I need a little purchasing advice!

[PaulWog]

The lenses I have are listed in my signature. I plan/planned to get the 50mm 1.8G, but rethought it out and realize that I want an f2.8 normal zoom for walking around. I'm three quarters of the way to going out and purchasing a Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS lens.

The reason I'm holding back is because I already have a 16-85mm VR lens. It shoots excellently, and is sharp sharp sharp at every aperture setting it can go to, and all focal lengths. It takes great photos, and it does reach 85mm.

My question: I basically just picked up the 16-85mm VR lens (in June). If I get the Sigma 17-50, is that pretty much it for my 16-85? I hoped the two might complement each other (and at first I talked myself into thinking that), but now I'm not sure. I really have to think this one out. I don't particularly want to resell the 16-85 for a few reasons (I like the lens, it's great, and I paid $700 + taxes for it and will likely get 500 or maybe even less on a resale); but again, I don't want to sell it anyway.

I'm in an odd situation where I absolutely want one lens, and I absolutely don't want to get rid of another, but I don't see how the two will work together... and the Sigma is on sale for $650 locally right now until the end of the month (I live in Canada).

 

[runnah]

How fast is the 16-85?

 

[Derrel]

Every single Sigma lens is a must-prove-itself-worth-keeping kind of deal to me. Often fantastic on paper, often disappointing in the real world...that has been my experience with 3 of 4 Sigma lenses, and two of the three turkeys were their expensive HSM EX-series models...the 100-300mm f/4 EX-HSM and the 180mm f/3.5 EX HSM APO-Macro were both duds in F-mount...neither one focused worth a damn...their 18-125 sucked and flared horribly...their 80-400 OS was the best of the bunch, but I bought that in Canon EF mount used from Adorama.

So, while the Sigma 17-50 might "on-paper" be one heck of a fine lens, it remains to be seen how it might actually work "on-a-Nikon".

 

[runnah]

Good point D. I'd stick with your current lens until you can afford to go nikon.

 

[PaulWog]

Good point D. I'd stick with your current lens until you can afford to go nikon.

The thing is that I can afford to get a 17-55 now, but I don't know how much sense that makes financially. If I could get the full $700 back for my 16-85, then the 17-55 would just be a $700 jump which wouldn't be such a big deal. However, I feel as though such a huge investment should be toward an FX-compatible lens. Not to mention $1400 for a lens = I could carry around a second D5200 with a permanently attached 85mm 1.8G or 50mm 1.8G for less (not that I'd want to carry around two cameras for walk-arounds hahaha). I'm somewhat torn.

Thanks for the input Derrel. By proving itself to be worth it, are you referring to quality control variation in each individual 17-50 lens produced?

edit: I'm contacting the place I purchased the lens from to see what they'd value the 16-85 at for trade-in against a 17-55. Might as well check that option out.

 

[Derrel]

Yes, I mean quality control on each sample. As well as just BASIC functionality. For example, the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens as reviewed by PetaPixel...now, this is an $899 lens...

Review: The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM is Solid, But Hope For a Purebred

"....With similar characteristics to the other dogs in the yard, the problem for Sigma gear is you never know if it’s a purebred or a mutt, with no clear indication of what you actually have. Sigma’s refreshed lens design (read: Art Series) gives me hope that hiccups of the past may be forgotten. Fingers crossed."

"On the topic of focus, I did experience the same issue reported on message boards describing completely back focused photos when using the outer edge focal points. Essentially, it’s as though the lens ignores the fact you’ve moved the focus point and maintains the idea that it’s still in focus from however it was last used. To me this feels like an electronics issue, and I suspect easily fixed with a firmware update via the Sigma USB dock (or a brown UPS truck)."

"...the copy I tested has a rather noticeable but intermittent squeak. Let’s call it “The Sigma Focus Warning System.” It was on by default with no way to disable it:I suspect a screw came loose during shipping. Perhaps this is simply a quality control issue — remember that purebred to mutt analogy from earlier? — and the root cause of the outer edge focus point problem. Who knows and either way, having a focusing issue like this with a $900 leaves me little confidence. Peeping the screen is nice post-shot, but it shouldn’t be required to defeat a focusing issue.The AF/M selector has a definitive snap about it and doesn’t rattle. If it loosens up in the future, put some tape on it."

 

[Mach0]

Yes, I mean quality control on each sample. As well as just BASIC functionality. For example, the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens as reviewed by PetaPixel...now, this is an $899 lens...

Review: The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM is Solid, But Hope For a Purebred

"....With similar characteristics to the other dogs in the yard, the problem for Sigma gear is you never know if it’s a purebred or a mutt, with no clear indication of what you actually have. Sigma’s refreshed lens design (read: Art Series) gives me hope that hiccups of the past may be forgotten. Fingers crossed."

"On the topic of focus, I did experience the same issue reported on message boards describing completely back focused photos when using the outer edge focal points. Essentially, it’s as though the lens ignores the fact you’ve moved the focus point and maintains the idea that it’s still in focus from however it was last used. To me this feels like an electronics issue, and I suspect easily fixed with a firmware update via the Sigma USB dock (or a brown UPS truck)."

"...the copy I tested has a rather noticeable but intermittent squeak. Let’s call it “The Sigma Focus Warning System.” It was on by default with no way to disable it:I suspect a screw came loose during shipping. Perhaps this is simply a quality control issue — remember that purebred to mutt analogy from earlier? — and the root cause of the outer edge focus point problem. Who knows and either way, having a focusing issue like this with a $900 leaves me little confidence. Peeping the screen is nice post-shot, but it shouldn’t be required to defeat a focusing issue.The AF/M selector has a definitive snap about it and doesn’t rattle. If it loosens up in the future, put some tape on it."

To chime in- I recently purchased a sigma 50 1.4 and with two copies I had focus duds ( returned it and stuck with my nikon 50) . Awesome, sharp lens but beyond 10 feet it back focused like heck. However, I've seen plenty of good ones out there. So if you get it, buy it from somewhere where you can return it if it doesn't work properly.

 

[goodguy]

I would stick with the 16-85mm, maybe its not as fast but its a fine lens with a better focal length and as for the speed, yes its not a constant 2.8 but I rather have it over the Sigma lens.
If you want a constant apeture then save your money and get the real deal get the 24-70mm, yes its expensive but I think its worth it.

 

[Nikanon]

Have you looked into getting a used Nikon 28-70 2.8D lens? The cost is about the same as the Nikon 17-55 2.8 and it's a FF lens..

 

[PaulWog]

Have you looked into getting a used Nikon 28-70 2.8D lens? The cost is about the same as the Nikon 17-55 2.8 and it's a FF lens..

The thing is once I get into that territory, I might as well get the 24-70. Then I think to myself: Is the lens in the range I want, or do I want 17-50 on my crop sensor? It seems like getting a 28-70 or 24-70 would be buying ahead before I have an FX camera. It's a possibility I suppose.

I'm leaning toward not getting a 17-50 anymore, even though I do want a fast walk-around. I think I need more time to think and I need to take more shots and carry around my 35mm 1.8G a little more (only done one walk-around with it -- and the two things I did notice on the walk-around was I wanted quick wide shots occasionally, and I wanted a 50mm perspective occasionally... though 85mm is also so useful).

 

[goodguy]

Most of my shots I take in good lighting.
I love night photography but I find I rarely does that, when I do I take my nifty fifty, thats all I really need its wide enough and puts in a ton of light and of course very sharp.
Thats why I dont bother to replace my 24-85mm VR with something faster because from this lens my only other lens I will buy is the 24-70m 2.8 which is out of my reach and frankly pretty heavy so I am not rushing to get it.

 

[shadowlands]

I would keep your Nikon zoom and add the 50mm F1.8 like you originally wanted.
Or aim for the Nikon 17-55 F2.8.

 

[PaulWog]

Thanks for all the input. I'm going to weigh all the options and take everything into consideration. I'm taking a look at the 17-55 and thinking things through, though I'm thinking I might just stick with primes as my fast lenses. I might just save the fast regular zoom for whenever I move to FX.

 

[TheLost]

I really regret selling my Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX (DC OS HSM FLD.. whew!) .. i would wholeheartedly recommend it.

Read the reviews online... watch the reviews on youtube... look at the sample pictures on Flickr... talk to people who own it on the groups... you'll find its a great lens (and at 1/2 the cost of Nikons 17-55 f/2.8)

 

[PaulWog]

I really regret selling my Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX (DC OS HSM FLD.. whew!) .. i would wholeheartedly recommend it.

Read the reviews online... watch the reviews on youtube... look at the sample pictures on Flickr... talk to people who own it on the groups... you'll find its a great lens (and at 1/2 the cost of Nikons 17-55 f/2.8)

Hmmm, I appreciate your input. Any faults you can find with the lens? Focusing issues? Sharpness issues? Color issues? I really like the optical stabilization feature in my 16-85 for walk-arounds, so that is a nice selling-point about the 17-50 OS.

I'm considering contacting the local shop and seeing if they have any copies in the store that I could test before purchasing.

Still thinking all of this through carefully.