http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/838-sigma175028os?start=1&ModPagespeed=noscriptWhich 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.
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.I'd go for the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 over either of the other two. It is much sharper and has a faster max aperture. With this lens around, the Nikon 17-55mm is NOT worth the asking price, imo.
What do you shoot?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.
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.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
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)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).
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.
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.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?
So you would recommend paying the extra $$$ for the nikon over the sigma?I don't have an issue with its weight. But it isn't small or light -- it is what I would expect for a f/2.8 zoom with a solid build quality. If I want compact and lightweight, I grab a 35/1.8 or 50/1.8.
It is hard to say, since (1) I have not used the Sigma, and (2) there are factors that you or I or others may value differently.So you would recommend paying the extra $$$ for the nikon over the sigma?
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)Based on the optical tests I linked above, I wouldn't even get the Nikon if it were cheaper.
"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.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)
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.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 agree 100% with just about everything you wrote, and I appreciate your comments much more now that you have explained them further."Good" and "Bad" are subjective. . . .