Sigma 17-70 vs Nikon 16-85 vs Nikon 18-140 for D7100

Bumping this thread, specifically looking at either the nikkor 16-85 or the sigma 17-70. I have no interest in other lenses for my particular need.

I have reservations about going with the Sigma instead of the Nikon product. I have always used Nikon or Canon brand lenses, and though I know the horror stories about third party lenses going around the internet I am not sure the chance of this is something I need to worry about.

All else being equal, I am tempted to go with the Sigma because of cheaper cost/faster aperture, except for this potential quality reason. Does anybody have any experience with this lens, or Sigma lenses in general where performance has been a problem? Thanks.


This is is exactly were I am sitting right now. What lens did you decide on? I am leaning towards the sigma 17-70 Contemporary lens. I know it has some CA issues and vignetting, but that's correctable in post.
 
Funny you should say because the 17-50 was the only other lens I was considering for a walkaround. Having that 2.8 through the whole range would be nice, but I want the zoom of 70 or 85 so I have tried to put it out of my head. Thanks for putting making me think about it again. :D

One thing that is tempting is the 77mm filter size on the 17-50. I have a 10-24 Nikkor and it is 77, so not having to buy two sets of filters is appealing.

I was pretty much set on getting the 16-85, but I have read several reviews on the Sigma and it seems it is at least as good or better in overall picture quality.

There's no such thing as a do-it-all lens. You're sacrificing something at some point: speed, bokeh, close focusing capabilities, range of zoom, etc. The best thing you can do is select a lens that fits your needs as a photographer. For someone such as myself, I prefer having lenses that fit a specific purpose and work with my other lenses as a team.

I think you might be getting hung up on that 50-70mm range that you think you're going to be missing out on.

My opinion: if you're doing walk-around photography, the 17-50mm is more than sufficient. You can't get that quick f2.8 aperture at 50mm on the other lenses, and that's a much bigger difference than anything else. I think you'll be kicking yourself if you don't go with a 17-50 over the other choices (based on what you've mentioned and deliberated on so far).

I find DSLR's are big enough that I don't just "bring one with me" for a walk. I bring a camera bag, or a messenger bag, or a backpack, or my car is nearby, or my hotel room is nearby. So, I have at least a couple lenses with me. That means if I were to have a 17-50, and I really felt I wanted a longer length, I'd have the 70-300 or the 85mm 1.8G alongside that lens as well. I had the 16-85mm by the way... didn't like it (that really isn't to say that you won't though). Just a thought.
Good review. Hi bro, I have nikon 18-140 and think about adding sigma 17-50/2.8. I am not a professional photographer but just take everyday photos. Sometimes I need a 2.8 lense in a dark condition rather than increase iso rate. Could you give me am advise whether I should buy extra sigma 17-50/2.8? Or any others options would you recommend me?
Thank you
 
The thread you responded to is over 3 years old. You should start your own thread to get current info.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top