Nikon 18-105 or sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5

Hi folks

Looking for a bit of guidance, I bought a D200 not long ago however haven't managed to get out and enjoy it yet. I am pretty keen on the Nikon 18-105 which I know is a great lense maybe bar the plastic mount though with care that's not a problem tbh. I'm not an expert by any means and some of the weaknesses in lenses tbh I wont spot. However I have just found on a popular Internet auction the sigma 17-70 f2.8 which I realise will give me lower light photos. I've looked on pixel peeper site and with the D200 for example there are some super shots!! I'd fancied the idea of all Nikon lenses for future trade in value however both are same price second hand in good condition and both these lenses are probably for keeps. The sigma also offers macro. Any ideas would be much appreciated, thanks folks.




Gav

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you can afford it, get both. If you don't have the budget for both, get the 17-70.

By the way.......what is tbh? You mention it twice. I'm not familiar with this.

Hi jack

Tbh means "to be honest" sorry for the confusion bet you were scratching your head at that one

The sigma doesn't have the image stabilisation feature, it was the older model. The guy emailed me back to tell me. I'll go for the Nikon 18-105 I know you have it and like it.

Cheers

Gav


Gav

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

in terms of value the Sigma 2.8 will hold its value far more than a variable aperture kit lens. I would have gone for the sigma personally. You will get a little more range from the 105, but the quality will suffer. not having OS isn't that big of a deal for that sigma range.

gav329 said:

Hi jack

Tbh means "to be honest" sorry for the confusion bet you were scratching your head at that one

The sigma doesn't have the image stabilisation feature, it was the older model. The guy emailed me back to tell me. I'll go for the Nikon 18-105 I know you have it and like it.

Cheers

Gav


Gav

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Image Stabilization (IS) and Vibration Reduction (VR) is not always necessary. Put the 17-70 on your camera, put the camera on a tripod and shoot in Manual Mode. You'll be amazed at the quality of shot you get.

thanks jack

I'll shop around see what I can get then. Interesting about the VR or OS.

cheers

Hi Joe

Thanks for the info regarding the 2.8 a good point I suppose about the fixed apperature. I'm still learning and that was good to know, I'll bear it mind. I think I'll need to go 3rd party to get 2.8's, Nikon seem to like a fortune for theirs though no doubt they are very good.

Gav

There is nothing wrong with going 3rd party on 2.8 lenses. Just read reveiws and research what you are buying. For example, I just picked up and am LOVING my Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS....sure, there are a few, hardly noticable downfalls from the Nikon Version, like focus speeds (and i mean minicule differences) but I get tack sharp pictures for HALF the cost of Nikons. Now Tamrons reviews for this lens were not so great, which Is why i steered away from them. Someday, when I do decide to upgrade to Nikons 70-200....I can sell my Sigma for close to what I paid for it because it holds its value.

Thanks joe funnily enough I'm online just now checking reviews. One I had seen was the tamron (hmmm maybe not?) 17-50 f2.8 which gets lots of good reviews. I have a sigma 28mm for my old film Pentax and its a great lense very well built. I'll keep looking at the various 2.8's. I'm cool about 3rd party, my post maybe sounded a bit snobbish but I'm happy to buy them and I'm not a good enough photographer to notice a lot that you guys probably instantly see. I'm just wanting a good value lens of decent build and image quality really.

Thanks for taking the time to reply I appreciate it.

Gav


Gav

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk