nikon 18-135 or Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC HSM

[ajay_ukidve1]

I currently have the nikon 18-135 as a general purpose lens for my D70s. I am now

being offered the new sigma 17-70mm F 2.8-4.5 DC HSM macro lens (unused) at

a very reasonable price. Being in India I am unable to lay my hands on the sigma

to test its IQ. However going by test reports it seems to be good. My main interest

to buy this lens is its macro capability (can possibly focus about 3 inches away

from the front element) as well as the faster speed at 17mm. I am thinking that it

will allow me to take those difficult dawn and dusk shots. I do not intend to sell my

Nikon 18-135 nor want to buy the nikon 18-70. At present I have the sigma 10-20,

the Sigma 30/1.4, nikon 18-135 and the nikon 70-300 VR. I would like somebody

to enlighten me who has used this lens or the earlier non HSM lens. Is this sigma

17-70 worth spending money on. Thanks in advance.

[kari v]

I wouldn't buy that lens for macro unless it's really cheap. You already have the range covered with similar quality and variable aperture.

 

For close-ups and speed Sigma 18-50/2.8 Macro is great (I think Nikon version has HSM?). You lose some range but get constant 2.8 aperture and it focuses to about two inches from the front glass giving you 1:3 magnification. Image quality is very good for the price.

[carl_becker2]

Would you not be better off with a true marco lens since you have the range and speed all ready.

[bruce_margolis]

Sigma offers a few lenses they advertise as 'macro' but they are not 1:1 magnification. For example, this lens has a 1:2.3 magnification. If you're okay with that, fine. Also, this lens has a minimum focusing distance of about 8", not 3".

[elliot1]

I have the Sigma lens you list and use it on my D200 with excellent results - it gives amazingly sharp images. It is also a good macro lens image quality wise but may not magnify enough for serious macro work - it really depends on what you are shooting and what magnification you need.

 

The lack of constant f2.8 aperture is annoying for serious use in low light conditions. I suggest you invest in a decent tripod or a VR lens (I recommend a tripod) for your 'difficult dawn and dusk shots' rather than a faster lens which will give you excellent results with the lenses you currently have.

[Peter_in_PA]

The half-stop at the wide end is incidental, you will get a half-stop. You should, as

Elliot says, have a good solid tripod and stop down to f8 or f11 anyway. At that

point, there will be no real difference in IQ with your setup between the lens you

have and the Sigma, even if the Sigma is a lot better.

 

I'd recommend for macro use (if you're shooting things that don't move) to think

about perhaps getting a used Manual Focus micro 105 or 55. It won't meter or auto-

focus on your camera, but I've found that doesn't matter (and it makes me want to

buy more manual lenses, too) on my very similar D50. If you must have AF and

want to do close-up work, get the non-AFS 60mm, used if you can.

[ajay_ukidve1]

Hi Elliot,

 

You said it gives amazingly sharp images. Earlier you had done a comparison of 18-135 and I think 18-200 VR if i remember correctly. So you are well aware of the capabilities of the 18-135, So incidentally which lens would you judge the better of the two leaving aside the extra reach of the 18-135. :-)

[ajay_ukidve1]

Hi folks thak you very much for the responses. As is mentioned it is better to go in for a dedicated macro lens and a good tripod. Thank you for your fast responses.

[elliot1]

Ajay, the two Nikon lenses are about equal for image quality although I think the 18-135mm has a slight edge when it comes to sharpness. I doubt that you would see a difference even when pixel peeping. The difference from 135mm to 200mm is not tremendous so if you can live without VR and without the extra reach of the 18-200mm, you don't really need it. The VR feature of the 18-200mm gives it a slight advantage feature wise (if you need VR). The 18-135mm is light and compact. What more could you want?

 

As far as the Sigma goes, I would guess it is as sharp as any Nikon lens although I have not done any side-by-side testing. I am quite pleased with the lens. It is my 3rd Sigma product and all three lenses have been winners. I use the lens primarily on my D200 which is known for producing slightly soft images yet the images I am getting with it and the Sigma lens are impressive and require little if any additional sharpening. Skin tones are excellent as well.

 

You may want to take a look at the image I posted (macro shot I took recently of a watch) shot with the Simga lens on a D300). It is about half way down the thread per the following link:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00PAP4

[ajay_ukidve1]

Thank you Elliot,

I dont intend to change to 18-200 VR as I have my reservations about that lens regarding the cost and advantages. However as you might have guessed I am very greedy so was contemplating in going in for this additional Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC HSM which one of my friends from the US is offering to me at 200 USD. It is new he has hardly used it for a week. I am extremely happy with my 18-135 as also the lens setup I have at the moment. I have only one bug with the 18-135, the skin tones are very harsh no amount of editing brings them to that creamy pleasing look of my sigma 30mm/1.4. As has been brought out there is no need for me to go in for the sigma 17-70 2.8/4.5 DC HSM.

Any way thanks a lot for your input. Incidentally I am quite a fan of yours and am always delighted in reading your posts. Thanks once again.

Ajay

[elliot1]

Ajay, I know the look you are trying to get and the 18-135mm can produce it - you just need to get your camera's settings correct. You possibly need to reduce the contrast setting a little bit, adjust your white balance to be a little cooler. If that doesn't give it to you, try increasing your saturation a little bit.. Experiment! It is all in the settings.

[mauricio_orozco]

Ajay, I will recommend the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 instead the Sigma. The only lens that compares to the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 is the Tamron. I don't believe the Sigma has better IQ than the Tamron. This lens is superb and you can also use it for macro. Also, you will end up paying the same price for either lens, the Sigma that you are talking about or the Tamron, but according to all the reviews and by my personal experience with this lens, I will take the Tamron any day over the Sigma.

[ajay_ukidve1]

Thank you Elliot I'll try in camera settings now. Yes expriment ! Thank you Mauricio for your input.