Fixin' To Pull The Trigger.....

[cathead77]

.....on a Sigma 17-50mm F2.8. Anyone know of a reason why I shouldn't? I am hoping to improve the quality of my images from what I get using the 18-135 on my D300s and D7000. It's a lot of money to spend for better pictures if it ain't gonna happen. Any opinions? I'd sure appreciate it. Thanks.....

 

[Patrick]

are you going to buy it new? If so I would consider a second hand Nikkor 17-55... it's a better build quality and more reliable focus.

Albeit you would loose the OS/VR when getting a Nikkor..

 

[Takeda]

are you going to buy it new? If so I would consider a second hand Nikkor 17-55... it's a better build quality and more reliable focus.

Albeit you would loose the OS/VR when getting a Nikkor..

+1 The 17-55mm is a much sharper lens, especially wide open

 

[lexdiamonnyc]

I'd take a good hard look at the Tamron 17-50 2.8, before looking at the Siggy..
I used to have it and it was absolutely brilliant:smile:

 

[gugarci]

I just bought one about 2 weeks ago and I love it. I sold off my Tokina 16-50 and my Nikon 16-85. The AF works well, no misses so far. The colors and contrast look great.

And what about the sharpness??? Look through my Flickr Photostream for some full size unedited images taken at 17 & 50mm wide open. I have no complains so far.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26596858@N08/

If you don't mind the weight and size buy a Nikon 17-55. For my needs I do. Plus the Nikon 17-55 does not have VR. And yes I know a lot of people say you don't need VR in a lens of this focal lens. But again for my needs I want VR/OS. I rather have and use it when i need it, than not have it at all.

 

[redz]

I'd take a good hard look at the Tamron 17-50 2.8, before looking at the Siggy..
I used to have it and it was absolutely brilliant:smile:

I have never tried the siggy but I owned the Tamron and while it was great the AF was crap.
I bought the 17-55 and it hasn't left my camera. The thing is beauty and its built like a tank. In comparison, the Tamron and Siggy equivalents are crap in terms of build quality. The Nikkor 17-55 is completely housed in metal.... this thing turns heads. The image quality was far superior to the Tamron I owned, mostly because the Nikkor actually focuses more accurately.

If you plan on buying the Siggy new, you can spend that money on a used Nikon for about $800. Its built so well that doing damage to it wouldnt be easy.

 

[daveja]

Alan, not sure what you shoot most but for your abandoned building work the Nikon 12-24 might be a great one to consider if you would like to have that ultra-normal wide perspective and the image quality of that lens is very good.

 

[cathead77]

Thanks for the input, folks. Y'all have made me feel better about dropping the $$$ to duplicate the range I already have with the kit lenses. I will check on the Tamron and Nikkor mentioned. I really appreciate this.

 

[bigshot]

I'll offer the contrary opinion.

It is perfectly possible to get spectacular images with your kit lens under the proper conditions and using the proper technique. If you aren't happy with the image quality you are getting in good light, a more expensive lens in the same range isn't going to help.

If you're looking to get good results in low light, using one of your fast primes will make much more of a difference than a 2.8 midrange zoom.

It's your money, but I would fill out my kit with focal lengths and features I don't have covered before upgrading a kit lens. Looking at your kit, I'd say you need an ultra wide more than a midrange zoom.

 

[greyflash]

I have the 17-55mm Nikon lens and that particular range makes it my most used lens. I am sure you will like the Sigma as well.

 

[cathead77]

I have the 17-55mm Nikon lens and that particular range makes it my most used lens. I am sure you will like the Sigma as well.

Thanks so much. I just checked the Nikkor, and I am not prepared to spend that much if I had to buy it new. The Sigma is under 700.00, and I feel it will kick my kit lenses in the butt. Hope so anyway.

 

[pictureted]

I look at lenses in this range frequently and am still happy with my 16-85 VR. The 16mm and VR have given me interior shots without tripod accompaniment that I could not have gotten otherwise. I tend to shoot on the wide end with the lens where it's only 1/2 stop slower than f2.8 and typically want f8-f16 for DOF anyway. Am I missing something magical about these other lenses? If I were shooting weddings, events, sports, I can understand, but for the beautiful shots Alan has shown here, I'm not sure the f2.8 lenses are the best bet.

 

[sako]

Fixin' to pull the trigger .....on a Sigma 17-50mm F2.8.

You're figuring on putting a bullet in it? Oh, sorry, I get it, you're thinking of buying this lens. :smile:

 

[Pupator]

I like the Tamron better - but that doesn't mean you shouldn't get the Sigma.

 

[Pupator]

It's your money, but I would fill out my kit with focal lengths and features I don't have covered before upgrading a kit lens. Looking at your kit, I'd say you need an ultra wide more than a midrange zoom.

I don't think you can say that by just looking at someone's kit. I think you also have to know what they shoot.

 

[D300fan]

I purchased a used Nikon 17-55 2.8. It's a killer lens...you won't be disappointed!

 

[cathead77]

Thanks to all. You give me much to think about.

I purchased a used Nikon 17-55 2.8. It's a killer lens...you won't be disappointed!

Where did you purchase yours used?

 

[cathead77]

I just bought one about 2 weeks ago and I love it. I sold off my Tokina 16-50 and my Nikon 16-85. The AF works well, no misses so far. The colors and contrast look great.

And what about the sharpness??? Look through my Flickr Photostream for some full size unedited images taken at 17 & 50mm wide open. I have no complains so far.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26596858@N08/

If you don't mind the weight and size buy a Nikon 17-55. For my needs I do. Plus the Nikon 17-55 does not have VR. And yes I know a lot of people say you don't need VR in a lens of this focal lens. But again for my needs I want VR/OS. I rather have and use it when i need it, than not have it at all.

Man, that Nikkor 16-85 of yours turned out some great photos on your Flickr page. How would you compare it to the Sigma?

 

[vindex1963]

Love my Siggy 18-50mm F/2.8 DC EX. I know it's the older model but at $300 it's a smoking deal.

 

[cathead77]

Love my Siggy 18-50mm F/2.8 DC EX. I know it's the older model but at $300 it's a smoking deal.

Thanks, Tom.