Lens Decision Time

[glamourfish]

Need to get a new wide angle zoom & am deciding between these. I can get a great deal on the sigma, but not sure if it's worth it, or if I should rather spend more & go for one of the others:

Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF]
Tokina AT-X 165 PRO DX AF 16 - 50mm f2.8
Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO

FOR USE ON NIKON


Any other suggestions welcome too!!!

[djwixx]

What format Nikon - as this would determine whether it's really that wide. Unless F2.8 is an absolute number you must I have I would question whether any of the lenses would give you much more than the Nikon 18-55 and 18-70mm which have great reviews for what they are, albeit a F3.5. Hopefully you already have one or other as a kit lens.

Only based on rumour and speculation I'd probably always go for a Tamron over a Sigma, as I've heard that Sigma have questionable quality control, but give how many lenses they make and sell it's probably just an old reputation.

Have you determined what you need it for? The 18-70mm was my kit lens and after the addition of a 70-300, a 50 1.8 and a Tamron macro I hardly ever use it.

[glamourfish]

It's for a nikon D70 or D2XS. I use both bodies. i'll probably use it mostly for wider angle shots in weddings & then for some landscapes too. I have the sigma 18 - 200 but it's my convenience tourist lens. Good enough for web images, but not great for printed pictures. I have a Nikon50 f1.8; Sigma 70 - 200 f2.8APO & the Tokina 100mm Macro as well....i just feel i need something a bit wider than the 50mm but with better quality than the Sigma 18 - 200.

[djwixx]

It sounds like you're already far more qualified than me to answer your own question. Given what you already have I'm not sure whether the Sigma would give you anything of use, but the reduced range on the other two lenses should effectively reduce too many distortions with the lenses. I like the idea of something wider (12-24), but I suspect the F2.8 will give you more scope for a speedier lens. Given the price of the Tamron and them only currently giving a $10 rebate suggests to me it's a popular lens that they don't need to offer many incentives on.

[adz929]

Nikkor DX AF-S 17-55 f/2.8G IF-ED
Nikkor AF-S 17-35 f/2.8D IF-ED
Nikkor DX AF-S 12-24 f/4G IF-ED

Please note, I do not personally own any of these lenses, however, I have used them all in one way or another and whilst they are all quite expensive, I wouldn't put anything else in front of a D2Xs.

[jdepould]

If you can give up a little on the wide open aperture side, the Tokina 12-24 f/4 is wonderful. Some reviews say it's better than the Nikkor, and I'm inclined to agree. Doesn't give you much on the longer end, but you're really the final judge of what's appropriate for your needs.

[glamourfish]

Thanks everybody! hmmmm.....I was hoping for a cheaper solution, but I guess when you're using a Pro Body it doesn't help using the cheaper lenses, now does it?? The D70 was serving me well, but I needed something with the 8fps for skate photography, but now that I have such a good lens, you can really see the difference with inferior lenses & when I use my prime 50mm lens I can really see a difference from using it with my D70.
I'm looking for something just above the 17/18mm point. I'm still really happy with the Quality of my Sigma 10 - 20mm. I'm just wondering if it's worthwile spending €200 on the sigma while I save up for one of the more top end lenses. .........
I hate my habit, I mean my hobby! LOL!!!! But am wanting to go pro some time in near future! Just not sure what the best approach to that is.

[dharden]

hope you don't mind me jumping in as a Canon user, but if you like the 10-20 Sigma then you'll LOVE the 17-70. I had both and I really didn't want to sell the 17-70 but buying a 5D meant I had to...

It's very well built indeed - in fact i'm not sure why they didn't label it an EX cos it's the same build and finish, i've had no problems with AF and the sharpness is excellent (maybe I got a good one but the general consensus around the 'net is that this is one of Sigma's gems). The close focus is ridiculous - almost touching the subject! :d

I've got a 17-40L now and there's not much difference in sharpness. The Canon lens scores mainly on contrast and colour + USM focusing (but that's why it's twice the price!)

I can't comment on the Tamron 17-50, but i did have a 17-35 Di for a while and got rid of it cos the edges were soft and it had a HEAVY yellow colour cast. The 17-50 seems to be better but i have seen it get pulled up for having soft edges at the wide end. Then again f2.8 all the way is good. In that vein, consider the Sigma 18-50 EX as well - the new one is getting great reviews, but is more expensive than the 17-70.

OK you're on Nikon, but the Sigma lenses are the same glass as for the canon fit and, if you don't need to shoot 70mm handheld in very low light, i'd go for the 17-70. I'd buy one again tomorrow if i was looking for that type of lens.

again, sorry for jumping in as a "non-nikon" user but I hope it's some help to you....

[glamourfish]

Thanks dharden! I appreciate the feedback. I actually went back to look at the sigma lens again & it was gone Guess fate decided fo rme. They only ad the one left, thus the special offer of 200 euro.
I think I just need to save a bit more. I was thinking of maybe going the Tokina route. I have the Tokina 100mm macro & think it's a brilliant lens. Maybe I'll try the Tokina 16 - 50...........?
Still deciding!

[dharden]

If time is on your side then it's sensible not to rush into it. You may want to have a look on the Fred Miranda site. There are quite a few user reviews of lenses on there.

Hope you get the one you need!

[inukshuk94]

I have the Sigma 18-50 F2.8 and it's great plus has nothing but good revues.

[e2thaa]

a d2x is gonna look underdressed with anything but a pro nikkor, but for what it's worth, the tamron 17-50 and 28-75 rival the 50/1.8 for sharpness. havent tried the tokina 16-50, but their build quality is no joke on at-x lenses -- i have the 12-24 and its solid.