Nikon 17-55 2.8 or Sigma 18-55 2.8 & Sigma 70-200 2.8?

[chauncey_huffman]

<p>I'm about to order my D300 and I am on the verge of opening my first studio. I will be using this camera and lens(es) combination to shoot studio portraits (head & shoulders and full length), outdoor portraits, and weddings. The portraits will include families, and individuals. I have about $1200-$1400 to reasonably spend on a lens or set of lens(es). I am torn between getting the Nikon 17-55 2.8 or being able to get two lenses for the same price, the Sigma 18-55 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. My previous lens was a Sigma 24-70 2.8 (non HSM) and I was pleased with it, but not blown away. It was soft wide open, and I'm scared of that being the case with these Sigma's. Anyone have any suggestions or experience with any of these three lenses? By the way, if I don't get the two sigmas, I won't have a telephoto option, but I'm wondering if the Nikon can cover everything for me.</p>

[c._f.]

<p>Your Nikon 17-55 will probably do 90% of the work you'll need. As for Sigma being too soft, boost up the sharpness on your camera and it will probably do the trick or post processing.<br>

For portraits and weddings, in Nikon, look into <strong>Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 AF-S </strong> &<strong> </strong> <strong>Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8 G ED.</strong><br>

If you live in US contact big guys (adorama, B&H) you can purchase your toys from them, try them out and return if you don't like it. So you'll only spend $ S&H but at least you'll be happy with what you have.<br>

Good Luck<br>

Adam</p>

[chauncey_huffman]

<p>Thanks, I did think for a moment about really splurging and getting the 24-70 2.8 but the money that I would spend on that would have to be taken from my budget for my lights. I don't really want to have to skimp on my studio lights though.</p>

[chauncey_huffman]

<p>Also, I was thinking about the Nikon 85mm 1.8 instead of the Sigma 70-200, not sure if I want to give up the zoom flexibility though. I did read a review about the Sigma saying that it had unacceptable CA towards the 200mm range, so if it's unusable at that range, would I really be losing that much if I went with the 85mm?</p>

[bourboncowboy]

<p>Just curious: If you're gonna use studio strobes to supply the lighting, why do you need lenses that are sharp wide open? </p>

<p>If you insist on using a 2.8 lens, take a look at the Tamron 17-50 as well. I had the 17-55 for a while, but sold it when I moved to FX. When I picked up a D50 for a walkaround camera, I wanted something with excellent IQ, but smaller and lighter than the 17-55. After trying the 18-55 and 18-70, I tested the Tamron. I can't see a lot of difference between it and the 17-55.</p>

[john_newell2]

<p>I owned an excellent v1 copy of the Tamron and bought the Nikon. I owned both for a couple of weeks and did a lot of parallel shots. On more or less 2D subjects they were essentially equivalent. In real life shots of people, there was no comparison. I was actually amazed by how much better the Nikon was. I'd recommend it strongly; the difference can be seen.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>john can you elaborate or maybe post some pics?</p>

[hughes]

<p>Chauncey<br>

The Nikon 17-55 is a no brainer I bought a used copy from a reputable seller for $850.00, as for the other lens why not buy an older mf 135mm or 85mm {cheap as chips} untill you work out what you need, I think you will find you will use the 17-55 90% of the time and as the man says if you have to ask what lens to buy you don't really need it.<br>

Steve </p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>how about the tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm (even 3rd party)? they will cover your needs and spend more on the lights.</p>

[john_newell2]

<p>Sorry, am on holiday so pics are on another machine - but the difference was that the Tamron pictures were basically 2D, where the Nikon pictures usually have a very 3D effect.</p>