need opinion on which f2.8 lens for nikon

[shaunly]

Hey everybody, I was wondering if anybody has use the tokina 16-50mm f2.8 and how does that compare to the nikon 17-55mm f2.8 as far as image quality. I mainly want a good performance at f2.8 for low lighting. I've played around with both at a local camera store and both are built like a tank, although the nikon does seem a little more solid.

I've read many review on the tamron version and it seems to be very popular, but when I played with it at the store, it just look and feels so cheapy. Built quality isn't that good as well and the AF is kinda slow and noisy.

I currently have the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 and it's a decent lens. Built quality is really nice but f2.8 iq isn't that good. AF on it is slow and sometimes not accurate.

So in the end, is the Nikon worth double the price of the Tokina? Being satisfied is much more important to me, that way I don't have to spend more money in the future trying to upgrade. Thank you in advance for all the help. =)

 

[Dao]

What about the newer Sigma 18-50mm with "HSM" for Nikon camera?

Ask Jerry how good it is ..... He prefer that new Sigma lens than the Nikon version.

 

[JerryPH]

The Sigma 18-50 DC EX HSM Macro F/2.8 is the one that beat out both the Tamron and Nikkor 17-55 three times in last year's shootouts in 3 different magazines.

 

[shaunly]

The Sigma 18-50 DC EX HSM Macro F/2.8 is the one that beat out both the Tamron and Nikkor 17-55 three times in last year's shootouts in 3 different magazines.

interesting...do you know where I can find these reviews? Also, beside the HMS motor what changes did they make on the new sigma lens that make it that much better?

 

[anldyxp_gd3]

I've got the new 18-50mm F2.8 HSM. Its awesome. I dont have any experience with the older model, but the one I currently have focuses very fast. Pictures are sharp.

 

[JerryPH]

The Sigma 18-50 DC EX HSM Macro F/2.8 is the one that beat out both the Tamron and Nikkor 17-55 three times in last year's shootouts in 3 different magazines.

interesting...do you know where I can find these reviews? Also, beside the HMS motor what changes did they make on the new sigma lens that make it that much better?

Ugh, I had all three articles in a PDF but erased them once my research was done. One was Professional Photogrpaher, one was an Australian magazine... the third I cannot recall, likely a US based one.

The Sigma beat them out on sharpness, contrast, pin cushioning and distortion. Albeit the Nikkor was very close, but it was also 3 times more expensive.

NONE of them besides the Sigma had any kind of a macro. The Sigma has a 1:3 macro... no its not a full macro, but to me, that means that I can focus this close to an object and still be 100% sharp:

Do I own it? Yes. On my D200, it was the most used lens I owned too before I got my D700 and started using FX lenses exclusively.