How does Sigma Lens build quality compare to Nikon?

miurasv

miurasv

Messages
339
Name
Steve.
Edit My Images
Yes
Was just wondering how the build quality compared? Thinking of getting a 50 - 500 but only if the standard of build is high. I accept that they are a lot cheaper than Nikon but how far is the build quality gap, if any, between these two brands? Are big compromises made to lower the price or are Sigma the 'real deal'? Thanks in advance.
 
The nikon build quality is better yes, i cannot comment on the 50-500 but my 70-200 sigma and my 28-70 are built like tanks if you manage to destroy these things i dont think a nikon would be able to stand up much longer
 
How can a layman member of this forum possibly say what the build quality of a lens is. All he can say is, well its got a shiny surface. How about inside the lens, are the element fixtures brass or something as good, or are they just plastic.
 
I can't compare with Nikon, but I have five Sigma lenses and feel that the build quality is excellent. They seem very robust and I have had no problems. Some people have commented on here that the Sigma quality control is not too good and they have had a bad copy, but I have not had any poblems.
 
The Nikon DX lenses are about the same as Sigma's EX digital ones, possibly a bit better but not much. Nikon 'pre-spec' lenses like the 80-200mm and the 24.70mm are very, very good and especially the 80-200mm that i have, feels more solid than anything Sigma does or the equivalent Canon lens. The EX lenses from Sigma are good though, especially the fast lenses that have a lot of glass - the plastics have to be very durable because of they're there to hold and contain all that glass.

I like having Nikon lenses because I feel reassured that everything I own is designed 100% to work on my D200 - nowt wrong with Siggy but I think if you can afford it, buy Nikon, unless like with the 50-500mm you can't get a Nikon version :)
 
It's worth having a look on the net for comparisons of failure rates and quality control between the two companies' products. The big hire companies publish their findings and ultimately their glass is going to take more of a beating than a lens that is some weekend warrior's pride and joy.

I'd also disagree that Sigma EX glass is equal to Nikon's pro level glass. The odd one or two lenses, maybe, but not overall. There's usually a good reason why one product is cheaper than another similar-looking one....
 
We found that Sigma lenses are very good, but not quite as good optically as the Nikon equivalent - as to build-quality, there's probably no significant difference at all...

And we hammered the carp out of them during the testing...
 
I have two Sigma lenses,one a very long zoom and the other a fast zoom,the build quality on both is very good, I chose these as Nikon make nothing like them in the same range.
 
Without dismantling a lens I think its hard for anyone to say really.

I rarely read threads about lenses suffering from issues that could be put down to build failure problems - therefore IMHO its not worth worrying about.
 
The older Sigmas (MF) are on par with the older Nikons - build like tank with excellent optics. My Sigma 24mm f/2.8 for example is solid chunk of metal and is extremely sharp. (having diassembled a few older Sigmas and Nikons to clean)

More modern lenses are also on par with Nikon re. build - some plasticy parts, less metal. Optic wise I agree with Arkady for modern lenses - they are good to excellent but still not as good as Nikon alternatives.
 
Arkady said:
We found that Sigma lenses are very good, but not quite as good optically as the Nikon equivalent - as to build-quality, there's probably no significant difference at all...

And we hammered the carp out of them during the testing...
Click to expand...

Surely the optics are the most important aspect of a lens though? I'm not saying that the thing doesn't need to be well screwed together too,but for amateur use I would have though iq was more important, no?

Lensrentals.com repair data chart May 2009
 
I have had 6 Nikon lenses, 2 Tamron lenses and a Sigma in my arsenal. Each company builds lenses to cover different price points themselves. So Nikon for example will build both cheaper lenses and more expensive ones. It you compare a cheaper kit lens, say the 18-55 in build quality with the Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR then it would look like they were made by different companies. The 105 is looks like it was made out of a solid piece of metal by a blacksmith (and weights like that too!) whereas the 18-55 feels like it was mass produced in a plastics factory. Comparing the 18-55 to the 18-200vr and the difference is LESS but the metal of the 18-200 gives it a better feel and again build quality appears better.

Sigma too has its levels of build quality and will produce cheaper lenses for different niche product areas. I only have a single Sigma lens which is the Sigma 20mm f1.8 D EX DG. This is a well built lens with decent optics and at about £500-600 new is not a cheap alternative but a well specified an useful addition.

I have only had a couple of Tamron lenses, a 55-200 (bought new from FITP for £39 !!!!, which I did use on my second body but got rid of when the D200 became my second body) and the 28-80 adaptall2 lens. These were like chalk and cheese, the 28-80 was again a metal body and clearly built to a high standard but the 55-200 was built out of cheap plastic (but down to a really affordable price and still very useable).

Yes both Tamron and Sigma are probably, on average, built to a lesser standard than the Nikon lenses but what are you doing with them? If you are a pro using them every day and joining one scrum of pros after another clambering for the picture that will make this months mortgage payment then you pay the extra. If you have the money and WANT the extra little bit of quality then, again, you pay the extra (like I did with the Nikon 105mm f2.8vr over the cheaper alternative).

Just don't be automatically put off.

Oh and ask on here about SPECIFIC lenses. You would be hard pressed to find many NORMAL lenses that someone on here has not got or had!
 
I've used two Sigma lenses (30mm f1.4 and UWA 10-20) and own one (10-20). As specialman said, the EX Sigma lens build quality is very solid.

The biggest different for me (having only used Nikon lenses previously) was in ergonomics. On the UWA I have the focal length ring and focus ring are in opposite positions to Nikon lenses. So on my 10-20, the focal range ring is near the body of the camera and the focus ring at the end of the lens.
 
cowasaki said:
Nikon for example will build both cheaper lenses and more expensive ones. It you compare a cheaper kit lens, say the 18-55 in build quality with the Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR then it would look like they were made by different companies.
Click to expand...

It may well be that they are built by different companies...

Nikon20fm10.gif


Says Nikon on the tin, but was produced for them by Cosina...

Arkady said:
Correct - but the OP was asking about build-quality...
Click to expand...


I know :) hence the link to the failure rate data
 
i've read a couple of comments about not knowing how good the build quality is without getting inside the lens. i would say that those members that have had a lens for a good length of time and have subjected it to significant wear would qualify to comment?
 
clud17 said:
i've read a couple of comments about not knowing how good the build quality is without getting inside the lens. i would say that those members that have had a lens for a good length of time and have subjected it to significant wear would qualify to comment?
Click to expand...

You start - take your favourite lens and drop it out of your upstairs window and let us know how you get on ;)
 
Flash In The Pan said:
I know :) hence the link to the failure rate data
Click to expand...

OK and apologies - however I don't regard software issues as a 'build-quality' issue - I wouldn't discount a brand because of a faulty chip, which seems to have been the cause of many of the failures noted...

I'm thinking more about general toughness, shock resistance, weatherproofing etc...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top