Which lenses would you guys buy. The nikon 17-55 2.8 or the sigma 17-50 2.8. I have a d7000. I know that the price is very different but is it work it to step up to the nikon.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Gear help
- Thread starter Nicholasdorsey
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
2 very valid questions.
To the OP have you looked on dpreview.com at their lens comparison page. Very useful for this type of stuff.
Well there both the same focal length so why would it matter what other lenses I have? Wouldn't it just be a question of quality. I'm going to buy one of these lenses for sure
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikk...8-sigma175028os?start=1&ModPagespeed=noscript
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikk...ew--test-report?start=1&ModPagespeed=noscript
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sigma/17-50mm-f-2.8-EX-DC-OS-HSM-Nikon
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon...-f-3.5-5.6G-II-ED-mounted-on-Nikon-D7000__680
Paul
Nikon lenses work are suppose to work best because they are made by the same manufacture. 
I like the weight of the Nikon 17-55mm with that size camera. You will get a sharp fast lens. The 24-70mm is a little bit faster than the 17-55mm Nikkor. Most people don't mind buying a third party lens.
Before buying you can rent them to see which works best for you. My vote is for the Nikkor 17-55mm.
https://www.lensrentals.com
I like the weight of the Nikon 17-55mm with that size camera. You will get a sharp fast lens. The 24-70mm is a little bit faster than the 17-55mm Nikkor. Most people don't mind buying a third party lens.
Before buying you can rent them to see which works best for you. My vote is for the Nikkor 17-55mm.
https://www.lensrentals.com
I'm not considering that lense. It's not even close to the same focal length and that lens seems so restricting with the small focal range.
What do you shoot?
If you want a fast lens that goes past 50mm. I bet it's "people". No one does landscapes or architecture with a f/1.8. In that case I'd not even look at those product reviews where that shoot test targets. Shaprtness at the edge of an f/2.8 to f/1.8 lens hardly matters as the background will be out of focus.
You might care more about auto focus speed.
If it were me, I'd have the 35mm f/1.0 and and the 50mm f/1.8 and chose which based on the subject, keeping the 35mm for general use and the 50 for shots of one person. Those lenses are cheaper and much smaller
That makes sense. I already have a 50mm and another prime would be great but I really want a good all around lens that I can rely on in any kind of situation. I will probably use it when I shoot concerts and landscapes and street/ some people photos. I just want to see between the two. Which will give me the best result.
I have the sigma 17-50 2.8 VC... Everyone says they love it.. i'm not a fan
Why? Is it not sharp? What's wrong with it. I know sometimes sigma has problems that only effect individual models and you can send them back and get a new model.
Not a direct answer to your question, since I don't have any experience with the Sigma. I have the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 and am very happy with it on my D7000.
I bought mine used and probably would not have been willing to pay full price for a new one. It doesn't have VR, but I have never had a lens with VR/IS/VC/OS, so I don't miss it (although I will concede that I don't know what I'm missing).
I bought mine used and probably would not have been willing to pay full price for a new one. It doesn't have VR, but I have never had a lens with VR/IS/VC/OS, so I don't miss it (although I will concede that I don't know what I'm missing).
First I will say this. I am in no way a professional photographer. It's a basically a summer hobby as that seems like the only time I can shoot. (plus its my "volunteer part of the job at a summer travel camp)
It seems to me most of my pictures are really soft. Usable for it's purpose (online) but I'm not satisfied personally with them. All my other lenses 18-105, 70-300 and 35 1.8 (all nikon) produce better shots. Esp the 35 1.8.
The other thing that drives me crazy is the VC. It's so noisy.
Luckily I live close to the service HQ so I dropped it off for service to have it looked at they said they "fixed it"... still don't see a difference. I need to drop it off again as the zoom seems to get stuck so I will have them look at the image IQ again. I think this will be my last non-nikon lens. Other's have said they really like it but for me I'll save up for the Nikon glass only.
Edit - I used it on D90 then upgraded to a D7100.
Very helpful thanks. I'm going to try and find it used. Do you ever have an issue with the weight when it's on the d7000?
----------
Wow. That does not sound good. I know sigma model are often different and some can be bad. Did you try sending it back to sigma and having them send you a new one?
I don't have an issue with its weight. But it isn't small or light -- it is what I would expect for a f/2.8 zoom with a solid build quality. If I want compact and lightweight, I grab a 35/1.8 or 50/1.8.
Last edited:
It is hard to say, since (1) I have not used the Sigma, and (2) there are factors that you or I or others may value differently.
Like I said, I have been very happy with the Nikon 17-55/2.8 on my D7000. I have never found myself wishing I had purchased the Sigma. But part of my decision was that I was able to find a used copy in good condition at a reasonable price.
If you can, it would probably be best if you could borrow, rent, or otherwise try out the two lenses to see if there is one you prefer. Maybe it turns out that you prefer the smaller form-factor of the Sigma or you really find the OS feature useful. Or maybe you find that you don't like either lens and would prefer something else altogether.
There are, of course, other factors. For example, you suggest concern over copy-variation in Sigma lenses. But if you buy new, maybe you offset that risk through warranty coverage. If you buy a used Nikon 17-55/2.8, you still risk getting a bad, or damaged, copy (why was the original owner selling it?), and you (usually) won't have the benefit of a warranty, so if something turns out to be wrong with the lens, too bad, so sad. You could buy a new Nikon so you have warranty coverage, but that costs even more. Maybe you really want one of these two lenses, but can't afford the price difference -- or you really want to put that difference toward something else -- and view the Sigma as either equal quality or a satisfactory compromise.
For me, the price was right on the used Nikon and I have not regretted it.
Based on the optical tests I linked above, I wouldn't even get the Nikon if it were cheaper.
Paul
To each their own. I will confess that I don't know what all the charts, graphs, and scores mean. If they show that the Nikon 17-55/2.8 is a bad lens, well, that hasn't been my experience. (n=1)
To be fair, here are the links to the DxO pages for the 17-55/2.8 (not sure if your link to the 18-55 kit lens was intentional or not), as well as the Nikon 17-55/2.8 vs. Sigma 17-50/2.8 side-by-side comparison.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon...55mm-f-2.8G-IF-ED-mounted-on-Nikon-D7000__680
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...f-2.8G-IF-ED-on-Nikon-D7000___377_680_173_680
Cheers.
Last edited:
The results are pretty cut and dry. The Sigma f/1.8 is sharper wide open and across its aperture/focal range than either of the f/2.8 zooms. Granted, it loses 1mm on the wide end and 20mm at the other, but 1mm isn't much, and I'd rather supplement the long end with a fast 50mm prime. The build quality of the Nikon is the only thing that might justify its inflated price tag.
"Good" and "Bad" are subjective. It may well be "good enough" for you, the OP and anyone else. However, the Sigma performs "better" through objective measurements for most optical criteria (sharpness and CA are different enough for my statement, the others are probably not different enough to see even pixel peeping.) That's why I'd get it over the Nikon even at a better price. Why? Because I may shoot in conditions where CA is an issue, or where that last bit of sharpness matters- but if (a) you don't know what the charts mean, then it's pretty difficult to disagree with the charts, and (b) it's difficult to evaluate a lens' performance if you're not familiar with the criterion generally used to evaluate lenses.
It may also be that your experiences are only with a particular quality level of lens, in which case I'd *honestly* encourage you to stick with that. Because once you go out and see what a high-priced lens looks like in comparison, you soon go very broke!
Like most things, image quality these days for most cameras and lenses are perfectly fine when evaluated by themselves for most people's usage. It's when you compare things side-by-side that you end up spending money. It's unusual for a lower-priced lens to outperform a higher-priced one, so in this case, I'd (more likely go with El Cabong's choice) go Sigma.
Scary is the newest Sigma to go against a $4,000 Zeiss, but I'll save that for another post if someone hasn't already covered it.
Paul
no not yet. Its on the to do list. Waiting for a day where I can actually take a breath and not do a million things.
I agree 100% with just about everything you wrote, and I appreciate your comments much more now that you have explained them further.
I completely understand and agree that "good" and "bad" are subjective and that there are many things about lens performance that can be measured through objective metrics. My comment about the DxO charts was somewhat tongue-in-cheek -- I don't claim to be an expert, but I do have a working understanding of the various criteria that were used. My point was not whether the charts show one lens to have better objective performance than another. It was more along the lines that, regardless of what the charts show, I find the Nikon's performance (subjectively) good enough for me.
My posts hopefully made clear that I was expressing my opinion based on my experience. I noted that I have never used the Sigma, and I don't think I claimed anywhere that the Nikon is objectively a better lens than either of the Sigmas that have been discussed thus far (the 18-35/1.8 and the 17-50/2.8). Nor did I recommend one over the other. Instead, I suggested that it may be best for the OP to try the various lenses out if at all possible.
So, I'm not trying to convince anyone one way or the other. But I'll be sticking with my Nikon 17-55/2.8 for the moment, since it is good enough for me (although maybe I should look at trading it in for one of the Sigmas if they are so much better).