Sigma AF 17-50mm f/2.8 HSM DC EX OS user

[daredevil123]

This is one great lens... previously had a 17-50 f2.8 tamron on a 500D then i switch system to a D7000 with this lens. i must say wide open its quite good compared to tamron its soft wide open. stop it down to 4-5.6 sharpness is out of this world especially around 30-35mm range. didn't regret a single cent i spent on this at all.

Funny you mention that because I find my tamron 17-50 to be tack sharp wide open. Then again mine is the cheaper non vc version.

That said, I've been hearing great stuff about the sigma. But the pricing is quite high and only a stone's throw away from the Nikon or Canon 17-55.

You have to make the call.

 

[simdavid]

Hi,

Had anyone used this newest model and the Sigma 18-50mm HSM macro model? I have this 18-50mm macro now and contemplating whether to upgrade to this one. Does the newer model offer a substantial difference in optical quality? I'm not too concerned with OS.

 

[Blammm]

Funny you mention that because I find my tamron 17-50 to be tack sharp wide open. Then again mine is the cheaper non vc version.

That said, I've been hearing great stuff about the sigma. But the pricing is quite high and only a stone's throw away from the Nikon or Canon 17-55.

You have to make the call.

what i meant was when i shot at 17mm @ f2.8 i tends get soft compared to my sigma or maybe i just had a bad copy but i did really like the tamron back then. after i've gotten the sigma i preferred the sigma because it doesn't hunts a lot in low light, its quieter and focusing is tad fast.

 

[Blammm]

Obviously the true fact all the while but some readers believe in hear say & poll...

i might be one of them haha. but on the serious side here both of them are two wonderful lens and i tried them both but IMPO i preferred the sigma because 1. it doesn't focus hunt alot in low light. 2.its quieter 3. its super fast in focusing. 4. optic wise is better(to me). the only CRAP THING I HATE ABOUT IT is....the lens hood. it not tight and secure.

 

[SamTac]

i might be one of them haha. but on the serious side here both of them are two wonderful lens and i tried them both but IMPO i preferred the sigma because 1. it doesn't focus hunt alot in low light. 2.its quieter 3. its super fast in focusing. 4. optic wise is better(to me). the only CRAP THING I HATE ABOUT IT is....the lens hood. it not tight and secure.

Agree will the lens hood but not all. I would say is one of the so called manufacture defect.

 

[daredevil123]

what i meant was when i shot at 17mm @ f2.8 i tends get soft compared to my sigma or maybe i just had a bad copy but i did really like the tamron back then. after i've gotten the sigma i preferred the sigma because it doesn't hunts a lot in low light, its quieter and focusing is tad fast.

At almost twice the price new, the sigma better be better than the tamron. Personally, at that price, it is only a couple hundred from a used nikon 17-55. I will not bite.

 

[SamTac]

At almost twice the price new, the sigma better be better than the tamron. Personally, at that price, it is only a couple hundred from a used nikon 17-55. I will not bite.

Agree on the price. New to new with Nikon is about 40% cheaper. Used to used with Nikon is about half price.

I asked myself, what make me think that Nikon or Canon is better than Sigma & also what make me think that Sigma is better than others.

Since i cant tell the diff, i choose a lens that is lower in price & is as good as 1st party lens to me.

 

[SamTac]

There are many user chosen Tokina UWA over 1st party UWA lens & why they did that?

As i know of, price of Tokina UWA over 1st party UWA lenses is not far apart. He or she might think that Tokina is slight better or cheaper or cant tell the different between both & that is why choose a 3rd party lens.

For me, same answer as above. I believe all lenses have their pro & corn, we cant have everything in the world.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[daredevil123]

There are many user chosen Tokina UWA over 1st party UWA lens & why they did that?

As i know of, price of Tokina UWA over 1st party UWA lenses is not far apart. He or she might think that Tokina is slight better or cheaper or cant tell the different between both & that is why choose a 3rd party lens.

For me, same answer as above. I believe all lenses have their pro & corn, we cant have everything in the world.

Just my 2 cents.

People chose the Tokina because it performs better than the 1st party uwa, both in performance as well as widest aperture. Not because of price. But the lower price helps. And yes I own the Tokina 116 too.

Is the sigma 17-50 a good lens?Definitely. Does the sigma 17-50 perform better than the Nikon 17-55? Personally, I do not think so.

http://www.photoforum.com.au/showth...-50-f2.8-OS-quality-vs-Nikon-17-55-f2.8-(pics)

It is up to the individual to see the worth for the sigma or the Nikon. VC or OS is not something I use and want in this range.

So is the $500 premium over the tamron 17-50 over the sigma 17-50 worth it? For me personally, No it is not. Do I find it worth it to get the Nikon 17-55 over the tamron? No also. But if I am willing to spend 1.1k for the sigma, I will be willing to spend more and get the Nikon.

But in the end, for this range for dx, I am only willing to get the tamron 17-50 non vc. Because I use primes a lot more when I need fast apertures. And when I do use 17-50 range, I am usually stopping down and using with flash. The OS and the slight sharpness advantage wide open is not critical anymore. And focusing is not bad because I have a huge focus assist beam coming from the flash.

These are my parameters and my needs. What are yours?

Btw I am not against any particular brand. I have lens from Nikon, Sigma, Tokina and tamron. Two of my prized lenses are sigma too. And in all honestly, I like them a lot more than the Nikon alternative.

 

[SamTac]

People chose the Tokina because it performs better than the 1st party uwa, both in performance as well as widest aperture. Not because of price. But the lower price helps. And yes I own the Tokina 116 too.

Is the sigma 17-50 a good lens?Definitely. Does the sigma 17-50 perform better than the Nikon 17-55? Personally, I do not think so.

http://www.photoforum.com.au/showth...-50-f2.8-OS-quality-vs-Nikon-17-55-f2.8-(pics)

It is up to the individual to see the worth for the sigma or the Nikon. VC or OS is not something I use and want in this range.

So is the $500 premium over the tamron 17-50 over the sigma 17-50 worth it? For me personally, No it is not. Do I find it worth it to get the Nikon 17-55 over the tamron? No also. But if I am willing to spend 1.1k for the sigma, I will be willing to spend more and get the Nikon.

But in the end, for this range for dx, I am only willing to get the tamron 17-50 non vc. Because I use primes a lot more when I need fast apertures. And when I do use 17-50 range, I am usually stopping down and using with flash. The OS and the slight sharpness advantage wide open is not critical anymore. And focusing is not bad because I have a huge focus assist beam coming from the flash.

These are my parameters and my needs. What are yours?

Btw I am not against any particular brand. I have lens from Nikon, Sigma, Tokina and tamron. Two of my prized lenses are sigma too. And in all honestly, I like them a lot more than the Nikon alternative.

I agree, all up to individual. Every lens has it beauty.

 

[Cowseye]

There are many user chosen Tokina UWA over 1st party UWA lens & why they did that?

As i know of, price of Tokina UWA over 1st party UWA lenses is not far apart. He or she might think that Tokina is slight better or cheaper or cant tell the different between both & that is why choose a 3rd party lens.

For me, same answer as above. I believe all lenses have their pro & corn, we cant have everything in the world.

Just my 2 cents.

There's only 3 things I see nikon 10-24mm wins against tokina 116:
1) 1mm more wide
2) 6mm more zoom for versatility
3) AF-S for entry body

1 & 2 were my consideration but the F/2.8 trumps them both. plus price factor...

I know seldom would one use this lens at this F-stop but the fact that you couldn't do so and the exorbitant high price of 10-24mm is the deal breaker.

 

[SamTac]

There's only 3 things I see nikon 10-24mm wins against tokina 116:
1) 1mm more wide
2) 6mm more zoom for versatility
3) AF-S for entry body

1 & 2 were my consideration but the F/2.8 trumps them both. plus price factor...

I know seldom would one use this lens at this F-stop but the fact that you couldn't do so and the exorbitant high price of 10-24mm is the deal breaker.

If you have a 17-50 or 17-55, Tokina will be just nice.

 

[daredevil123]

If you have a 17-50 or 17-55, Tokina will be just nice.

Actually I don't really understand the obsession for many to have all the focal length ranges covered. Truth be told, most people shoot mostly at extreme ends of a zoom lens. 16mm vs 17mm vs 18mm. Not too much of indifference.

 

[SamTac]

Actually I don't really understand the obsession for many to have all the focal length ranges covered. Truth be told, most people shoot mostly at extreme ends of a zoom lens. 16mm vs 17mm vs 18mm. Not too much of indifference.

You are right, since I have a 17-50 so I don't need a 10-22 or 10-24.

 

[Cowseye]

Funny thing is, before I've the tokina 116, I usually shot at 17mm, after I got my 116, I usually shot at 50mm. Now I got my 50mm F/1.8. I dunno what to do le.

 

[daredevil123]

Funny thing is, before I've the tokina 116, I usually shot at 17mm, after I got my 116, I usually shot at 50mm. Now I got my 50mm F/1.8. I dunno what to do le.

17-50 will be useful for events with a flash. One lens settle the entire event.

 

[rubberbands]

no noise in particular but a slight clang upon power down due to the floating elements of OS

I do have a sound when I shake this lens but I previously thought its the OS as normal. Maybe I should get it checked?

Regarding this lens I would have expected it to be priced lower for as a 3rd party. Sharpness is ok enough wide open, and very good at F4-F5. Bokeh characteristic is quite to my taste. Have not compared it personally to the Nikon version but quite satisfied with the sigma

 

[Cowseye]

17-50 will be useful for events with a flash. One lens settle the entire event.

Good point, perhaps it's becos I hadn't do any. I was thinking if a 17-70mm from sigma would be more appropriate. Cheap 3rd party alternative to 16-85mm

 

[SamTac]

Good point, perhaps it's becos I hadn't do any. I was thinking if a 17-70mm from sigma would be more appropriate. Cheap 3rd party alternative to 16-85mm

F2.8-4.0 is different

 

[Cowseye]

Of cos. It's more a give and take. 20mm lost for 2-stop (I think) of lights.