Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Sigma 18-35 1.8 or Nikkor 17-55 2.8
  
 
08kecarv
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · Sigma 18-35 1.8 or Nikkor 17-55 2.8


Hey guys,

I'm in the market for a fast DX zoom and I've had my eye on the 17-55 2.8 for a while, however the Sigma 18-35 entered the fray and made things a bit difficult. My question is, (in your opinion) which would be the better buy, the Sigma 18-35 or the 1.8 or Nikkor 17-55 2.8. I'd be buying the Nikkor used or the Sigma new, however they're both around the same price.

Any and all help is welcome and appreciated, Mahalo!!!



Aug 09, 2013 at 06:28 AM
rattymouse
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · Sigma 18-35 1.8 or Nikkor 17-55 2.8


The Sigma is useless if you need 36-55mm's.

If you dont need it, the Sigma is quite a bit faster.




Aug 09, 2013 at 07:08 AM
Mishu01
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · Sigma 18-35 1.8 or Nikkor 17-55 2.8


I'd buy Sigma 18-35/1.8 and Nikon 50/1.8G instead of Nikon 17-55 which is good but not great. Sigma is a spectacular lens like its FX colleague 35/1.4... and more than a stop faster which is a great advantage.


Aug 09, 2013 at 08:08 AM
08kecarv
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · Sigma 18-35 1.8 or Nikkor 17-55 2.8


Well I already have a Nikkor 35 1.8 which is why I was interested in the 17-55 focal length, however the 1.8 of the 18-35 is a major game changer in my decision making.


Aug 09, 2013 at 08:14 AM
ocir
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · Sigma 18-35 1.8 or Nikkor 17-55 2.8


18-35 fl is an unusual and limited range on DX but you just can't pass up on the constant f1.8 aperture and very affordable price for a zoom. Besides, this lens outperforms some good prime lenses according to DxOMark ratings. It is rather a heavy lens. Slightly heavier than the Nikon 17-55.


Aug 09, 2013 at 11:12 AM
DTOB
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · Sigma 18-35 1.8 or Nikkor 17-55 2.8


ocir wrote:
18-35 fl is an unusual and limited range on DX but you just can't pass up on the constant f1.8 aperture and very affordable price for a zoom. Besides, this lens outperforms some good prime lenses according to DxOMark ratings. It is rather a heavy lens. Slightly heavier than the Nikon 17-55.


Limited compare to a 17-55 yes, but still very useful.

It covers 28-35-50mm equivalent primes and everything in between in a single lense.



Aug 09, 2013 at 12:46 PM
ocir
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · Sigma 18-35 1.8 or Nikkor 17-55 2.8


It covers 28-35-50mm equivalent primes and everything in between in a single lense.




I see the 28-35 but 50 Are you referring to DX crop?



Aug 09, 2013 at 12:51 PM
dilla712
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · Sigma 18-35 1.8 or Nikkor 17-55 2.8


ocir wrote:
I see the 28-35 but 50 Are you referring to DX crop?


Did you jump into FX equivalents?



Aug 09, 2013 at 01:07 PM
ocir
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · Sigma 18-35 1.8 or Nikkor 17-55 2.8


dilla712 wrote:
Did you jump into FX equivalents?



No, not me. That was my question to DTOB.



Aug 09, 2013 at 01:08 PM
DTOB
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · Sigma 18-35 1.8 or Nikkor 17-55 2.8


ocir wrote:
I see the 28-35 but 50 Are you referring to DX crop?


It goes from 18-35 right?

18*1.5=27
23*1.5=34.5
35*1.5=52.5

I did say equivalent, meaning FX equivalent.



Aug 09, 2013 at 01:13 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



ocir
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · Sigma 18-35 1.8 or Nikkor 17-55 2.8


Still a very limited range and with your argument, the the OP is better off with the 17-55 which covers a much wider range from 24-80.


Aug 09, 2013 at 01:26 PM
DTOB
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · Sigma 18-35 1.8 or Nikkor 17-55 2.8


I guess it depends on how you shoot. I do 90% of my stuff with 28-35-55 primes. 85mm lenses and equivs are a no-mans land for me. Awkward.

To say it is "very limited" is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? In turn one could say that the 17-55 is very limited, because it only goes to 2.8.

IMO, limitations lead to creativity.



Aug 09, 2013 at 01:31 PM
BenV
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · Sigma 18-35 1.8 or Nikkor 17-55 2.8


I'd go with the Sigma, they've really impressed me as of late.


Aug 09, 2013 at 01:55 PM
miguellara
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · Sigma 18-35 1.8 or Nikkor 17-55 2.8


Get the 18-35mm and if you could pair it with a 85mm f/1.8, I think it would be a very versatile and economic combo.

That's what I did, I haven't received my 18-35mm yet.... but I believe that paired with my 85mm f/1.8g I would be able to cover most of my photography.

Just a thought.




Aug 09, 2013 at 05:17 PM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · Sigma 18-35 1.8 or Nikkor 17-55 2.8


It depends what you plan on using it for ... 35mm is kind of short even on DX. I find mid-range zooms most usable when they go from the long WA to the short tele.

If you need spead, salt in a prime.



Aug 09, 2013 at 07:45 PM
Tim Ashton
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · Sigma 18-35 1.8 or Nikkor 17-55 2.8


OK. 1.8 it might be, but sharper than the 17-55 in real use?
Believe it when I see it
1/3 crop of a very uncooperative subject



Đ Tim Ashton 2013

  NIKON D7000    17.0-55.0 mm f/2.8 lens    17mm    f/8.0    1/250s    100 ISO    +0.3 EV  




Aug 10, 2013 at 12:09 AM
the solitaire
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · Sigma 18-35 1.8 or Nikkor 17-55 2.8


I guess I am among the ones who fails to see the limitations in a 18-35mm zoom. Either on FX or on DX it is a very useful range and combined with a tele lens will cover all the focal lengths you need.

An added benefit of the smaller zoom range often is less scary types of distortion. Lenses that go through a wider range of focal lengths often combine this with producing funny moustache shaped or wavy distortions you canīt remove in PP.

I recently bought a 28mm prime for use on a DX camera. Now there is limited range. Itīs still a great lens and used well it can help make great pictures.

I think I would rather pick up an AF-S 17-35 f2.8 zoom but thatīs personal preferences.



Aug 10, 2013 at 06:11 AM
pdxflint
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · Sigma 18-35 1.8 or Nikkor 17-55 2.8


I won't say anything negative about the Sigma, since it's probably a pretty good lens, but contrary to what someone here wrote, the 17-55 is actually a stellar lens, one of Nikon's best. Take that to the bank. There are other good lenses, but the 17-55 is seriously good at what it does... and if you have the talent, can create great images. I seriously doubt that lens would be the limiting factor in most photographer's results. I won't tell you which lens you should buy, but don't be easily dissuaded by other's comments... just saying.


Aug 10, 2013 at 11:31 AM
Elan II
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · Sigma 18-35 1.8 or Nikkor 17-55 2.8


Similar sentiment to pdxflint here. If I didn't already own the 17-55, I might have picked the Sigma on paper. But I do own it and I know what it can do, so no way I'd trade it for the Sigma.





Aug 10, 2013 at 08:51 PM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · Sigma 18-35 1.8 or Nikkor 17-55 2.8


Again, it boils down to what you need. More speed over a more limited range or a greater range but with a more limited aperture.

I have a 17-55 and I can tell you it is TACK sharp ... a superb performer. The only lens that I own that is sharper is my 300 f/2.8 AFS VR. AF on the 17-55 is fast and accurate, even for moving objects moving towards or away from you and the zoom is smooth.



Aug 11, 2013 at 12:40 AM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password