Thoughts on this lens vs its Sigma counterpart?
134988
This lens outperforms sigma in a lot of areas. This lens is optically as good as Nikons version, just a tad slower on focus, but only noticeable if you are a pro shooting sports. Build quality is outstanding, mostly metal. Goes head to head with Nikon in almost every category.
134989
I am very happy with this lens. I have not tried the Sigma. I have the tamron 28-75 and the 70-200 VC both outstanding lenses - fast and sharp. Tamron is slightly more expensive and reviews always slightly higher. Sorry I could not give you more info about the Sigma
134990
Hello. I purchased tis lens and I can not be happier with it. The image quality comapred to the sigma to em is superior. LEss Chromatic Averration and way less distrotions on the edge of the frame on full frame cameras.Build is oustanding and I do used it for my paid jobs. Lokk at this link so you cna see some of the images of this magnificent and very good quality lens:http://fmta.com.mx/index.php/galerias-de-fotos/galeriasolimpiadas2014/64-olimpiadasclasificatorias2
134991
Very good lens I own two from Tamron , this exact same one and the 24-70 mm F/2.8. Solid lend well made, takes good Pictures
134992
Honestly, way better. DXO did a comparison between all 70-200 2.8s and sigma wasn't even close.
579923
I love that lens it's more comparable to a Ziess 85mm. The bokeh at 1.5 is awesome! I would highly recommend it over the canon 1.8
1329011
The newer version with the C is the contemporary line of lens, sigma also came out with a art line. Basically it's much better then all of sigma previous lenses and some of the art line can even beat Canon's L glass at a fraction of cost. Quality control is also better so less bad apples make it pass inspection. Just read the reviews, you can't go wrong with a lens from the contemporary or art line.
1786217
Thanks for the information. I'm definately looking to unload the 28-80. I hadn't thought about third party lenses. I was always told to stick with Nikon. I'll check out the Sigma.
160523
I wasn't aware Sigma made this same lens in a "macro" version? Becarefull believing the discriptions as some "used" products are misrepresented. Any how, macro will allow for a shorter minimum focus distance. Good luck
1966946
I ended up going for the Sigma. So far I'm pretty happy with it; focus seems OK on my T1i, and the lens seems quite well put together. Not getting dinged extra for a bag and a lens hood is nice too.
387102
The Sigma 85mm is a damn good lens at a damn good price.Sigma also includes the hood and padded case.I use this lens for portraits, nudes,and weddings.Perfect companion to the Canon 18-200mm lens.
24765
I have no experience with Nikon or Nikon lenses. I do have & use regularly Canon 75-300 usm & canon is usm lenses. Both are fine lenses with beautiful results in situations where the subject is close enough for the focal lengths available. I also have & use more often a Sigma 50-500mm f/4.56.5 with Hsm & os. I am an avid birder & the Sigma is my choice. The added reach gives capability to get shots at longer distances with excellent results. The Sigma has a disadvantage in its weight. I regularly get excellent handheld shots even with Sigma 2X teleconverter giving excellent quality photos at effective focal length of 1000mm. This does require use of manual focus mode. I have no experience with Nikon or Nikon lenses. I do have & use regularly Canon 75-300 usm & canon is usm lenses. Both are fine lenses with beautiful results in situations where the subject is close enough for the focal lengths available. I also have & use more often a Sigma 50-500mm f/4.56.5 with Hsm & os. I am an avid birder & the Sigma is my choice. The added reach gives capability to get shots at longer distances with excellent results. The Sigma has a disadvantage in its weight. I regularly get excellent handheld shots even with Sigma 2X teleconverter giving excellent quality photos... » Read More I have no experience with Nikon or Nikon lenses. I do have & use regularly Canon 75-300 usm & canon is usm lenses. Both are fine lenses with beautiful results in situations where the subject is close enough for the focal lengths available. I also have & use more often a Sigma 50-500mm f/4.56.5 with Hsm & os. I am an avid birder & the Sigma is my choice. The added reach gives capability to get shots at longer distances with excellent results. The Sigma has a disadvantage in its weight. I regularly get excellent handheld shots even with Sigma 2X teleconverter giving excellent quality photos at effective focal length of 1000mm. This does require use of manual focus mode. « Show Less
1313303
The Sigma has been rated a 5 star lens by Nikon Magazine when compared to several other comparable lenses (chosen as the best)... bought it on that alone and found it to be fantastic.
632572
I own the 18-250mm and it is really sharp and a good lens. I was very surprised. Not sure of the Sigma but I know with the Tamron it is a bargain at that price.
794544
i would get 24mm, wider angle is more useful and it's sharper than 35mm, also try the new Sigma 35mm 1.4, bokeh is irritating, quality, built not up to Nikon's, but it's sharper and cheaper.
386984
I have Canon D60 and T3i and this lens is fantastic on both at all settings. I would contact sigma and talk to them about it.
1199583
Go to the Sigma website to see sample pictures. It looks like the lens has slight pincushion distortion. You may be confusing distortion with exaggerated perspective. Of course, this lens does make near objects seem very large compared to distant objects. That should not be considered distortion. You, as the photographer can use the perspective to your advantage for creative effect. If you do want distortion, apparent bending of straight lines, you should consider a fisheye lens.
2071193
Yes. It is WAY better in every aspect. Although it costs a bit more, the image quality is much higher with the Sony lens. The Sigma is very soft, especially above 300mm. I tried the Sigma and was not satisfied with the images. My Sony 70-400 never disappoints.
812304
Thanks for the additional info. I am primarily involved in shooting fencing matches, and can usually get fairly close to the action, so I'll probably be taking a good look at the Sigma lens.
123476
It seems the art lens has higher quality optics which give better contrast and sharper images, although to the average photographer the difference would be slight. The Sigma 50mm 1.4 for $400 works great, and I have no complaints at all.
1313304
I have owned both and they are great lenses with fantastic results. The Tokina will increase in length as you change focus, whereas the Sigma moves the glass when focusing within the body of the lens. If you plan to shoot insects or really up close, you may prefer to go with the Sigma (as I did). Another reason to go with the Sigma over the Tokina is if you plan to use a lens-mounted ring flash or similar. Although you can use these on the Tokina, I was concerned about extra stress on the plastic part of the lens that extends. Otherwise, you can't go wrong either way. I suggest visiting your local photography store that has these in stock to test out, or renting the lenses to try out and see which one you like before purchasing from Amazon. Good luck!