sigma-17-70mm-f2-8-4-os-hsm/C

[Trblmkr]

So I've been looking very hard at upgrading my Nikon 18-55mm Kit lens on my Nikon. I shoot mostly Landscape and night time and low light photography (you can see some of my pictures on the forums to get an idea of what I like to shoot). Occasionally I'll shoot macro but not a need as of yet for a dedicated lens I don't think. Right now I have a D5100, and have been looking (as well) as upgrading to D7000/7100 as the prices are dropping, especially the D7000.

Current Lenses
Nikon AF-S DX VR Zoom 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G
Nikon AF-S DX VR Zoom 55-200mm f4-56. IF-ED
Nikon AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G

My replacements lenses I'm looking at to use as replacements

Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM/C (Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM | C review: Digital Photography Review)
Tamron AF 28-75mm f2.8 SP XR Di LD Aspherical IF (Tamron SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Lens Review: Specifications - photo.net)

And then possible looking after the new year possible getting a 70-200 or 70-300.

I just want to be able to work a little easier in the dark with the faster lenses and both of them have been reviewed as the next logical stop up from the basic kit lenses. As well as have something I can use on a day to day basis while walking around at night and not have to worry bout needing a tripod all the time.

Has anybody used or have the Sigma or Tamron and what's your personal feeling on them?

Appreciate the comments/feedback.

 

[Braineack]

it's seriously an awesome lens to replace the kit lens with.

I bought it for a single lens to take on vacation with me. Here's a gallery of the shots I took with the D3100 at the time: https://plus.google.com/photos/1002...ms/5887119395904572481?authkey=CLicr7rx1qXbYw

 

[Trblmkr]

Thanks for the comment Brain and the link. The photos are really crystal clear even those you shot at night.

 

[Braineack]

my favorite part of the gallery are the horribly composed/blurry pictures of me and the wife.

but this lens stays on my d5100 most of the time.

 

[JohnS.]

If you can save up a little more, I highly suggest the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 over the 17-70 f/2.8-4. Constant f/2.8 aperture and I've read it's overall a better lens. A lot of people have talked highly of the 17-70 f/2.8-4 though. You can't go wrong with either.

I haven't read much about the Tamron 28-75 so I can't comment on that.

 

[Braineack]

I personally wanted the reach. But I did look at the 17-70 f/2.8. But I found the 2.8-4 locally for under 300 so...

The one thing that takes getting used to is the reverse zoom ring.

 

[Trblmkr]

I agree, I want the extra reach that's why I'm looking at the 17-70. If there are other suggestions in the same price range, quality and speed I'll be happy to entertain them.

 

[D-B-J]

The 17-50 2.8 from Sigma is a wonderful lens. Yes, it's more expensive, but worth every penny if you can afford it. Tack sharp, only a little distortion at 17mm, good contrast/color, good autofocus, and the list goes on. I love it, and it's my designated "walk-around" lens.

Jake

 

[Trblmkr]

Well I pulled the trigger today.

[h=1]Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM FLD[/h]
I decided I wanted the constant 2.8 over the extra reach. I purchased from a local camera shop that had it, $569 out the door plus tax.
First thing I noticed, this thing is heavier then the 18-55Kit lens. Took a few pictures of it in the shop with my D5100 and man does this thing focus fast as hell.

Appreciate those that offered their opinion on this, I really did take into account every bodies thoughts on this.

 

[jaomul]

Enjoy. Let us know your opinion when you have had time to play