3 standard zooms

[darkblue-x]

Nikon 16-85mm f3.5-5.6g
Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM
Nikon 17-55mm f2.8g ED-IF

I recently bought the 16-85 but I find it slow and not sharp. The rest of the lens is fine but the actual optical performance strongly leads to desire so I'm looking into other options.

The sigma 17-50 seems like a strong semi-fast and toted to be one of the sharpest standard zooms you can jam on your SLR and at a reasonable price.
To add the 50mm at the long end is a bit shorter than I'd like but not a deal breaker.
The dilemma is that I heard there are issues with its interaction with the Nikon D7100, which is the camera I own. I heard there are OS issues and other annoying issues.

Nikon 17-55, a pro lens, but I am having an issue in seeing its value. It's apparently not all that sharp and it's very heavy--the same weight as my 70-300!
I found someone willing to sell theirs for $700 CAD.
Can someone better explain to me what makes this lens so special and a contender vs others and how it makes the "pro" mark?

I eagerly await your replies.

 

[Braineack]

that sigma is always highly recommended for DX users.

I wouldn't waste my money on the Nikon.

the 16-85mm is an underrated lens, I have a suspicion that the lack of sharpness may be user error.

 

[davidharmier60]

16-85 sounds like a killer spread.
I have a Sigma 28-105 That I like a lot (Canon EF)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

[darkblue-x]

that sigma is always highly recommended for DX users.

I wouldn't waste my money on the Nikon.

the 16-85mm is an underrated lens, I have a suspicion that the lack of sharpness may be user error.

Sigma: What of the issues with the D7100 pairing though?

What makes the Nikon 17-55 "pro" though, I am curious to know regardless.

Spec wise the 16-85 is rated by DxO as bearing an actual sharpness of 8mp out of the 24mp camera potential. That's a mere third. Compare it to the Sigma for instance with a Mp rating of 14 and the argument is no longer in your favor.

 

[darkblue-x]

16-85 sounds like a killer spread.
I have a Sigma 28-105 That I like a lot (Canon EF)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

It bares great versitility in terms of range. Thats what makes for the lack there of optical performance so depressing

 

[shadowlands]

If you can find a killer deal on the Nikon, it's a great lens. I once owned it. If not, I know the Sigma will make you very happy, either way.

 

[darkblue-x]

If you can find a killer deal on the Nikon, it's a great lens. I once owned it. If not, I know the Sigma will make you very happy, either way.

What makes it a great lens though

 

[shadowlands]

If you can find a killer deal on the Nikon, it's a great lens. I once owned it. If not, I know the Sigma will make you very happy, either way.

What makes it a great lens though

It's basically a Nikon 24-70 F2.8 for DX. Hard to find any faults. It's build like a tank.

 

[Braineack]

Spec wise the 16-85 is rated by DxO as bearing an actual sharpness of 8mp out of the 24mp camera potential. That's a mere third. Compare it to the Sigma for instance with a Mp rating of 14 and the argument is no longer in your favor.

I'm judging simply by Nikon's own MTF chart on sharpness, then looked at the field maps in the comparions. My Tamron 24-70 is only rated at 11 P-mp rendering on the D7100 and that lens makes me bleed with sharpness...

 

[darkblue-x]

What of the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC?

Is Tamron a decent third party maker?--They'll be my alternative to the Sigma lens I mentioned above that seems to have problems.

 

[Derrel]

Yes, Tamron is a decent third-party lens maker.

 

[Destin]

I own the latest version of the sigma 17-50. I literally never use it because I can’t stand the inconsistent results. One shot the focus is dead on, the next it backfocuses by several FEET. No amount of AF fine tune has fixed this. I’ve talked to several others who have had the same problem. The sigma also has a fairly cheap plastic build quality.

I’ve never used a Nikon 17-55 but that’s what I’d be buying if I was sticking to Dx. Ive never heard a bad thing about it and it’s all metal construction. Built like a tank. I handled one in a store once and it felt like a brick.. In a good way.

 

[SCraig]

Sigma: What of the issues with the D7100 pairing though?

What issues? I have 3 Sigma lenses that work perfectly with my D7100.

 

[darkblue-x]

Sigma: What of the issues with the D7100 pairing though?

What issues? I have 3 Sigma lenses that work perfectly with my D7100.

The 17-50 specifically...its well documented on the internet. Some folks have had to get several copies before they got one that worked properly

 

[darkblue-x]

I own the latest version of the sigma 17-50. I literally never use it because I can’t stand the inconsistent results. One shot the focus is dead on, the next it backfocuses by several FEET. No amount of AF fine tune has fixed this. I’ve talked to several others who have had the same problem. The sigma also has a fairly cheap plastic build quality.

I’ve nevler used a Nikon 17-55 but that’s what I’d be buying if I was sticking to Dx. Ive never heard a bad thing about it and it’s all metal construction. Built like a tank. I handled one in a store once and it felt like a brick.. In a good way.

Hey destin. Yeah while it seemed to be raved about being the best standard zoom to stick on a DX, alas so many people have issues with it.
For that reason ive steered away. The tamron sister lens is supposedly loud as F and is slow focusing. So I have to skip that too.
The nikon flagship quite simply doesnt seem worth its weight in both senses.

I am debating now between the sigma 18-35mm f1.8 art and the sigma 35mm prime f1.4 art.
Hard choice...the 18-35 has more versitility via range but isnt transferable to FX come time I eventually switch. Its vignetting is also not the greatest.
The 35mm f1.4 looks great, with a price though and may cause me issues as a walk around when I do need shorter or higher.

Such decisions to make.