Sigma 17-50 vs Nikkor 18-105 VR

A

alfaholic

Banned
Hello everyone...

I have 18-105, and now after more than two years of owning this lens I can say that I learned how to use it, actually I stopped listening to the purists about "kit lenses are not good" and started to use the lens the way it should be used.

I would like to upgrade, if I can use that term, so I am thinking about Sigma 17-50, which is 370 Euro here where I am from, and I am ready to spend that kind of money if this lens will give me the same IQ as my 18-105, just with f2.8 aperture.
I am saying at least the same as 18-105 because my friend told me that Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 17-50 are just too cheap, and that f2.8 is just a marketing trick, they are soft, and very bad, but I would be happy if this lens has better IQ than average 18-105 kit lens.
I saw so many reviews about this lens, and so many people like it, but I really do not know what to think.
 
F

Felisek

Senior Member
alfaholic said:
Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 17-50 are just too cheap, and that f2.8 is just a marketing trick, they are soft, and very bad, but I would be happy if this lens has better IQ than average 18-105 kit lens.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree with this assessment. I'm more than happy with my Sigma 17-50. I think it is very sharp and gives excellent IQ. You can see a few examples.
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
alfaholic said:
Hello everyone...

I have 18-105, and now after more than two years of owning this lens I can say that I learned how to use it, actually I stopped listening to the purists about "kit lenses are not good" and started to use the lens the way it should be used.

I would like to upgrade, if I can use that term, so I am thinking about Sigma 17-50, which is 370 Euro here where I am from, and I am ready to spend that kind of money if this lens will give me the same IQ as my 18-105, just with f2.8 aperture.
I am saying at least the same as 18-105 because my friend told me that Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 17-50 are just too cheap, and that f2.8 is just a marketing trick, they are soft, and very bad, but I would be happy if this lens has better IQ than average 18-105 kit lens.
I saw so many reviews about this lens, and so many people like it, but I really do not know what to think.
Click to expand...
The Sigma 17-50mm is an excellent lens. Very sharp IQ (better the Nikon equivalent) with well controlled distortion by all reports. There is some chromatic aberration to deal with, but it's no worse, really, than the Nikon version and is easily corrected for in post processing. It will also have slightly better sharpness than your Nikon 18-105mm.
 
A

alfaholic

Banned
Thank you all...

Felisek said:
I completely disagree with this assessment. I'm more than happy with my Sigma 17-50. I think it is very sharp and gives excellent IQ. You can see a few examples.
Click to expand...

Your photos are amazing. I know it is mostly because of your skils, but I like what I see, so if I do not get similar results I will know that it is not because of my gear. :)

I will buy this Sigma. Also I will sell my 50mm f1.8 D, it is too narow on my D7000 and for my photography, but this Sigma will give me 50mm with f2.8, which is good enough because 50mm D is soft below f3.5, which is not the case with 35mm.

Later if I do not miss that extra range from 18-105, I will sell that one as well.
I like it to be simple, two lenses setup will be perfect for me.
 
Last edited:
G

Gonçalo Marrafa

New member
Great pics!

Here's a little OT question: i noticed you're using a D7100. I have one also and plan on buying the Sigma. I've read the lens has some issues with this camera, in image reviewing and with the image stabilization feature (aparently it doesn't turn off). Have you encountered any of theses issues with your copy?

Thanks in advance.
 
Top