Sigma 18-50 f2.8 or Nikkor 17-55 f2.8 ?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by misupix, Oct 10, 2005.

  1. ...LL strikes again....

    I'm starting to want a two lens Travel Kit to minimize Lens changes: Nikkor 70-200 VR and a ?

    (I think about selling the Tokina 12-24 (rarely used), Sigma 18-125 and Nikkor AF 70-210 4-5.6D and maybe even the Tamron 28-75 f2.8.)

    The Nikkor AF-S 17-55 f2.8 comes to mind, but
    what about that price and the focus-problems with D70 (a lot of rumors on "the other site" :wink: )

    I could bet after I will make the purchase, Nikon will come out with a 17-70 f2.8 VR or something similar :mad: ?

    or would the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 be a reasonable choice? (less then 1/3rd the price and a lot lighter)

    Has anyone experience with the Sigma?

    Any help would be appreciated!
     
  2. Micheal, I have no experience with the sigma, I just can't seem to convince myself to purchase third party glass as that IS the image. Not saying they are bad, just no experience. THAT being said, I LOVE my 17-55, it is a great lens that gets the bulk of the work on my camera. I feel sure it will work fine on the D70 also.
    Dave
     
  3. Michael,

    The Sigma 18-50 2.8 is my current focus. Although I have the 20mm and 28-70 2.8 in that general focal length range, I'd love to couple the Sigma 18-50 with my 70-180 micro or 180 2.8 for a lightweight vacation/travel kit. I sold my 18-70 kit lens because I found the 20mm noticeably sharper, but now find I miss its convenience (size/weight/focal range) as a travel lens.

    Here are some discussions of the Sigma 18-50 2.8 that you may or may not have seen:
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=12718446
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=14672209
    http://stevemelvinbw.com/lens_test/overview.html
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=12661713

    In the U.S., the cheapest I've seen the Sigma 18-50 2.8 is about $409, plus $17-20 shipping depending on location, from http://www.Sigma4less.com in NYC.

    If you have any other information on this intriguing lens, I'd love to hear about it.


    Glenn
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 10, 2005
  4. Gave up on the Sigma 18-50 2.8

    Today, I called my favorite camera store and ended up getting a ten-minus condition Nikon 17-35 2.8D in exchange for my 20mm 2.8D and $700. I'm hoping that what I'm giving up in physical compactness (compared to the Sigma 18-50 2.8) will be more than compensated by gain in image quality. In any event, I guess I'll be ready should Nikon ever go the FF DSLR route.

    Glenn
     
  5. did it, got me a Sigma!

    As you can see in my signature, I convinced me to go the Sigma Route!

    I wanted a 18/17-50/55 as a walk around lens for landscaped and citywalks.

    Thinking on the 4x price of the Nikkor, I decided to try the Sigma EX 18-50 f2.8 DC.
    The size is really nice, won't draw much attention. Only the lenscap is a joke, no chance to put i back on when lensshade is mounted! (The new Tamron and nikon are way better, with the grip in spaces) Otherwise the finish is really nice.
    If I really like the range (right now it seems a little short, but for longer I use my Tamron 28-75) I can allways upgrade to the Nikkor.

    I'll post some samples when I have some decent (Weather is really bad right now...)
     
  6. I haven't noticed any focusing problems with the 17-55 on my D70.
     
  7. Same for my 17-55 on the D70: even wide open it is sharp and crisp without any flaws. I love the focal range.

    Did I mention that this lens was sharp ?