Nikon Lens help wanted ....

[Matt K.]

Hi people,

I have searched through the archives here, and did not find enough info on what it is I am looking for. So here it is: I am trying to decide what zoom lens to purchase next. I sold my kit lens (17-55 VR), cause I really did not like it a lot. Now I am missing the range. So here I am, looking at the

1. Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM
2. Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM
3. Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC Macro HSM
4. Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM
5. Nikon AF-S DX 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6ED VR II
6. Nikon AF-S DX 17-55mm f/2.8G IF ED
7. Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G IF-ED

Now from a price point of view the Nikons are just horrendously expensive when you get into the f2.8 range. So my questions are these:

• Is the extra price you pay for the Nikon really going to make a difference on a D5000?
• Does anyone have any experience with any of the Sigma lenses?
• I read in one thread that the writer was very happy with the Nikon 16-85. Anyone out there to veryfy this?
• Given the fact I have the smaller sensor, does it make sense to get a 24-70 in the first place? (I have no intention to go full frame)

Any help would be appreciated.

[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!!

[Matt K.]

The ISO button is your friend.

Yes, I know that. However, I really do prefer a f-stop in the 2.8 range or lower. I realise that some of the lenses do start @ 2.8, and then go higher. In a perfect world it would be a lens with a constant f-stop, but ....

[Greg_Nuspel]

I can get two of those for the price of one Nikon ....

Matt I'll take the spare one

Keep me informed Deb is going to start using my D80 so I'll need a lens in that range for myself.

[Grant]

When I moved from film to digital I need a lens that was wide angle without being extreme. I have eight fast nikkor lenses and really wanted an AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8D but I had already sent enough on a new dSLR and wanted to stay married. As a stop gap I purchased a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. The idea was to only keep it around until I could justify spending two grand on the better lens. That was about 5 years ago and I am still using the Tamron.

So how good is a cheap lens and what will the extra money get for you when you go with the high rollers? I think you will find that the high end Nikkors are more hand made and the lower end Tamrons are mass produced and you will have to pay for the extra attention. The Nikkor is built like a tank and if I were about to enter a war zone or my life depended on durability then that would be the lens to go with. My world is less robust. I suspect the optical quality the Nikkor, on a test bench, is much better than the Tamron but for my equipment, a D300, the Tamron does the job and does it well. The one area that the Tamron is weak is that there is a sight light fall off when you shoot wide open at the 17 mm range. This is “defect” can be controlled with software. I say “defect” in quotes because the effect is slight and it seems to be the fashion to put a slight dark vignette around image in post. Be warned this could be a problem if you were doing a lot of in-your-face very low light shooting. This is not a problem for me as I only use the extreme wide angle for landscape and for that I always shoot stopped down.


The bottom line is I am very happy content with my “cheap” lens and have not been able to justify purchasing the more expensive one.