Nikon 17-55/2.8 vs. Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS

[Markw]

Hello everyone. I'm thinking about upgrading from my Sigma 18-50/2.8 non-OS, non-HSM, non-macro to one of these lenses. Obviously, the Nikkor is double the cost used as the sigma is new, but my question to you is, do you think there is that much of an improvement in sharpness and resolution, (and build quality) to warrant the extra prove and loss of OS? I've never used either of these lenses, so I'm really counting on you all here. I've had a look at the MTF charts, and the Nikkor is better in sharpness from corner to corner, but not by much, at all. And it's not much better in resolution throughout the range either. Both aren't amazing by any means in this dept. So, what do you think? The poor resolution of my 18-50 is really annoying me terribly.Thanks,Mark

 

[Nikon_Josh]

A bit of de ja vu here as I asked a similar question, I decided against the 17-50 range in the end and went for Nikon 35 1.8. But I still would like a Siggy 17-50 2.8 and still debate over whether a tammy 17-50 would serve me better than the 35. But a discussion for another day!

I have to say in my mind it would not be a difficult decision, the Sigma is ALOT cheaper, built nicely, alot lighter than the Nikon and has OS which is a huge bonus for night shooting on the hop. A 2.8 aperture and OS will be very very useful for low light situations when you are not tripod hugging! Not to mention the glowing reviews it has got since its release date regarding the Image quality this lens produce, even the 'Nikon Snobs' rate the lens.

OK the Nikon wins on 'slightly better IQ' and sharpness and also wins on the build quality front! But in my opinion this is a heavy lens which costs a bomb and dosen't have VR, the Sigma would win for me every time if I wanted a 17-50. I'm sure the differences in IQ are the sort of differences that you have to zoom in to 100 per cent to notice even slightly anyway, I have noticed that IQ differences are usually exaggerated by the owner's of the more expensive lenses!

Another plus is Sigma have done away with the dreadful tacky rubber coating finish on your 18-50 aswell!

 

[fsquare]

Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 F-S DX vs Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 DC Photo Gallery by Miljenko Devcic at pbase.com <--- exactly the info you are looking for

Secondly i would never buy a Sigma lens online. I would always test out a Sigma lens in person before buying.

 

[Markw]

A bit of de ja vu here as I asked a similar question, I decided against the 17-50 range in the end and went for Nikon 35 1.8. But I still would like a Siggy 17-50 2.8 and still debate over whether a tammy 17-50 would serve me better than the 35. But a discussion for another day! I've already got the 35/1.8 Nikkor and 50/1.8D Nikkor.

I have to say in my mind it would not be a difficult decision, the Sigma is ALOT cheaper, built nicely, alot lighter than the Nikon and has OS which is a huge bonus for night shooting on the hop. A 2.8 aperture and OS will be very very useful for low light situations when you are not tripod hugging! Not to mention the glowing reviews it has got since its release date regarding the Image quality this lens produce, even the 'Nikon Snobs' rate the lens.

OK the Nikon wins on 'slightly better IQ' and sharpness and also wins on the build quality front! The build quality is amazingly better with the Nikon. That's definitely apull factor. But in my opinion this is a heavy lens I don't really mind that. which costs a bomb and dosen't have VR Both of those things are something I'd really like to fix., the Sigma would win for me every time if I wanted a 17-50. I'm sure the differences in IQ are the sort of differences that you have to zoom in to 100 per cent to notice even slightly anyway, I have noticed that IQ differences are usually exaggerated by the owner's of the more expensive lenses! Bingoooo.

Another plus is Sigma have done away with the dreadful tacky rubber coating finish on your 18-50 aswell! Ahh!! I didn't know that! Yes!

Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 F-S DX vs Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 DC Photo Gallery by Miljenko Devcic at pbase.com <--- exactly the info you are looking for Thank you! I'll give it a look.

Secondly i would never buy a Sigma lens online I've purchased every Sigma I have ever owned online. Not a big deal with a return policy. . I would always test out a Sigma lens in person before buying. That's generally with most lenses, though.

Thank you both! Reply in Red.

Mark

 

[MLeeK]

Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 F-S DX vs Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 DC Photo Gallery by Miljenko Devcic at pbase.com <--- exactly the info you are looking for

Secondly i would never buy a Sigma lens online. I would always test out a Sigma lens in person before buying.

That is not the same sigma lens. That is the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 which is discontinued. Sigma 18-50 mm F2.8 EX DC Macro lens: Digital Photography Review
I assume when OP said 17-50 that is what he meant which is this lens: 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM - Standard Zoom Lenses - SigmaPhoto.com

 

[Markw]

I did mean the 17-50. But, I have the 18-50/2.8 DC D. The one in the comparison. That's why the link was given..to show the comparison between the lens I have now and the one I'm thinking about getting. :thumbsup:

Mark