Sigm 17-55 vs 17-70 (both 2.8)

[www.ericdrichards.com]

Help me!

 

I can't quite see why there is a $1000 difference between these two lenses. I keep scratching my head as I

look at site after site that has the 17-70 for $350 and the 17-55 for $1200.

 

Can anyone help me choose the best wide-angle lens?

 

Eric

ericdrichards@gmail.com

[petrana_batik]

Two options:

 

a) Either Nikon is ripping you off.

b) Sigma's offering is inferior.

 

Pick an option and scratch your head that way.

[trunfio]

the sigma 17-70 is a 2.8-4.5 lens. the 17-55 nikon is 1200 as you say, but it's fixed 2.8. sigma makes a new 18-50/2.8 for 420$ and it's not HSM focus. in that range, i use faster primes and am happy.

[elliot1]

If you took pictures with both, you might have a better understanding.

[kfoster70]

Put the two lenses side by side and the difference in price will become very clear.

 

The extra money comes from superior build quality, the best glass, AF-S motor for super fast AF, and metal body.

[mawz]

The Nikon is weather sealed, better built, fixed f2.8 instead of a variable-aperture zoom (sigma is f2.8-4.5), much better optically and AF-S. The Sigma is essentially a slightly faster equivalent of the 18-70 DX kit lens from the D70. A competent mid-range zoom. The Nikon is a pro zoom.

 

A better comparison would be the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 vs the Nikon 17-55 f2.8. They're very similar optically, but the Tamron lacks the heavy build, sealing and AF-S of the Nikon.