Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 Vs. Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by hoonie, Aug 12, 2006.

  1. I was wondering does anyone had a chance to use Sigma's 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 with
    Nikon D70s? If so how was the performance? I take lot of pictures in a dark
    concert type of photos and I'm in the market of buying a f/2.8 speed lens and I
    know that Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX is a great lens but price is
    really high... Please let me know if it is even worth it to buy the sigma or
    should I wait until I have the money to buy the Nikon?... (thank you for taking
    a time to read and answering my question)
     
  2. ky2

    ky2

    I don't have the Nikkor zoom myself, but if I were you, I would save up.
     
  3. save up. but if you need to get one right now, look into the tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 also and compare it with the sigma.
     
  4. Hi, Chunghoon,

    Here you can refer to the test of Sigma 17-70:

    http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1770_2845/index.htm

    and that of Nikon 17-55:

    http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_1755_28/index.htm

    Although the camera used for each test is different (Canon EOS 350D for Sigma and Nikon D200 for Nikon), these tests should give you some useful info.
     
  5. If you had a choice between a Hyundai Tiburon and a Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution, which
    would you take? Would you save up for the Lancer, or would you buy the Tiburon and wish
    you'd bought the Lancer for the rest of your life?
     
  6. I took some 30 exposures with the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 lens
    using a D200. I referenced these shots against an AIS20/2.8,
    AIS50/1.4 and a 24-120/3.5-5.6.

    The Sigma lens is quite good, even at the edges from about f5.
    I got the lens right out of the box from the Sigma importer and
    used it without filter or its lens shade.

    If the edges aren't important to you,
    than 1 stop less than maxAp produces quality images at all FLs.

    At 20mm, it's nearly as good as the prime 20mm.
    At 50mm it's very good but not a match for the 50 prime.
    At FLs from 28-35mm it betters the 24-120, from 35-70
    it betters by a wee bit the 24-120. Oh, and by the way,
    from 28-70mm my 24-120 delivers very crisp and contrasty
    images. I regard it as a highly suitable, usable lens.

    Exposures were taken at f4, 5.6 and 8. Distances were < 1M,
    and just short of infinity. The Sigma lens and the
    Nikkor were focussed with AF. ISO was 400, the day was bright
    and hazy, and a 1/2 stop of overexposure was used.

    I think photozone (mentioned above) gives an accurate description of
    this lens. Read Klaus's piece carefully as I think it's the most
    accurate review (for this lens, at any rate) on the net.

    I have no opinion as to whether this lens would suit your requirements.
    Without ever having seen the Nikkor 17-55, I'm sure it is superior to the
    Sigma 17-70. Saving your money is always a good idea though
    no matter which lens you wind up with.

    I did not buy the Sigma 17-70 because I did not originally intend to.
    I went to the importer to check out the Sigma 10-20. This lens
    I bought.

    Good luck with your decision.
     
  7. I'd look seriously into Ramon's suggestion. The Tamron 17-50 is a constant f2.8 throughout the range and thus fits your needs (as you described them) better than the Sigma. In addition, it compares very will with the Nikkor 17-55, see:
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=18754749
     
  8. Buy or borrow the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX . It is better lens. Really it is.
     

Share This Page