Nikon 17-55 2.8 or Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS?

[D-B-J]

I've read a lot of different reviews, and they seem to be balanced. Is the Nikon worth the extra money? I would be buying this for my Nikon D7000, to use as a walk-around general purpose lens (and no, I don't want an 18-55). Thanks guys!

Regards,
Jake

 

[MLeeK]

Well, OS is really not necessary for anything other than video at that range, so if OS is part of the reason you are considering the Tamron then it's pretty much a non issue. Otherwise it's up to you to decide if the compromise of having a Tamron lens is worth it.
I have the non VC version of that lens-which I understand is sharper than the VC and it's been an excellent lens. If you ever intend to go full frame? Think hard. It's not a full frame lens

 

[D-B-J]

Well, OS is really not necessary for anything other than video at that range, so if OS is part of the reason you are considering the Tamron then it's pretty much a non issue. Otherwise it's up to you to decide if the compromise of having a Tamron lens is worth it.
I have the non VC version of that lens-which I understand is sharper than the VC and it's been an excellent lens. If you ever intend to go full frame? Think hard. It's not a full frame lens

I think you are confused. I was referring to the Sigma...

 

[MLeeK]

Well, OS is really not necessary for anything other than video at that range, so if OS is part of the reason you are considering the Tamron then it's pretty much a non issue. Otherwise it's up to you to decide if the compromise of having a Tamron lens is worth it.
I have the non VC version of that lens-which I understand is sharper than the VC and it's been an excellent lens. If you ever intend to go full frame? Think hard. It's not a full frame lens

I think you are confused. I was referring to the Sigma...

Sorry... Totally not paying close attention tonight!
The sigma tested much softer than the Tamron overall. Especially wide open and didn't really get all that great till about 5.6. In sharpness test the tamron came out on top. In focus speed the Sigma comes out on top. If you are shooting sports? The sigma might be the one for you. If you are wanting sharpness then the tamron would be the choice.

 

[D-B-J]

Well, OS is really not necessary for anything other than video at that range, so if OS is part of the reason you are considering the Tamron then it's pretty much a non issue. Otherwise it's up to you to decide if the compromise of having a Tamron lens is worth it.
I have the non VC version of that lens-which I understand is sharper than the VC and it's been an excellent lens. If you ever intend to go full frame? Think hard. It's not a full frame lens

I think you are confused. I was referring to the Sigma...

Sorry... Totally not paying close attention tonight!
The sigma tested much softer than the Tamron overall. Especially wide open and didn't really get all that great till about 5.6. In sharpness test the tamron came out on top. In focus speed the Sigma comes out on top. If you are shooting sports? The sigma might be the one for you. If you are wanting sharpness then the tamron would be the choice.

So don't even bother looking at the Nikon?

 

[MLeeK]

I think you are confused. I was referring to the Sigma...

Sorry... Totally not paying close attention tonight!
The sigma tested much softer than the Tamron overall. Especially wide open and didn't really get all that great till about 5.6. In sharpness test the tamron came out on top. In focus speed the Sigma comes out on top. If you are shooting sports? The sigma might be the one for you. If you are wanting sharpness then the tamron would be the choice.

So don't even bother looking at the Nikon?

No. If you have the funding for the Nikon I'd definitely choose it first. If you don't have the funds, you won't regret the choice to go with the Tamron. The Sigma I can't speak for personally, but if f/5.6 is good for you it does look beautiful from there on.

 

[D-B-J]

Sorry... Totally not paying close attention tonight!
The sigma tested much softer than the Tamron overall. Especially wide open and didn't really get all that great till about 5.6. In sharpness test the tamron came out on top. In focus speed the Sigma comes out on top. If you are shooting sports? The sigma might be the one for you. If you are wanting sharpness then the tamron would be the choice.

So don't even bother looking at the Nikon?

No. If you have the funding for the Nikon I'd definitely choose it first. If you don't have the funds, you won't regret the choice to go with the Tamron. The Sigma I can't speak for personally, but if f/5.6 is good for you it does look beautiful from there on.

I want the lens to be sharp at 2.8... That's the point of buying a 2.8, haha. Anyone else have any personal experience?

 

[MLeeK]

So don't even bother looking at the Nikon?

No. If you have the funding for the Nikon I'd definitely choose it first. If you don't have the funds, you won't regret the choice to go with the Tamron. The Sigma I can't speak for personally, but if f/5.6 is good for you it does look beautiful from there on.

I want the lens to be sharp at 2.8... That's the point of buying a 2.8, haha. Anyone else have any personal experience?

Most lenses are NOT at their sharpest wide open and are best two stops down from wide open. The only ones I know on the market that are REALLY performing wide open are the newest 70-200 f/2.8 VRII and Canon's Mark II.

 

[slow231]

So don't even bother looking at the Nikon?

No. If you have the funding for the Nikon I'd definitely choose it first. If you don't have the funds, you won't regret the choice to go with the Tamron. The Sigma I can't speak for personally, but if f/5.6 is good for you it does look beautiful from there on.

I want the lens to be sharp at 2.8... That's the point of buying a 2.8, haha. Anyone else have any personal experience?

no the nikon is not sharp at 2.8, but i doubt the others are either. although at 3.2 the nikon is acceptable and that's usually my limit for that lens. stop down more and it gets much sharper. IMO on a crop body, this focal range is absolutely the most versatile. on my d7000 this is overwhelmingly the most used of the bunch (we're talking like 80% of the time), even though it's the least favorite of all of my lenses. although to be fair the other lenses are primes or really nice sharp zooms (tokina 11-16, 70-200 vrii).

 

[Patrice]

Very few purchasers of pro nikkors come back here saying "$hit, I could'a had a -------- instead!"

Have you noticed how often the folks who have 3rd party lenses say stuff like "almost as good as the nikon", "nearly as sharp as the nikon", "by f/5.6 it's just as good as the nikon", or "the build quality nearly matches the nikon", ....

Sure there are lenses that surpass the nikkors but top shelf nikkors always deliver as promised. Buy the 17-55 Nikkor if you have the funds, try and find a 2nd hand one in good nick and when the time comes you want to go FX you'll resell this one with hardly any loss, if any.

 

[shadowlands]

These were taken just yesterday... Nikon 17-55 f2.8 (f2.8, ISO 800, handheld)
This lens changed my world!!!


Wine - Spirits Tasting Room by db digital, on Flickr


Wine - Spirits Tasting Room by db digital, on Flickr

 

[sleist]

No. If you have the funding for the Nikon I'd definitely choose it first. If you don't have the funds, you won't regret the choice to go with the Tamron. The Sigma I can't speak for personally, but if f/5.6 is good for you it does look beautiful from there on.

I want the lens to be sharp at 2.8... That's the point of buying a 2.8, haha. Anyone else have any personal experience?

no the nikon is not sharp at 2.8, but i doubt the others are either. although at 3.2 the nikon is acceptable and that's usually my limit for that lens. stop down more and it gets much sharper. IMO on a crop body, this focal range is absolutely the most versatile. on my d7000 this is overwhelmingly the most used of the bunch (we're talking like 80% of the time), even though it's the least favorite of all of my lenses. although to be fair the other lenses are primes or really nice sharp zooms (tokina 11-16, 70-200 vrii).

The Nikon 17-55 is very sharp at 2.8. In fact, it's meant to be used wide open. If you aren't getting sharp shots with this lens then there's something wrong.
The bokeh is wonderful as well. One of my favorite lenses.

 

[D-B-J]

However, I have deemed it fiscally irresponsible for me to purchase a lens right now... Thanks for all the input though! Maybe someday..

 

[Patrice]

However, I have deemed it fiscally irresponsible ...

Some of our various public agencies should take lessons.

 

[sleist]

However, I have deemed it fiscally irresponsible for me to purchase a lens right now... Thanks for all the input though! Maybe someday..

This obsession/hobby/profession can be cruel sometimes.