D7000 with sigma 17-70?

<p>Finally, some dealers are having D7000 without kit lens. So, planning it with sigma 17-70<br>

(2.8 to 4) OS. Read good reviews about this lens. Only other choices seems to be Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and Tamron 28-70 f/2.8. But sigma has macro also. Is constant 2.8 is important, especially if you want good bokeh? </p>

<p>What's the max aperture of the 17-70 @ 50mm? If it's say f/3.5 then you are kinda okay really compared to getting the 17-50 2.8.</p>

<p>Constant 2.8 is useful in lower light and portrait shooting (though a fast prime is better for that) but the Sigma is a great everyday lens. If I were buying a DX camera now and needed a normal use lens, it would be on my short list.</p>

<p>If you want macro, get a true macro lens that's optimized to focus close, zooms aren't</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is constant 2.8 is important, especially if you want good bokeh?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The quality of bokeh is not linked to aperture size. Shooting wider will reduce the depth of focus and throw more of the overall scene out of focus, but the quality of the bokeh that results is dependent upon the formation of the lens, design and overall quality.</p>

<p>For what it's worth - I use a Tamron 17-50 f2.8, and have not been disappointed with it. It is not as strong when wide, and I personally find it at its best from 24-50, but I knew that before I bought it - and I have the 12-24 Nikon DX.</p>

<p>For me it is a very useful walk-around, and covers most of the range that I find myself needing when shooting whilst wandering around.</p>

<p> Nish it is 3.5 at 43 and 4 at 50, 60 and 70</p>

 

<p>There is no quality of bokeh, because bokeh means: "the quality of the OOF area's" and is depending on the construction of your lens and aperture.</p>

<p>Anil, that'd mean a 1-stop disadvantage at 50 mm compared to the other lenses. At 50 mm even f/2.8 is barely enough to give you decent background blur (unless you move really close to the subject), so if that's important enough to you, then you'd probably want one of the constant aperture lenses.</p>

<p>The Tamron 17-50 f2,8 is a step ahead over the normal kit lens. I have the NikKor 17-55 f2,8 too, and to compare, the Nikon is best built and sharper wide at the long end, but the Tamron makes its job very well and due its price (half the Nikon price) is a very good walk around lens. I recomend this lens, the non VR or VC version, I have readed the new VC version is worst.</p>

<p>if longer range is more important than constant 2.8 get the sigma. otherwise get the tamron. btw the newest OS HSM model of the 17-70 doesnt have as good close-focus as its predecessor. OTOH the nikon 28-105 goes to 1:2 and is only f/4.5 on the long end.</p>

 

<p>I have the Tamron 28-75 2.8 and it makes a really excellent portrait lens. Unfortunately you do give up the wide end, and I find when using it as a walk-around lens I do miss the wider shots, or I have to stitch shots later. But for portrait and/or family shots, which is what I assume you are thinking of when you talk about wanting nice bokeh, it is a great combination of size/weight, range coverage, and speed(meaning the 2.8).</p>

<p>In a question like this I think it would help us to know what you are shooting. At the end of the day it's about balance, can't have it all at the price point we are discussing, and all of those lenses have their advantages and disadvantages. Only you know what is of most importance to you.</p>

 

 

<p>Sorry, double post...</p>

<p>Thanks all. James, I saw sample photos of Tamron 28-75 2.8. They are better than sigma 17-70. On most occasions, i shoot people, events or streets. Hope 28 will be "wide enough" in D7000 for such shots. I am not sure whether dealer here has this lens. I will find out this weekend. Hope this lens has only one version. The price I saw on Web is around $380 and 17-70 Web price is around $ 449.</p>

<p>Thanks all. James, I saw sample photos of Tamron 28-75 2.8. They are better than sigma 17-70. On most occasions, i shoot people, events or streets. Hope 28 will be "wide enough" in D7000 for such shots. I am not sure whether dealer here has this lens. I will find out this weekend. Hope this lens has only one version. The price I saw on Web is around $380 and 17-70 Web price is around $ 449.</p>

<p>I used to have a Sigma 17-70 (non VC version) and still have a Tamron 28-75/2.8. In my experience the Tamron isn't the sharpest lens in the bag when wide open, it wants to be stopped down to f/4. I haven't done a quantitative analysis but I think the Sigma might be sharper.</p>

<p>Thanks all. Is Tamron 28-75/2.8 coming with image stabilizer?</p>

<p>I've never understood this sort of thinking. Why would you pair mediocre glass with this wonderful high-rez camera? In this focal length (or any other) find a used Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 and reap the benefits of great glass. You'll probably be able to sell the Nikon depending on condition for close to what you paid for it. Certainly not so with a third party lens. Example: I purchased new a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR/AFS in 2003 for $1600, used it for 7 years and sold it last week for $1570. If you want to shoot macro, buy a Nikon dedicated macro. The D7000 allows you to utilize older MF Nikon ais glass of which there is a large selection available including MF macro lenses.<br>

Regards,<br>

Dave</p>

<p>Thanks Dave. Anyway $1500 for a lens is not in my budget now! Plus if there is just $30 difference between used one and new one, what is the point in going for a used one?</p>

<p>I TOTALLY agree with your last statement Anil. If you haven't bought your camera yet, you might want to consider the Nikon 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR. That is a very good lens for about the same price of the Sigma, and you will be more happy with the Nikon lens. This is coming from a photographer who plans to switch to Sigma (Sigma SD1 camera and Sigma lenses). I also suggest you get an old 50mm manual focus lens at keh.com - a 50mm f1.8 D would be better if you hate manual focus or something, but you'll find that shooting portraits at wide apertures (f2 or wider) requires a little manual focus capability anyway. One of my favorite Nikon lenses is the 135mm f2 DC. Look into that lens (it's expensive).<br>

-<br>

The reason I suggest the Nikon is that f4 vs. f5.6 is really not much improvement, and the f2.8 of the Sigma is not much better than the f3.5 maximum aperture of the Nikon in the wide end of the zoom range, and the Nikon lenses are usually just better at producing clear images. Your resale value in the Nikon lens will be better too. You'll find that you normally have to stop down to f8 or f11 to get the best quality image from either lens anyway, but the Nikon will out-perform the Sigma, offer you 16-85mm instead of 17-70mm, and since it costs about the same, there really is not reason to get the Sigma.<br>

-<br>

Good luck in your decision Anil.</p>

<p>The Nikon 16-85 lens costs $170 more than that Sigma, and aside from having slightly more zoom range it's worse. I don't understand why some of you guys recommend it to <em>every single DX camera user who asks about lenses</em>.</p>

<p>Sorry Andrew, I was thinking of the price for the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 EX OS. I still think she would be happier with the Nikon lens, but if the picture is truly better from the Sigma I can't say I haven't done a head-to-head comparison. I'd say they'd be about the same IQ, but the Nikon will give a tiny bit wider image and a little bit more magnified image at the long end. The Nikon will surely sell better/faster in the event she upgrades at some point to a 24-70 f2.8 and the amazing 14-24 f2.8 Nikon lens.</p>