Former Canon shooter here getting a D7000 to use mostly for landscape. For a standard zoom I'll get either the Nikon 16-85, a Tamron 17-50 non-VC or a Sigma 17-50. Question for those who've used these lenses: Purely from an IQ standpoint (without regard to FL range, speed or stabilization), which lens do you think is better, mainly with regard to contrast and across-the-frame sharpness? I've also heard the Sigma had focusing problems with the D7000 - true?
Thanks for any insight.
I had a 17-50 tammy, non-motorized if i recall correctly...it was decent, but my 17-55 is sharper by far...also had an 18-50 2.8 sigma more recently as a backup, and it wasnt even good enough to pull backup duty...sharpness was ok, just terrible af, and the zoom direction is reverse of how nikon should be...super annoying...
The 16-85 is an excellent lens with fantastic sharpness and contrast. You can find them used for around $450 which is well worth it. Good build quality too.
I use both the Nikon 17-55 and the Tokina 11-16 v1. Tokina now has a newer motorized version, but I don't think they've changed the optics outside of offering newer coatings on some of the elements. Both are outstanding DX zooms in my opinion.
I recently graduated to the 16-85 VR having used the 18-70 for 7 years. As good as the 18-70 is, the 16-85 is even better as a walk around lens. I wanted the additional reach at both ends, but especially the VR since I do a lot of shooting in the woods handheld where DR can go to extremes from shot to shot.
I bought the Nikon new. The build quality is superior to the 18-70, but am expecting to eventually use the warranty since I made use of it on the 18-70 at 4 years/11 months (had it back in a week).
Also the 16-85 focus required some fine tuning which is easy in a D300 (once you can find & follow the instructions). Also, I didn't want to have to deal with the possibility of having to rechip a 3rd party lens when I upgrade to a new body.
