom V]

I think both lenses are more than sharp enough for any digital sensor.

The Nikkor is probably a giant compared to the Sigma - how is that going to fit in your camera bag? The Sigma is wider, 15mm X 1.5 = 22.5mm effective, vs. 17mm X 1.5 = 25.5mm effective, which in my opinion is a difference you can notice.

I looked at the Sigma 15-30mm on Tuesday. I decided NOT to buy it because I already had a 20mm and 24mm, and I knew that if I had it, I would have zoomed out to 15mm all the time.

I am a fan of prime lenses, and only use my zooms when I have to.

I had a problem with the Sigma lens while testing in on my S2 at the store - the aperture did not register with the camera unless you gave the mounted lens a clockwise twist. The top LCD acted as if no lens was attached unless I rotated the lens in the mount. The lens worked fine on my F100 that I brought along.

Beside the point: I ended up going with the Sigma 14mm ƒ2.8, which would be the equivalent of 21mm considering the 1.5x factor. Looking through the 14mm on my film camera is a real halucination!

[memobug]

When you look into these lenses, especially wide angle lenses, shoot them into the light source at different angles and see how they (mis)behave. Loss of contrast and flare are common complaints, and that's where all those expensive coatings really shine. Oops. I meant, really don't shine.

Regards,

Matt

[Eddie]

Hi Tom,

Your information on the Sigma 15-30 EX will be very helpful in making the decision wheter to buy this lens yes or no. I will at least know better where to look at in particular. Thanks mate...

and sorry for my poor English... the day when i will be able to write something free of spell-mistakes and without the use of a dictionary will probably be when pigs can fly

tata,
Eddie

[Mike Flood]

I'm curious to know why you're comparing a 17-35mm to a 15-30mm.

The Sigma 17-35mm is a nice lens. I haven't a way to compare it to a Nikkor 17-35.

As far as the display showing error on the S-2 it's the fault of the body requiring that the aperture ring be locked at it's narrowest setting. This has been the case with recent Nikon bodies which Fuji inherited. Not the fault of the lens.

[Marvo]

Hi Mike,
I have actually compared the Nikkor with the Sigma (17-35) and the Sigma just beat the Nikkor on definition at the edges of the frame at all appertures. It was pretty level pegging in the centre of the frame.
The Sigma 15-30 is just a whisker behind the Sigma 17-35 in the sharpness stakes.
Marvo.

[memobug]

Hi Marvo,

sounds like you tested an exceptional Sigma lens or a really ratty Nikkor. The 17-35 2.8 AFS is about the best zoom Nikon makes, and it competes very well 1:1 with many of the primes available in that range.

My test went the other way, and I swapped out a lackluster Sigma with a wonderful, but relatively heavy Nikon.

Regards,

Matt

[Marvo]

Matt,

"sounds like you tested an exceptional Sigma lens or a really ratty Nikkor"

I'll never know as I plumbed for the even (slightly) softer 15-30mm Sigma on the grounds that when I've got my head stuck pinned right back tight in the 3 inch gap between viewfinder and the corner of some claustrophobic interior I'm trying to make look palacial, I'm always going to want get that iddy little bit more in the frame, and can't (at the moment) justify the outlay for the 14mm prime.... one day soon....:rolleyes: 2mm (x 1.5) can make all the difference!;)
Marvo.

[Iain]

Amongst others I am using the Nikon 18-35mm lens. Half the price for a mm less. I've found the results to be stunning.

Iain

[Tom V]

Originally posted by Mike Flood
...As far as the display showing error on the S-2 it's the fault of the body requiring that the aperture ring be locked at it's narrowest setting. This has been the case with recent Nikon bodies which Fuji inherited. Not the fault of the lens.

If you are referring to the lens I was testing at the camera store, in which I got an error with the Sigma lens, it was not a case of not having the aperture ring locked. The aperture ring was locked in its proper position. The lens worked fine on my F100, which similarly requires the aperture locked. The Sigma lens DID work correctly ONLY IF I REALLY TWISTED the lens in the mount as far as it would go.

Normally, when you mount a lens in the Nikon F Mount, it clicks into place. The example of the Sigma lens I tried apparently had a little extra tolerance (slop) in the mount, so even if it clicked into place, and looked right, - as have all my other lenses on countless cameras over several years - this lens required EXTRA FORCE to farther rotate the lens in the mount past the point where it clicks. Only then did the aperture information show in the LCD panels, and only then would the camera work. If I manually focused the lens, or zoomed the ring, of put the cap on and off, the lens would loose contact, and I would have to torque the lens all the way counter-clockwise again for it to work. I remounted the lens several times and the problem repeated itself each time. So I didn't buy the lens. I hope the guy who eventually buys it has better luck.

I have only had this problem with my S2 and that particular lens. That lens worked fine on my F100, and the 8 lenses I own, and all the other lenses I have tried at camera stores have worked without problem on all my Nikon bodies. I have not heard of anyone else having a similar problem, and the sales clerk was perplexed having no explanation for this particular problem.:confused:

[Eric Athroll]

Hi
I have yet to take delivery of my S2 but I currently use a Nikon F80 and Sigma Lenses. I recently purchased a 15-30 Zoom but found that it caused an error when mounted on the F80. It, too, had additional movement in rotation when mounted and if forced anti-clockwise a bit after mounting it worked. I contacted Sigma UK and they exchanged it - the replacement works fine. Hope my lenses also work OK with the S2 when I get it.

[Marvo]

My 15 - 30 works fine on the S2, I sure hope you have the same good fortune.
Marvo.

[Eric Athroll]

Hi
I've just received my S2 today and very quickly shot some pics in and around the house to check that everything works. I'm pleased to say that all my Sigma lenses work fine on the S2.

[steve bingham]

I have tested the Sigma 15-30. My tests seem to corrulate with other MTFs I have seen. On my lens, the sharpest aperature was f11, followed ever so slightly by f8, f16, and f5.6. The sharpest focal length was 15mm and getting less from then on. Flare was moderate, distortion was excellent, color natural, contrast a little flat, but not much. I was very surprised as I am NOT a Sigma fan. They make some really questionable lenses. Sure would like to compare it with the Nikon. I did see a comparison with the Canon equivalent and the two were vertually tied. Amazing. Still not totally convinced its THAT good. One MTF was actually better than the very expensive Nikon. Don't understand this one. The only thing I can figure is the cropping ratio of 1.5 really brings the Sigma into its own.

[Gascoyne]

No, no, forget it - this subject goes round in circles, especially in camera clubs, and has done for as long as I've been involved in photography, which is rather a long time. Off-brand lenses sell mainly to amateurs, because they're cheaper. They are hardly ever as good as Nikkor equivalents, and never better. Even when the optical performance is OK (and a couple of decades ago I had Tamrons that performed respectably) the build quality doesn't hack it. Professionals cannot afford to buy second best, which is why they mostly buy e.g. the Nikkor 300/2.8 even though the Sigma (or whatever) is half the price. They cannot afford to throw money away just for a badge that says "Nikkor" - they spend hard-earned money for Nikkors because they're damn good lenses. Buying off-brands is a triumph of hope over experience - believe me, I've done it a couple of times, and regretted it each time too. The 17-35 Nikkor is really excellent, possibly the best zoom Nikon have built. No way does a Sigma match it.

[Ron Green]

One man's opinion. After many years of trying everything on the market I only own Nikkors, and I do have the 17-35 which is a finely crafted, state-of-the-art highly corrected, very sharp zoom. It is big and it is heavy and if performs flawlessly.
I've owned non-Nikons in the past and have always been dissappointed in some way. But generally, Nikon or not, you get what you pay for.

We live in an era when most name-brand lenses are sharper than they ever were. And, the challenge of lens design today (smaller formats, zoom capability, faster apertures etc.) is greater than ever. With advances in computer aided design, today’s mid-priced lenses for 35mm cameras are sharper and offer more corrections than top-of-line optics of twenty years ago.

Just about any 35mm zoom lens today will resolve 100 lines per millimeter in the center of the frame. And generally, the more you pay the better they’ll get at the edges and with less apparent aberrations and more contrast. Super wide angle zooms are much more difficut to build than normal or tele's.

So my advice is if you are worried about spending too much for the Nikkor "do as I have done in the past," buy the cheaper lens at the lowest price you can find, try it, use it, and if you don't like it sell it for $100(US) less than you paid. Think of it as rent. Then get yourself a Nikkor.