Considering buying sigma 17-50mm os hsm

9ballprodigy · Jan 8, 2012

I guys, normally I am able to do my own research on this one but I find at e information is skewed to one side or the other. I currently own the 18-105 vr and I haven't many complaints other than the distortion I see at the wide extreme. The vr works well, and it's pretty sharp when stopped down to 5.6. The thing is that I'm really tempted to trade up to a sigma 17-50mm ex os hsm as my walk around lens. I hear the images are sharper and of course there's the 2.8 constant aperture to boot. I also see that the af on the sigma is fast enough. Ken Rockwell denounces the 18-105 for being soft around the corners and Lens tip.com seem to praise it for having sharper edges than the 18-135. I'm really on the fence about this one. Has anyone here traded up and was it worth the money? Is it worth the loss of range?

djacobox372 · Jan 8, 2012

Have you considered the tamron equivelant? I see a lot more people rave about the tammy then the sigma. Sigma has sort of a bad rep when it comes to quality control, their lenses look and feel more substantial then the tamrons, but don't let that fool you--they aren't as well built.

9ballprodigy · Jan 8, 2012

i've fiddled with the tamron 17-50mm 2.8 vc in a camera shop, and i have to say, i wasn't really impressed. the zoom ring was rather tights, the af motor was loud and slow, the focus ring moves when af is on, and i don't know if it was the resolution on the d90's screen or the fact that i'm used to 16mp rather than 12mp, but when i tried to zoom in on image, it was rather soft (on second thought, i really should have made sure that the demo d90 was shooting in raw or lat least jpeg fine/large). either way, i think i'll go back and see if i get the same result with my d7000 body.

sleist · Jan 9, 2012

I woull also suggest the Tamron. I know someone who has one and it has nice sharpness and contrast on her D200.
The D7000 might be less forgiving of it's weaknesses though.
I own nikon 17-55 f/2.8 and love it, but it's a bit more money.
I have not used the Sigma, but I've heard it compares similarly to the Tamron.

I still own the 18-105 and find it to be a very nice kit lens.
A bit lighter than the 17-55 too.

9ballprodigy · Jan 10, 2012

Ok. I got a chance to go back to the camera store and retry the Tammy 17-50mm vc with my d7000. The sharpness really is substantial, but I still have qualms with the tight zoom ring and the slow af motor. Definitely considering it. Although the hsm and better build quality of the sigma is worth considering as well.

djacobox372 · Jan 13, 2012

9ballprodigy said:
i've fiddled with the tamron 17-50mm 2.8 vc in a camera shop, and i have to say, i wasn't really impressed. the zoom ring was rather tights, the af motor was loud and slow, the focus ring moves when af is on, and i don't know if it was the resolution on the d90's screen or the fact that i'm used to 16mp rather than 12mp, but when i tried to zoom in on image, it was rather soft (on second thought, i really should have made sure that the demo d90 was shooting in raw or lat least jpeg fine/large). either way, i think i'll go back and see if i get the same result with my d7000 body.

I would agree that the sigma "feels" better, but I've owned both and the tamron was sharper, lighter, and focused faster. Of course sigma is well known for their quality control issues, I might have had a bad copy--wouldn't be the first time, the other two sigma lenses I've purchased broke within a year of buying them as well.

9ballprodigy · Jan 15, 2012

Are you guys talking about the vc version or non vc version?

MLeeK · Jan 15, 2012

I JUST posted images from the Tamron non VC version in NikonJosh's post about it.

The sigma-my only question is WHY would anyone want the OS feature on a lens with that angle of view? you would have to have your shutter at 1/50 to avoid vibration or camera shake... Most people can't hand hold at 1/50 anyway AND for most subjects you'd be shooting at a shutter speed much faster than that anyway... I don't get why Sigma is putting OS on anything under 100mm at it's longest end.

I'd choose the Tamron 28-75, personally if that's an option. If you NEED to have the 17mm... I'd guess probably the Tamron 17-50. I LIKE mine, but you'll see my dislikes in NikonJosh's post.