Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
Nikon 18-200 vs. Sigma 17-50
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Geoffc" data-source="post: 309311" data-attributes="member: 8705"><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Geoffc, post: 309311, member: 8705"] 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 [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
Nikon 18-200 vs. Sigma 17-50
Top