Which lens Sigma 17-50mm/f2.8 or Nikon 24-70mm/f2.8

Which lens Sigma 17-50mm/f2.8 or Nikon 24-70mm/f2.8?

Both are good but the Nikon is 3 times the cost. The additional lens will supplement my Nikon 70-200 VR I and a Tamron 18-270.

I am planning on using them for portrait and everyday general use.

If you have one or both, how do you tend to use them?

The cheapest solution is to buy only once. Bite the bullet and get the 24-70 2,8. You will end up getting it anyway, ask me how I know.
Another choice could be the 17-55 2,8 from Nikon, but only if you don't plan on getting upgraded to the fX system in the future. I have both the Tamron 17-50 and the Nikon 17-55 and the Nikon is on my D7000 most of the time. It's quite an improvement over my 18-105 and 18-200.

Marcel said:

Bite the bullet and get the 24-70 2,8. You will end up getting it anyway, ask me how I know.

Click to expand...

Marcel, How do you know? What didn't you like about the Sigma? I have read a lot of people are happy with the Sigma, is there that much of a difference? I'm not interested in specs. More interested in side by side shots taken with the two. Most complaints I have read about Simga is they are a little soft on the long end. Just wondering.

AxeMan said:

Marcel, How do you know? What didn't you like about the Sigma? I have read a lot of people are happy with the Sigma, is there that much of a difference? I'm not interested in specs. More interested in side by side shots taken with the two. Most complaints I have read about Simga is they are a little soft on the long end. Just wondering.

Click to expand...

Hi Rick, no, I don't know about the sigma 17-50 2.8. I only know about the Tamron and the Nikon (17-50 and 17-55). The image quality is close but the construction is better with the Nikon. The original poster was asking about sigma 17-50 vs Nikon 24-70. I was barely mentioning that the 24-70 is FX while the other is not. Now I've read great reviews about the Sigma 24-70 and the Tamron 28-75. Both cover FX and are apparently very sharp. I know the Nikons are more expensive, but if you ever want to trade, you should get more of your money back with the Nikon.

For comparaison, have a look at this link: Advanced Search
You can select any lens in combination with any body and look at pictures produced with that particular combination (many at full size).

I have to say that I'm quite happy with the two sigmas I have (10-20 3,5-5,6 and 105 2.8 macro) and am seriously considering the 50 1.4 and the 85 1.4 from Sigma.

There is enough choices to please everybody, but personally, I know that I sometimes buy the one that seems to be the bargain and then decide later to get the more expensive one. So for me, getting the more expensive one to start with is less expensive. But that's my problem and some others wouldn't do what I do.

Thanks for your responses. I know the Nikon is the best but I was hoping that someone would say something like "the sigma is so close it's really hard to tell them apart and the optical stabilization is a real plus, go for it and save the money." oh well, I should have known better.

Thanks

What camera do you have? If it is a DX body then the 24-70mm, while a terrific lens, probably is not the best choice for an all-around lens as on a DX body it is equivalent to a 36-105mm thereby giving you only a slight wide-angle. A lens like the AF-S DX 17-55mm f/2.8G would make for a better pairing with your 70-200.

invisionz said:

Thanks for your responses. I know the Nikon is the best but I was hoping that someone would say something like "the sigma is so close it's really hard to tell them apart and the optical stabilization is a real plus, go for it and save the money." oh well, I should have known better.

Thanks

Click to expand...

Well, I can say that you probably would not be disapointed with the Tamron 17-50. You probably could get it for about 550 with OS. If you are just taking pictures as a hobby, it could probably take you a long long way. Maybe I'm getting a little snobby and just like to have the Nikon thing on my lenses… For some, it takes a lifetime to learn. So, if money is a factor, go for the Tamron or Sigma and you will love them.

From the photos and reviews that I have seen I won't touch anything Sigma. I agree with the previous statements. If you have a DX body you might want to look at the 17-55 f/2.8
My suggestion when looking at expensive lenses is to rent them and use them before buying them.

I have the Nikon 70-200VR F2.8 and the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM that I use on my Nikon D7000. I do have several other lenses but in my opinion these pretty much cover everything I need. The Sigma has stabilization in it and the Nikon does not. I have taken many handheld pictures at 1/5 sec with the Sigma that are very sharp. I have a gallery of pictures that I have taken at Disney World this Christmas that can be viewed HERE and all the pictures in the gallery were taken with the Sigma 17-50mm with the exception of the race car and I used my Nikon 18-200VR for that one shot. I am very pleased with this lens and after doing much research chose it over the Nikon. I have read many reviews of owners that have had both and say that the Sigma is either very close to the Nikon or some even like it better. I have four Nikon lenses and two Sigmas and I use this the most out of all six lenses, Jeff

I would like to add that Sigma makes several levels of lenses so when you compare the Sigma lens I am talking about make sure it is the same model and not one of the lower end lenses that you can get from Sigma. I personally think this is a great lens. I have been shooting for forty one years and am very pleased with this lens and think you would be also. I did a quick look at the pictures in my Disney gallery and none were real slow but the one of the big golf ball or Spaceship Earth in my gallery was handheld at 1/20 of a sec and it looks reasonably sharp.

Yes, the 17-50 f2.8 is the way to go. I am using the D300 and previously owned the kit lens 18-105. Although it is a fantastic lens, it can't perform under low light without flash.

I have since replace it with a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non VC. For this range, I don't think VC is critical. My nikon 50 mm f1.8 also has no VR. Going up to 200 and above, VR becomes important I think.

I agree that the longer the focal length the more you need stabilization due to the fact that the longer the lens the more it will magnify any camera movement. But if you have camera movement at any range, even with a wide angle, it will cause blurring in the picture but just to a lesser degree. Having stabilization will help any time slower shutter speeds are used or you can't hold the camera perfectly still, Jeff

In the best situation, having a tripod would be great. However for street photography or Candid shots, most times we need fast action.

Having a fast lens and training to have a pair of steady hands definitely help.

One thing I forgot to mention is that I myself find that having the 17mm wide end is very helpful and the Nikon is much wider at 24mm. It totally depends on which one the individual finds more useful. The Nikon is a little longer at 70mm end but from my experience I find the wider capability of the Sigma 17-50 F2.8 to be more important and useful. I find this lens on my camera most of the time and the stabilization works well and really comes in handy also, Jeff

Yes I agree too. 17 to 24 makes a different but 50 to 70 not that significant. I have yet to verify if VR/VC for 50 and below is crucial or not.

So far, I find the f2.8 to be important when shooting indoor without flash.

Bringing it to a close, I ended up getting the 24-70mm and I love this lens. I Tested it out with some portrait and general photos and it is a great lens. 2 things really helped me make up my mind were the difference between 17 and 24 focal lengths is a matter of a few steps and the weather sealing. This lens compliments my 70-200mm VR but I think the 24-70mm is slightly better; I know I will use it more.

Thank you all for sharing your opinions and making suggestions, I really appreciate it.

You should be very happy with that lens. For my use I just find that I need and use the wider ability of the 17mm and stabilization much more. I can crop if needed to get a little closer but there isn't much you can do if a wider view is needed. We all have different wants and needs and that lens should serve you very well. After you have it a little while let us know what you think of it, Jeff

invisionz said:

Bringing it to a close, I ended up getting the 24-70mm and I love this lens. I Tested it out with some portrait and general photos and it is a great lens. 2 things really helped me make up my mind were the difference between 17 and 24 focal lengths is a matter of a few steps and the weather sealing. This lens compliments my 70-200mm VR but I think the 24-70mm is slightly better; I know I will use it more.

Thank you all for sharing your opinions and making suggestions, I really appreciate it.

Click to expand...

So, did you get the Sigma or the Nikon? Both have a 24-70.

The Nikon. Sorry for the confusion.

Great choice my friend. You'll just never regret it.

I have never owned or try the nikon 24-70 but I am sure it was a great lens having experienced nikon lenses. The only 2 reasons why I didn't buy that are due to 1st cost and 2nd the 24 mm may not be wide enough for my DX camera.

I had the opportunity to try out my Tamron 17-50 non-vc lens last Sunday. This is a shot taken using the lens. A pair of tourists are having great fun in Sentosa, Singapore.