Anyone use a Sigma 28mm 1.8 ???

[hacksaw35]

I saw a couple of mixed reviews on the Nikkor 28mm 2.8 and it is sold out on Adorama and B&H. Then I saw this Sigma that opens even wider, but there aren't any reviews on either site. Wondering if anyone has experience with this guy.

 

[hacksaw35]

Nevermind...the reviews on fredmiranda.com tell me to steer clear of this.

 

[notelliot]

check out sigma's 30/1.4. it's about the same price (i think) ~ $470. have heard nothing but good things about it.

 

[fmw]

Or the 24mm f2.8 Nikkor. That is an excellent design. Nikon has never made very good 28's except for the PC Nikkors. The 24, on the other hand is a pro classic.

 

[Big Mike]

I'll second the recommendation for the Sigma 30mm F1.4. It's a fantastically sharp lens.

 

[hacksaw35]

My plan is to sell my Nikkor 17-55 2.8 lens and replace it with 2 lenses.
I have pretty much decided on the Nikkor 55-200VR lens.
How do you think the Sigma would compare to my 17-55 in overall quality of picture and build.

 

[Big Mike]

I've heard very good things about the 17-55 F2.8...it's probably much better than the 55-200 lens. As for how it compares to the 30mm F1.4...I don't know. I do know that the 30mm F1.4 is very very good.

 

[notelliot]

the 55-200 vr is awful imo. i was playing with it at work the other day and i was very unimpressed. for one, it happened to be defective - when it focused, there was a really unpleasant whine from the motor. it's not that sharp. it's not fast. the build quality is poor - ALL plastic. it's not a very nice lens. i wouldn't advise you give up the 17-55 for a 55-200VR. the 17-55 is a nice effing lens.

build quality of the sigma 30/1.4 compared to the nikon 17-55/2.8? i doubt you'd see any significant differences, but i'd put my money on the 17-55 being a little more solid. in almost any case (ALMOST) nikon/canon will make a better lens than sigma. but, personally, if i was looking at a tele zoom, i'd probably buy sigma's 70-200 over nikon's. they're both super sharp, well built, but the sigma is a lot less expensive. i personally have it in my mind to buy the 30/1.4, mainly because it's a little faster than the 24/2.8 from nikon. and again, both are sharp, well built, relatively inexpensive.. but the sigma is faster.

 

[hacksaw35]

Thanks for all the responses. I think I have decided to go with the...
Nikon 70-300 VR lens and the Sigma 17-70 macro.

Any more thoughts???

 

[Freddie]

The 70-300 Vr is good up to 250mm but gets soft after that. If I had the 17-55mm 2.8 I would not let it get away from me, even if you have to wait a while to get more glass.

 

[Don Simon]

I agree with Freddie. Personally I would want to borrow and try those lenses (or indeed any other lens) before selling the 17-55mm f/2.8. The Sigma is probably good for what it is, but I suspect after using the constant f/2.8 Nikkor you may be disappointed.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

My plan is to sell my Nikkor 17-55 2.8 lens and replace it with 2 lenses.
I have pretty much decided on the Nikkor 55-200VR lens.
How do you think the Sigma would compare to my 17-55 in overall quality of picture and build.

Seriously?

 

[hacksaw35]

So the gist I'm getting from everyone is to not let go of the lens I've got...and save up and add the 70-300 VR later?

Did I mention that I am a poor college student...

 

[Sw1tchFX]

i'm under the impression that you're getting rid of your midrange and using only a telephoto.

nonetheless, it's your equipment, you know what you need.

 

[Mike_E]

I'd say that the chances are good that you will remember the day that you gave up the 17-55 forever. Most likely it won't be a happy memory.
mike