17-35mm Tamron Sigma or Nikon

[burnz]

I hoping that im not going over a subject that has previously been discussed,

but im wanted to get a clear idea of what people though about the Sigma , Tamron

and Nikon 17-35mm Lens. More specifically the Tamron and Sigma as they are

priced nearly the same. I have read the spec of each Lens and on paper i can see

the pros and cons of each, but i wanted to gauge what people thought. I will

getting one of these lenses, which one i dont know. I know the Nikon is priced

nearly 3 times as much as the others, but is it worth it? Im not a professional

photographer, but i do believe that should try and use the best. I will invest

in the Nikon if its superiority warrants the cost over the others. I would also

like people opinion of the 17-35mm Tamron SP Di and the Sigma DG HSM.

 

Your thoughts.....

[erik_loza]

Couldn't comment on the Sigma or Tamron, but I will tell you that if my Nikkor 17-35mm

fell apart tomorrow, I would have my credit card out again faster than you could blink. Yes,

it's that special of a lens.

[burnz]

What makes it so good? Is it the glass? speed?

[erik_loza]

It's just one of Nikon's top of the line zooms and they pulled out all the stops when they

made it. Build quality is terrific; much more solid than other third-party zooms in the

same range that I have handled. It is highly corrected for distortion throughout most of its

range and seems to perform well when shot wide open (an area where many zooms

struggle).

 

Before I bought mine, my super-wide was a 20mm f2.8 AF. What sold me on the 17

-35mm was borrowing a friend's. Not only was it sharper than mine, but the 20mm always

had a somewhat flat color rendition that I never really cared for and the zoom has

excellent color fidelity. Also, the zoom's sharpness at near-focus, is superior to my old

prime.

 

One last factor that was a decision-maker for me: Resale value. I bought my lens, used, for

$1K a few years ago. Guess what used ones sell for these days? Still about $1K. So, if I ever

needed to part with it, how much did it really cost me to use a top-of-the-

line lens for the years I've owned it? That being said, I don't plan on ever parting with mine

and even if I own it for only 10 years, that's $100 per year, which makes sense to me.

 

You might go to a local store and handle these three for yourself. Ultimately, it is your

wallet and I can only relay what I like about it. Good luck in your search.

[paddler_b]

17-35mm is sharper, renders colour better, resists flare/ghosting almost enitrely(coated filter required), distortion is under control or non-existent, it has no colour fringing. Do you need more reason? My reference for all the above claims is my comparison with CZ21mm Biogon. Don't get me wrong nikkor won't beat Biogon in performance but it comes darn very close, I rarely take out my contax g2+21 since I got this lens. So, if your bank account can pull it off, get nikkor. It even worth sleeping on the coach for a week or so:-)

 

Just a warning, it takes awhile to learn how to focus with it below 22mm. It's just image is to small for AF sensor or your eye. I zoom in, focus and then back out. Yes, it keeps it focus.

 

koorus

[Ed_Ingold]

The Nikkor 17-35/2.8 AFS focuses equally well at any focal length - quickly and accurately. It does not, however, hold focus perfectly as it zooms - no zoom lens does and particularly not AFS zoom lenses. You can demonstrate this for yourself in about 15 seconds by observing the AF action following a zoom change.

 

Focus deviation is a design parameter which is optimized only at the expense of some other characteristic. The Nikkor f/2.8 zooms are particularly sharp and distortion-free, which I suspect is more important than focus deviation, considering the speed of AFS.

[burnz]

Does anyone have any input with the Tokina and Sigma Lens comparison?

[vincenzo_maielli]

Hi, dear friend. If you can afford, buy the Nikkor. If you can't afford, buy The SP Tamron.

Ciao

 

Vincenzo Maielli

[james_bennett3]

Interesting thread, as I've been considering the the 17-35 Nikon as well.

 

Question: How does it compare to the 17-55 2.8 DX, and the 28-70 2.8 Nikkors?? These are the other lenses I've been considering. And considering. And considering...

 

I currently shoot with a D70, and am aware of the 1.5x factor. I currently have the 18-70 kit lens, as well as a Sigma 10-20 and 30 1.4. I am looking to purchase my first general purpose "pro-glass" lens; one of the above 3.

 

 

Sean.

[burnz]

Sean how do you find the 10-20mm Sigma? What did you intend to take with this lens?

[erik_loza]

The D70s + 17-35mm is the package we use to shoot about 75% of my company's website

and magazine ads. In fact, I just shot an ad that will be a two-page spread with this kit. If

this is a focal range that works for you, you won't be disappointed. Good luck<div></div>

[Ed_Ingold]

James,

 

The 28-70/2.8 AFS is an incredible lens, and a good companion for the 17-35 if you want complete compatibility with film (I bought mine before digital). A 17-35 is more useful for events and weddings than the 28-70, although the 28-70 is my preferred lens for formal groups. The 28-70 is also outstanding for landscapes, where you want as much detail as possible for the medium. In practice, it is nearly as sharp on a D2x as an Hasselblad at the same print size.

 

There are various opinions on the quality of the 17-55, generally favorable. It seems that some parts of the range are better, others not. The differences are largely pedantic. The 17-55 is the "right" range for events, and would eliminate nearly all lens changes. The 17-55 is well paired with a 70-200/2.8 AFS VR. If I were starting up, I would get this lens in preference to the 17-35 (I haven't shot 35mm film in over 3 years).

[Ed_Ingold]

Erik (OT)

 

Do you know why the device in your picture is called a "safety cutter" when the blade is only held in place with a set screw?

 

It takes a skilled setup man to make this cutter ready. Perhaps "safety" refers to "job security".

[sean_flanigan]

Matt, it sounds to me as if you are looking for someone here to convince you that a Sigma or Tamron will be as good as a Nikkor, I will tell you now there is no way either of those lenses touch the Nikkor in the quality departmentment. This is how it will go. You will buy your third party lens, think it is decent for a while. You will notice it flaws and sell the lens at a loss because it will have no re-sale value and then, you will pony up the cash for the Nikon glass which you really wanted in the first place.

Go with the nikkor, I did. http://seanflaniganphotography.com

[erik_loza]

Wow, that is an OT question, Edward. Glad to answer. Western Europe (Germany, in

particular) has many regulations in regards to which cutting tools may be used by the the

human hand and which must be used with some sort of automated machine that passes

the wood over the tool. There is actually a whole range of "safety" shaper tools that are so

designated because they have depth-of-cut limitation to help prevent kickback against the

operator. The cutterhead in the photo is one of these (there are actually more screws

holding the knife in that aren't visible from this angle). My company is Italian and we try to

promote these safer tools here to our US Domestic Market customers. Yes, OT indeed!

[tristanlaing]

One thing to consider is that with the decline in popularity of nikon Film SLRs (I can buy an

F4s for 199$??, or an F100 with grip for 300?!?), this zoom will eventually lose some of its

resale value. Some might say its great on DSLR, but it's currently overpriced for what you get.

(1000$ for a 28-50 zoom? How much does a 24-50 zoom for a film camera cost now? 300$?)

Lenses like the 18-70 and 18-55 do almost as much as this lens, and give more reach. I'm

not saying it will suddenly be worth only 300$, but I don't think 1000 is sustainable.

[michaelschrag]

Matt- a lot of opinions being voiced here. For some real shooting results go to this link to see why the 17-35mm Nikkor is a great lens: http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/widezooms/widezooms1.html. I have this lens and the Nikkor 17-55 mm 2.8 and both seem comparable with a slight (and I mean slight) edge in sharpness given to the 17-35mm. Now, here is another interesting contender. The new Tamron 17-50 mm 2.8 was recently evaluated at photozone (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_1750_28/index.htm) and it yielded some really impressive MTF results. The CAs may be a little high but all in all initial results from this lens look very impressive - especially for a price tag ot 300 to $400.

[paddler_b]

"You can demonstrate this for yourself in about 15 seconds by observing the AF action following a zoom change.

 

This 15sec test just shows that the focus system is working, by evaluating the scene. Any further focus correction may or may not happen depending on how well camera can "see" the scene, just like human eye.

 

What I was pointing out wasn't a flaw in nikkor lens, all SLR cameras have harder time to focus with *very* wideangle lenses. This is well documented case- eg. how good slr focus compare to rangefinders.

[michaelschrag]

Tristan,

 

Your logic is very flawed. The analogy between the decrease in price for film based SLRs and what may eventually happen to one of Nikon�s best lenses is absurd. In addition, with Canon producing fullframe sensors its just a matter of time until Nikon catches up (so the unattractive focal range for the reduced sensor cameras will eventually be a non-issue).

How about this analogy? Once upon a time you could buy a Distagon 21mm for 400 to $500, but now they sell used on Ebay for well over $1000. Why? - Because new digital cameras (i.e. the Canon MK II) with very high resolutions are limited by the optics available. Many Canon users are shooting with this lens because it is far superior to anything of that focal length in the Canon lineup. In fact, many Canon (and Nikon) users are shooting with the Nikkor 17-35mm for the same reason. Film based SLRs went down in price because of the emergence of digital cameras. Now that high resolutions are attained by some of those digital cameras the demand for high quality lenses will increase or at least stay level (hence the Distagon 21mm price increase). So the very reason that film SLRs went down in value is why the 17-35mm will keep its value. This lens was released in 1999 at $1000+ and sells today at $1000+.

[erik_loza]

I agree with Michael. This lens is in such a class by itself, like the 200mm AF Micro, that I

can't see prices dropping much on it. In fact, I could see prices going up on used ones

when the day arrives that Nikon discontinues it in favor of DX-sensor lenses. There are not

many times when I consider a lens an investment, but this is one of them.

[paddler_b]

Be smart, buy nikkor 17-35 on ebay in mint condition from someone who is/has upgraded to 17-55. This way you don't lose as much on retail margin...

 

koorus