Nikon 18-200 vs. Sigma 17-50

[Geoffc]

Having been a big fan of the 18-200 for many years my better half has recently started saying how much better the images from her 35mm 1.8g and 70-200 2.8 are by comparison. Specifically the sharpness. If the light is bright I find the 18-200 does a great job for such a versatile lens, but it does have limitations.

In anticipation of our forthcoming holiday I was wondering if the Sigma 17-50 would be a good upgrade (I know it's cheaper) in terms of image quality. I know you obviously lose quite a bit of zoom, however when I moved to FX I went from 18-200 on DX to 24-120 on FX for the same general type photography. That's a big change in focal length. To be honest a rarely find it cause me a problem and I just attach a bigger lens if I need to.

Has anybody owned both and can give a view if it's worth £300 to upgrade for image quality. Looking at DXO you would say yes, but that's just numbers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[singlerosa_RIP]

I vote get the better lens (even if it isn't the Nikon ) and borrow your wife's 70-200 when you need the reach.

 

[Geoffc]

I vote get the better lens (even if it isn't the Nikon ) and borrow your wife's 70-200 when you need the reach.

We are in the fortunate position the we have a 70-200 vrii each. It gets expensive when you share a hobby!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[singlerosa_RIP]

I had the 18-200 and when I got my D600 a year ago, I was in a similar situation. The 18-200 wasn't very good on FX and I wasn't going to be using my D7000 as my main body, so I sold the 18-200 to fund a 24-85 for the D600 as my lightweight walk around lens. I also ended up selling my 17-55DX, leaving my D7000 as a backup body and for use in long reach situations and for macro. I don't have an all purpose walk around lens to cover most situations and so far, it hasn't been an issue. Maybe I'm missing a shot here and there, but the quality of the shots I get is much better with fast glass (24-70, 70-200).

 

[Marcel]

I don't have the Sigma but the Tamron 17-50 2.8. I can vouch for it being lots sharper than the 18-200 and IT'S 2.8 which makes it very interesting when you want to have some subject separation.

 

[Geoffc]

I don't have the Sigma but the Tamron 17-50 2.8. I can vouch for it being lots sharper than the 18-200 and IT'S 2.8 which makes it very interesting when you want to have some subject separation.

Thanks Marcel. I think many reviews consider the Tamron and Sigma to be very close to each other so that's good news. As ever my phase of careful consideration lasted but a couple of hours. My wife is now the proud owner of the Sigma. Let's hope she likes it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Marcel]

Thanks Marcel. I think many reviews consider the Tamron and Sigma to be very close to each other so that's good news. As ever my phase of careful consideration lasted but a couple of hours. My wife is now the proud owner of the Sigma. Let's hope she likes it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I'm sure she will. But let us know anyway. Happy holidays

 

[SkvLTD]

Waaaaaaait, you already own an FX zoom, albeit not 2.8, and you want to put a DX lens on FX body?? Save your money for 24-70 2.8 and don't waste the 800's potential.

 

[Geoffc]

Waaaaaaait, you already own an FX zoom, albeit not 2.8, and you want to put a DX lens on FX body?? Save your money for 24-70 2.8 and don't waste the 800's potential.

LOL, I'm not completely mad. Sorry if it wasn't clear but the lens was for my wife as she would then have Tokina 11-16 2.8, Sigma 17-50 2.8, Nikon 70-200 VR II 2.8 as her trinity so to speak. She also has the Nikon 10.5 2.8 fisheye, 35mm 1.8g and Tamron 90mm macro to answer her other requirements. Good as the 18-200 is as a general purpose lens, in the mid range it was the only compromise she had in terms of image quality hence the Sigma. I think she now has a good DX line up and is pretty much what I would be shooting if I my D7100 was my main camera. Maybe not the 10.5 fisheye but she loves it!!

When I went FX I made a conscious decision to get the 16-35 F4 and 24-120 F4 versus the 14-24 and 24-70 2.8 lenses because they better suited my needs with more reach and VR. Cost didn't really come into the equation, it was just a nice bonus. I never tend to need/miss the 2.8 for light reasons so the only thing I lose is shallower DOF. I have revisited the 24-70 thinking several times and always end up concluding that the 24-120 is better for my personal use in the mid range. I've seen a lot of people on forums go from the 24-70 to the 24-120 because the package is a better fit for them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD