I need a little purchasing advice!

[sleist]

How fast is the 16-85?

In my day I could reach maybe 80mph, but my arm ain't what it used to be.

 

[PaulWog]

How fast is the 16-85?

In my day I could reach maybe 80mph, but my arm ain't what it used to be.

Sounds about accurate.

 

[PaulWog]

Well, I decided against picking up a 17-55 and/or 17-50. I decided I am interested more-so in investing in FX in the 12-24 month future, and investing in a 17-50 or 17-55 while I already have a perfectly working 16-85 just won't make sense. The 16-85 is less a "walk-around" lens to me though, and just another tool. I feel like the word "walk-around" doesn't really ring well with me... if I'm walking around with a DSLR, I'm going to have a backpack with me, so I'm always going to have at least 2 lenses with me. I certainly wouldn't want to be stuck with just the 16-85mm when walking around... and I have no problems carrying a prime or two with me alongside the 16-85 any time I take the camera out. In many ways the 16-85 has been 50% of the time acting as a 16-24mm lens for either f3.5 shots in close-quarters, or 16mm shots at f7.1+ for landscapes. I feel like if I get a zoom, it needs to be FX, and to be honest I'd like to see VR in it... so the 24-70 looks enticing, but I'm going to wait until I actually make the move to FX.

I decided for quality f1.8-f2.8 shots, I'll stick to primes. So I may very well still get a 50mm 1.8G, and 85mm 1.8G is already on the list. I have a 35mm 1.8G already.

 

[Dinardy]

I would suggest trying to opt for the 85mm first, that lens will blow your butt hair off.

 

[PaulWog]

I would suggest trying to opt for the 85mm first, that lens will blow your butt hair off.

I do enjoy having my butt hair blown off on occasion. Completely heterosexually speaking of course.

The 85mm 1.8G is indeed the next lens on my list, followed by the 50mm 1.8G. I love the 35mm 1.8G on my camera, though wish I could have an FX view through a 50mm since the one thing I don't like about a DX 35mm is the amount of separation & distance the background/out-of-focus areas in the shots have (though conversely it's excellent when I want more sky + ocean in a portrait shot at the beach or something).

I think I enjoy photography a heck of a lot more than my bank account does. :-S (to repeat what so many others say).

 

[TheLost]

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.

Focusing (like on most HSM Sigmas) is very fast and quiet.

Sharpness at f/2.8 is good.. excellent in the center.. less so in the corners. Bring it up to f/3+ and its super sharp. My Sigma 'copy' (and IMHO) was just as sharp as any Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 i played with. There are a few reports of quality-variance from lens to lens... but if you can find a good store to by from they should make sure you get a good copy. I think Sigma has improved over the years and this isn't so much of an issue any more.

Color/Contrast was great.

Sigma's OS (Optical Stabilization) is very good... so good that they have been sued by Nikon

I would recommend you rent one (local or online). The best way to see if it is what you want is to play with it for a few days.

 

[greybeard]

I have the 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 and it is the best zoom lens I have owned with IQ on par with my 50mm f/1.8 but at all focal lengths. I would personally be surprised if the Sigma can match it.

 

[PaulWog]

I have the 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 and it is the best zoom lens I have owned with IQ on par with my 50mm f/1.8 but at all focal lengths. I would personally be surprised if the Sigma can match it.

Yeh, I decided to keep the 16-85 for a few reasons.

I want to put the money into more important things: Savings (stuff other than photography), an 85mm 1.8G, and saving toward FX as well in the future (as soon as something with the pricing or better pricing of a D600 with at least a year's worth of improvements and 100% fixed dust issues comes out, I'll start to become highly tempted). I still don't have a usable tripod, and I still don't have an IPS monitor for editing as well. I think a 17-50 or 17-55 just wouldn't be the right purchase for me with that all considered. The 50mm 1.8G is still a worth-while Christmas-want-list item though.