Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Next PZ lens test report: Sigma AF 24-105mm f/4 DG OS HSM | A ("Art")
Wow... take a deep breath, please...
Quote:I agree with "not being spectacular", but talking about Sigma hasn't made a good standard zoom is steep.
Where did I write that? The verdict says, it's not significantly better than other lenses in this class. Disagree with that?
Quote:What about the much more costly Nikon 24-70 I with all it's weaknesses?
Different lens class, isn't it? But since you mention it: less weaknesses than the EX 24-70/2.8 HSM, IIRC...
Quote:At roughly 20% less the price of the Nikkor 24-120, the Sigma simply DON'T HAS TO BE better - even if it's "only equally", it's a bargain!
Difference in street price is closer to 10% than 20%. Which happens to match the difference in zoom range you get... roughly 10% less on the Sigma.
Quote:what are these fantastic weather sealings of Nikon worth, this tiny rubber gasket? Please, Markus or anybody else, show me the Nikon warranty text clearly allow you to use the lens in rain or snow or ice temperatures.
Why so hateful? Of course there are seals, and then there are better seals, with or withour warranty. Anyway, fact is: there ARE seals on the Nikkor (around the switches for example, I don't take the rubber ring on almost any Nikkor mount as a serious sealing). There is absolutely no word of any sealing coming from Sigma. To me this means: no sealing at all. Which I consider to be mentionable information.
Quote:The Nikon you can AF microadjust, if you're body behind the lens allows. But only for one focal length and for one distance. Good luck! The Sigma is just delivering sharpness after adjustments. Don't tell me a lens should be alright out of the box - that's coincidence, nothing else.
Well, in that case I'm living a life full of coincidences. Sorry, but we're talking about an f/4 standard zoom here. If AF is recognizably off on such a lens, is a case of warranty.
Quote:One of the downsides of the Sigma is M82 filter size.  Sad
Edit: And the extra weight, too.
Correct... and I didn't even emphasize that... maybe I should... Wink
Quote:VR/OS, which is at least a full stop, if not more, better than the Nikon 24-120!
Sorry, but that's not my experience. I see them equal. But yes, that's hard to verify in an objective test.
Quote:You're talking in both tests giving the Nikon 4 stops improvement
No, I don't. I wrote that NIKON claims 4 stops, but in the field we achieved 3 stops.
Quote:Even the newer Nikkors don't perform like Sigma's OS
They do... ever tried the 70-200/4 VR?
Quote:This lens leaves nothing to gain for the Nikon
Please read the verdict again. With a little lower blood pressure, maybe. In summary, they are more or less equal, with a slight advantage towards the Sigma (therefor a better star rating). It just depends on where your priorities are. Both lenses have their strengths, both have weak spots.

Both are good, none of them is stellar.

-- Markus


Messages In This Thread
Next PZ lens test report: Sigma AF 24-105mm f/4 DG OS HSM | A ("Art") - by mst - 12-29-2015, 10:47 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)