Nikon Lens help wanted ....

[JAS_Photo]

I use the 17-55 mm f/2.8 Nikon. I do not have experience with the others but that is the lens on my camera most of the time. My only complaint would be for people shots, I wish it was a little longer sometimes but I mostly just have to be careful on how I handle the lens on people shots and be careful not to get too wide too close. Now that I am used to it I like the weight, brightness and feel of the 2.8. So, I would suggest that if you are looking for a replacement lens of this sort to choose a fast lens over the slow f/3.5-5.6. A trip to The Camera Store to play with the various lenses is in order I think!

[edG]

I own the 16-85 and find it to be very a sharp, accurate lens and I am very glad I sold my kit lens to buy it. Most of my flower shots were taken with this on my D5000. The only 2.8 that I own is my new 60mm macro.

[Matt K.]

I use the 17-55 mm f/2.8 Nikon.

I have read many reviews, and yes, this lens has appeal for many reasons. I am just not sure if the new Sigma 18-50 is all that much worse. I can get two of those for the price of one Nikon ....

Nikon lists @ 1480.00 (from Nikon) and the Sigma lists at 660.00 (from Sigma). I am sure the prices at the camera store would be less, but I am also sure the ratio would be about the same. Is the Nikon twice as good?

[Matt K.]

Went to the Camera Store. Now I am even more confused. However, I think I will check the 17-70 Sigma oput a bit more. The 18-50 2.8 looks great, wished someone here had some experieince with it. The Nikon 16-85 is just not fast enough for me, though it is a great lens, no doubt.

[Barefoot]

The Nikon 16-85 is just not fast enough for me, though it is a great lens, no doubt.

The ISO button is your friend.

[F8&Bthere]

I am a bit of a lens research nut myself, and I am a Nikon shooter, but the only Sigma lens I have actually used is the 10-20mm which is obviously a bit of a specialty lens. But the conclusion I've come to on the pricing of various lenses is that 2x price is rarely, if ever, twice as good- it just comes down to a question of how much you want/need the extra features you may be gaining.

I agree with Barefoot's comment about the ISO button being your friend. Most of the current crop of cameras perform fairly well at higher ISOs (to get that speed as an alternative to max aperture) and what noise remains the various post processing noise reduction tools can take care of quite nicely. So, although I like fast glass too, it's always significantly more expensive (or forces you to go with 3rd party brands- which may not be bad, my personal opinion and experience aside), but also bigger and heavier, AND sometimes these pricey lenses are still not even very sharp wide open... I know this is physics to some degree and any lens wide open will be equally challenged despite what the max aperture is, but it always strikes me as odd that I'm paying for a 2.8 but reviews say it's better stopped down to f/4.

My vote would go to the Nikon 16-85, if size/weight and budget are major concerns... it's a very highly rated lens with a great focal range. If I'm not mistaken it even has VR which "gains" some speed in more static scenes....

Or, if you can justify the Nikon 17-55/2.8, JAS loves hers and by all accounts it's a great lens.

Hopefully others here can chime in with more experience on the Sigma lens you are considering. But if you decide to go 3rd party just make sure the store has a good return/exchange policy, another copy in stock, and get ready to shoot some brick walls.

I know it's pretty tough to make those decisions in store, on the spot, so good luck!!

[Marko]

Good opinions here.

Just wanted to RE-add...regardless of any optical/performance/value issues.... F2.8 lenses will always be brighter (than F3.5, F4, F5.6 etc.) in the viewfinder, always. This can indeed be a big deal when the light is low, and for me, is one of the KEY reasons that 99% of all the lenses I own are F2.8 or faster.

[Matt K.]

Just wanted to RE-add...regardless of any optical/performance/value issues.... F2.8 lenses will always be brighter (than F3.5, F4, F5.6 etc.) in the viewfinder, always. This can indeed be a big deal when the light is low, and for me, is one of the KEY reasons that 99% of all the lenses I own are F2.8 or faster.

I agree with this 100%. I'd rather start with f 2.8 than 3.5 or higher. From the literature it seems that the Sigma 17-70 f2.8 to 4 seems the way to go. I am just surprised that not many people have more experience with this lens. I own the 150mm macro from Sigma, and it is a very nice piece of glass. Well, we will see, hopefully some more people will come forward wioth their opinions. And yes, JAS Nikon lens sounds very nice indeed, it's just a bit out of my $$ league right now.

[Matt K.]

... I know this is physics to some degree and any lens wide open will be equally challenged despite what the max aperture is, but it always strikes me as odd that I'm paying for a 2.8 but reviews say it's better stopped down to f/4.

Well yes, but then would the same not hold true for a f 3.5 lens ... stopping it down a couple of stops further to achieve better sharpness? So then I am looking at f 5.6 and beyond ....

[F8&Bthere]

Well yes, but then would the same not hold true for a f 3.5 lens ... stopping it down a couple of stops further to achieve better sharpness? So then I am looking at f 5.6 and beyond ....

Yes, that is what I meant by "I know this is physics to some degree and any lens wide open will be equally challenged despite what the max aperture is".

Have you seen the photozone.de review for the Sigma lens you are studying? I respect their opinions as do most of the photographic community and they seem to give that lens a thumbs up, overall.

Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC (Nikon) - Review / Lab Test Report