Can anyone compare the Nikon 18-70 AF-S f/3.5-4.5 to the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by KsJET, May 6, 2007.

  1. KsJET

    KsJET

    128
    Feb 24, 2007
    MN
    I would prefer to stick with Nikon, but if the Sigma is noticeably sharper, I would consider it over the Nikon. I would really love a constant f/2.8, but find that I need the wide end all the way to 70mm and can't purchase two lenses to cover that range. I might someday add the 35-70mm f/2.8 for indoor/lowlight, but at least have the 50mm for now.

    Thanks in advance. :)
     
  2. my copy of the 18-70 is very sharp. I also purchased the 35-70 and you cannot go wrong with this lens. In fact I would purchase it before either of the first two you mentioned. It goes for around 350 used. Worth every penny.

    EDIT: I nearly fogot, the nikon 18-70 vinettes at 18mm. Not bad, but it's there. I don't know about the sigma. I thought about selling mine when I purchased the 35-70, but I need that wide end too often to get rid of it.
     
  3. Sunesha

    Sunesha

    183
    May 3, 2007
    Malmoe, Sweden
    I am pleased with the nikon, I show some examples what I pressed out off it:

    [​IMG]
    ISO 250, f/4.5, 1/125 sec, 56 mm

    [​IMG]
    ISO 250, f/7.1 1/125 sec, 18 mm
    (No distorotion correction I to lazy goto photoshop)

    [​IMG]
    ISO 400, f/4,5 , 1/400 sec 70mm

    [​IMG]
    ISO 400, f/4,5 , 1/125 sec, 44mm

    [​IMG]
    ISO 250, f/3.5 , 1/50 sec, 18 mm

    [​IMG]
    ISO 200, f3.8, 1/50 sec, 22 mm

    [​IMG]
    ISO 250, f3.8, 1/60 sec, 48 mm

    [​IMG]
    ISO 200, f/4.5 1/60 sec, 40 mm

    [​IMG]
    ISO 250, f/4.5 1/400 sec, 62 mm
    Bokeh show

    [​IMG]
    ISO 250, f/6.3, 1/125 sec, 27mm

    [​IMG]
    ISO 400, f/5.6, 1/800 sec, 48 mm

    Shall be noted that I suck on people photos, but I just showed that this lens is really good for most shoots. You can decide for yourself. But this is large of range of diffrent kinds photos. I am very happy with lens. Even it isnt not super lens it performs very nice. Also sharp enough to print 20X30 inches (just guessed the inches) with very good results. I just do biggie prints.
     
  4. KsJET

    KsJET

    128
    Feb 24, 2007
    MN
    Thanks. I had the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 previously and just wasn't impressed with the build quality. I know the 35-70mm f/2.8 is built much better. If the 35-70 is as sharp as the copy of Tamron I had, I'm sure I'll love it. I'm just worried I'll miss the wide end. We do a lot of hiking and I'm sure I'll want wide for some landscape shots. Do you find that you use the 18-70 as much as the 35-70?
     
  5. KsJET

    KsJET

    128
    Feb 24, 2007
    MN
    Sunesha - Thank you for the examples. I especially like the bird shots!
     
  6. Sunesha

    Sunesha

    183
    May 3, 2007
    Malmoe, Sweden
    A couple things I dont like with 18-70
    • When used with the lens hood, my built in flash on my d80 shows off shadow
    • Some strange barrel distortion at 18 mm, sometimes a bit vignetting, thou it disappears when stopped down. At 5.6 it disappears quite good but wideopen it can be irritating.

    Rarely bump into chromatic aberrations. I wouldnt say that the vignetting is a problem as this just occurs at under 22-26 mm. If you stop down to 5.6 or higher. I usually use wide angle stopped down. You can see at my 18 mm shots there is now vignettning. The lens really shines at 5.6-8 f/stop in sharpness.

    Distortion is good as long you stay over 24 mm. But I am not so pleased with the barrel distortion at the wide angle.

    I never bumped into flare problems.

    Hmm I am picky, I will probaly add wide angle prime or zoom.

    I would say it is good jack of all trades but master at none.

    5.6 fstop and higher its great. For doing people with OOF blur I would probably look for another lens. But it can do it. Myself just do people for fun and put my interest in architecture, cityscape and nature. This it can perform quite well considering its price.
     
  7. The answer for that is I use it more than the 35-70 when talking about getting out in nature. For landscapes and scenics I will pick the 18-70 nearly every time. I shoot these on a tripod so lens speed is not an issue. This one was shot using the truck window as a support.

    [​IMG]

    The 35-70 I mostly reserve for indoor sports (although the AF is a little slow) and portrait/event work. When you need the extra stops of light it's hard to beat, and the 18-70 just does'nt cut it in low light.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Anyone compared TC-20EIII v TC-17EII on 600 VR? Lens Lust Mar 27, 2011
Anyone compared the Sigma 85 1.4 to Nikon's? Lens Lust Dec 2, 2010
Anyone compared old vs.new 24-120VR yet? Lens Lust Oct 2, 2010
ZF 35mm f/2: anyone compared it to the AF-D? Lens Lust May 2, 2010
Anyone compared the 85/1.8 vs. 85/1.4 ? Lens Lust Apr 12, 2010