PDA

View Full Version : battle of the sigmas



smartguy26
06-21-2007, 07:20 PM
after finding a good deal on a d50, i want to decide on a lens before i buy it
im stuck between:
sigma 18-50 f/2.8
sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 (although by 24mm already the max. aperture is f/3.3)

both are similarly priced, and i cant decide between a faster lens, or more reach
i shoot indoors a lot, but i wouldnt say that im exclusively a low light shooter. i can make do with a smaller max aperture, but the constant f/2.8 is a nice bonus

the 2 lenses are the most im willing to pay at this point (ill have to save up for a little while, so hopefully the d50 deal will still be around)

pagnamenta
06-21-2007, 07:50 PM
What lenses do you currently own. Anything in the telephoto range? I only ask because if you have 70-x00 it might be nice to compliment that with the 17-70. However, as you mentioned low light shooting, you need at least f2.8. I have thought that I can go with f4, and I was proven wrong, especially when there's any movement. I have to recommend the 18-50 f2.8. If you had a flash, that would be a different story, then you might be able to make do with the 17-70.

smartguy26
06-21-2007, 09:15 PM
i dont have any nikon lenses or flashes

but like i said, i dont always do indoor, but the constant aperture would be nice for when i do (i probably do 30% low light), so it would be nice

the 55-200mm VR would compliment the 18-50mm sigma nicely though

Rooz
06-21-2007, 10:40 PM
after finding a good deal on a d50, i want to decide on a lens before i buy it
im stuck between:
sigma 18-50 f/2.8
sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 (although by 24mm already the max. aperture is f/3.3)

both are similarly priced, and i cant decide between a faster lens, or more reach
i shoot indoors a lot, but i wouldnt say that im exclusively a low light shooter. i can make do with a smaller max aperture, but the constant f/2.8 is a nice bonus

the 2 lenses are the most im willing to pay at this point (ill have to save up for a little while, so hopefully the d50 deal will still be around)

while the 17-70mm was a great lens for its time, the new 18-50mm is a better lens though. the constant f2.8 is a bonus but what you will notice more is that the 18-50mm is sharper. unless you really need the reach, i would certainly be going the 18-50mm. make sure the one you are choosing is the new model 18-50mm ex dc Macro.

K1W1
06-22-2007, 01:21 AM
18-50 f2.8 every time.
The 17-70 was a bit of a con IMO. It's only f2.8 at 17mm. Move the zoom ring and you loose the fast aperture.
The gap between 50 and 70 is not really noticeable by most people unless they have reasonably specialised needs so getting the 18-50 and then a 70 -xx should not be a problem.

tcadwall
06-22-2007, 06:27 AM
another vote for the 18-50. It will mean close quarters if you are doing any portrait work and don't have a longer lens. I currently use my 50mm and a straight head shot means I have to get really close to the subject. But I would recommend a prime for portraits anyway... Maybe 85mm or slightly longer if you are going to only have one. But hey you didn't really mention portraits. However, you will find yourself wanting fast longer glass if you shoot any indoor sports. You'll be drooling over the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR (like I am) and seriously considering the 80-200 f/2.8.

VTEC_EATER
06-25-2007, 08:10 AM
I went through this same debate about 9 months ago. I ended up going with the 18-50 F/2.8 macro. Without a doubt, it is the better choice. The shallow depth of field (f/2.8) at 50mm is something I use all the time. I would recommend the 18-50 over the 17-70 any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

Also, if you really want 17-70mm, I would recommend the Nikon 18-70 AF-S over the Sigma. Similar price, but the Nikon should prove to be a better piece of glass, and it will hold its resale value a lot better than the Sigma.

coldrain
06-25-2007, 09:12 AM
I went through this same debate about 9 months ago. I ended up going with the 18-50 F/2.8 macro. Without a doubt, it is the better choice. The shallow depth of field (f/2.8) at 50mm is something I use all the time. I would recommend the 18-50 over the 17-70 any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

Also, if you really want 17-70mm, I would recommend the Nikon 18-70 AF-S over the Sigma. Similar price, but the Nikon should prove to be a better piece of glass, and it will hold its resale value a lot better than the Sigma.
The Nikon 18-70 has quite a bit more barrel distortion at 18mm than the Sigma at 17mm... it has moce CA... and is a tad less sharp I think.
The Sigma has a bigger max aperture for part of the range, and can focus quite a bit closer.

So... I think the Sigma may just prove to be a bit better bit of glass. What the Nikon has over the Sigma is not optics, but the AF-S motor.