Sigma 17-50 2.8 buyers remorse before even using it...

[DaveAndHolly219]

I have the 17-50 2.8 and almost never use it. Don't like the cheap feel of it.. but it does give very good sharp results. I tend to shoot wider or longer the majority of the time.

Eventually I'll upgrade to a 24-70.. if the Nikon version is too expensive you should look into the Tamron 24-70. It's very good from what I've read and about half the price.

Doesn't feel cheap to me in the slightest. I guess I'm not enough of a gear snob yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SquarePeg]

Following up to say I returned the lens. Not sure if it was a bad copy or if my expectations were too high but I didn't see the tack sharpness that I was expecting based on reviews and discussions here. In addition, I used it on my trip to CA and found the 50mm max zoom to be boring compositionally compared to the 17-70. I had to crop a lot more than usual. With that and no discernible improvement in sharpness, it just wasn't worth the money to me.

 

[loonatic45414]

Sigma & Tamron have always been cheap junk since the 1970's. I'm surprised people pay as much as they do for that overpriced crap.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

 

[DaveAndHolly219]

Sigma & Tamron have always been cheap junk since the 1970's. I'm surprised people pay as much as they do for that overpriced crap.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

Gear snob alert. Lmao


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Destin]

Sigma & Tamron have always been cheap junk since the 1970's. I'm surprised people pay as much as they do for that overpriced crap.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

Gear snob alert. Lmao


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed. My favorite lens I've ever owned is my Tamron 70-200 VC. Prior to that I had multiple copies of sigma 70-200 lenses and they were incrdible.

Third party lenses have come a long way from the 1970s. However, just like the OEM stuff, they can be hit and miss and not every product they pump out is a winner.

 

[jcdeboever]

Following up to say I returned the lens. Not sure if it was a bad copy or if my expectations were too high but I didn't see the tack sharpness that I was expecting based on reviews and discussions here. In addition, I used it on my trip to CA and found the 50mm max zoom to be boring compositionally compared to the 17-70. I had to crop a lot more than usual. With that and no discernible improvement in sharpness, it just wasn't worth the money to me.

Same issue I had but I spent hours figuring out where to put the focus point. Looking back at some of the photos I took with it were real bad compared to the Fuji system I have now. I didn't really know any better at the time. My Sigma 70-200 and 150-600 had issues too.

 

[DarkShadow]

I have this lens also only used it once,If I am doing something different other then wildlife I tend to grab my fuji X-T10 and kit lenses first instead of popping on the sigma 17-50 on the D7200 body which lives with my Tamron 150-600.