1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Sigma 18-50 F2.8 Macro

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by ultimind, May 22, 2007.

  1. ultimind

    ultimind

    990
    May 13, 2007
    Cleveland, OH
    Has anyone had any experience with this new(er) lens? It looks to be a decent alternative (spec wise) to the 24-70 F2.8. I'm looking to replace my kit 18-70 with something a bit faster but I didn't want to risk losing the 18-24 range, as I use it quite often.

    What other 3rd party alternatives are of decent quality in this ultrawide -to- normal range?
     
  2. PAReams

    PAReams

    554
    Apr 4, 2007
    San Diego, CA
    I just purchased last week, so I haven't had a chance to shoot much with it, but I'll try to post some sample images shortly.
    So far, I've been pretty impressed. The lens is a little louder than I would like it to be (but not a show stopper) but it seems pretty reliable focusing and does focus extremely closely.
     
  3. ultimind

    ultimind

    990
    May 13, 2007
    Cleveland, OH
    Close focus, 18mm, and F2.8 are exactly what I'm after. How's the sharpness though?
     
  4. sigma 18-50 macro

    I just got the lens a couple weeks ago. I really like it, and the sharpness is very good at all apertures on my copy. Slight vignetting at 18mm/f2.8 , but not enough to be concerned with. You can only see it in the sky with slightly darker corners. I have done Some full resolution 100% crop examples.
    I may add more tomorrow when i do some close up test .
    See here: http://www.pbase.com/billphoto/sigma_1850_test
     
  5. Dave

    Dave

    Feb 7, 2007
    Suwanee, GA
    Hey Bill...your shots with the Sigma 18-50 Macro look good. I myself am looking into this lens to pair with my D50 and I think i am pretty much sold on it. I could see my kit in the future consisting of the Sigmas 18-50 f/2.8, 50-150 f/2.8 (which I already have) and the 120-300 f/2.8.

    If you get any more pictures, let us see 'em. Thanks!
     
  6. ultimind

    ultimind

    990
    May 13, 2007
    Cleveland, OH
    How's the build quality of the lens? Is it up to spec with the nice(r) Nikon stuff?
     
  7. The built quality looks good to me , but I'm sure it's not in the same league as the Nikon 17-55/2.8. I would guess that it's in the same class as the Tamron and Tokina. They all have been known to make good lens, and also some lousy ones. It's a crap shoot ! I posted some close up shots at various aperture. I'm happy with the results ..
    http://www.pbase.com/billphoto/sigma_1850_test
     
  8. JeepTJ

    JeepTJ Guest

    I tried the Tamron 17-50 first, but ran into overexposure issues, and wasn't thrilled with the color/contrast. Now giving the Sigma 18-50 macro a shot.

    Only been playing a couple days, but I must say the color on this copy requires no PP correcting (versus 100% of the shots taken with the Tamron copy I had) yet, other than white balance errors under poor lighting.

    The wide end distortion seems to be a bit more 'wavy' than the Tamron when looking at a straight subject. Build quality seems superior to the Tamron (but the Tamron didn't seem like it would fall apart instantly, though). Handling I give to the Tamron, it seemed more fluid to work with - and, of course, there's the dreaded sigma lens cap (remove hood, put cap on, put hood back, take hood off, remove cap, etc, etc, etc).

    Here's a sample shot right out of NEF to Lightroom and exported. No edits at all, no white balance change (white balance was auto on camera)... some good color (but not unrealistic). Wouldn't read too much into the soft top corners - was handheld at 1/60 and I don't have very steady hands. I'd love to jump up to the Nikon 17-55 and get pro color and contrast, though... where's my lottery ticket???

    [​IMG]
     
  9. JeepTJ

    JeepTJ Guest

    Yes, the photozone review compared to the Tamron seems to indicate the Tamron is a bit better, especially extreme border sharpness.

    I'm not totally convinced on keeping the Sigma yet - in all honesty, I liked the feel of the Tamron better, so I will probably re-swap when they're back in stock and give a different copy another try.

    BUT... I'm also considering just shelling out the $$ for a Nikkor 17-55. I've got kiddo #2 coming real soon and would really like to have a no-brainer fast, general zoom lens this time around. Still - the cheap side of me is trying to save a few bucks (or a few hundred, in this case).
     
  10. kevin.sinn

    kevin.sinn Guest

    Just got mine

    I got mine a couple days ago and I'm quite happy with it. Very sharp at all aptertures but especially at 4 - 5.6 (at least on my copy). Even wide open it's very sharp. Great colours and contrast. And the build quality is very good. I've never used a Nikkor 17-55 or the Tamron so I can't compare directly. But so far I have no complaints!

    See these threads I posted earlier about this lens:
    https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=118850
    https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=118809

    Cheers!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2017
  11. Ditto to that :)  I've had very good experience with Tokina mid range zooms so I'm sticking to that.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 15, 2007
  12. weiran

    weiran

    966
    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
    IMO a Japan made Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 would be a better bet.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.