Should I keep my Sigma 18-50 HSM or go for the Nikkor?

[sgireland]

<p>I recently purchased the above mentioned lens for my D90 as I have been getting by with just the Nikon 50mm 1.8 for the last couple of months.<br>

<br /> It was purchased mostly on a whim but I get 21 days of exchange privileges with my local dealer so I can always get something else.</p>

<p>There have been favorable reviews posted about this lens in comparison to the 17-50 Tamron (which I cannot obtain locally) and some where the Tamron beats it hands down in terms of image quality. It seems the Sigma does not compare favorably to the Nikon 16-85mm.<br>

<br /> Time and time again I read that no "pro" would use a third party lens and that they cannot possibly equal a Nikkor. Is this true? I could stretch financially to get the 16-85 and it would be nice to get the extra reach but if that is the only advantage it has over the Sigma I would rather save the money.</p>

<p>I understand that I am comparing a fixed aperture lens to one that is variable but with VR and the fact I would be shooting mostly out of doors is it even an issue?</p>

<p>Finally, does anyone know if the HSM version of the 18-50mm Sigma is optically different from the original version? The Sigma website references Low Dispersion and Extraordinary Low Dispersion glass being used in the HSM version and does not mention these in the write-up of the standard lens.<br /> Thanks!</p>

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

<p>I use the 16-85 with my D90 and I really like it.<br /> As far as no "pro" would use a third party lens and that they cannot possibly equal a Nikkor is concerned, that is just pure nonsense and I say that as a long time Nikon user. Some 3rd party lenses are not as good as Nikon lenses, some are just as good, and some have the reputation of being better.<br>

There are lots and lots of professional photographers out there using 3rd party lenses.<br /> I have always been very happy happy with Nikon lenses but they are not the only game in town.<br /> By the way, you didn't say whether or not you were happy with your Sigma; if it's giving you the results you want, why change it for another lens (there is always going to be 'another' lens out there).<br /> regards, cb :-)</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Most of Sigma's "EX"-class lenses are optically very good. How robust they are depends on the model. Their HSM focusing system is quick and quiet - very similar to Nikon's AF-S. <br /><br />As for the trade-off between the constant aperture and the VR? That's a how-do-you-shoot style issue, more than anything else. The Nikon variable-aperture consumer-ish zooms (like the 18-70, 18-55, 18-200, 16-85, etc) can all produce very nice images. The 16-85 in particular is well liked, among that bunch, and the VR definitely buys you some capability in lower light. But when you're at f/5.6 (the fastest some of those lenses can go, at, say, 50mm), you might be just as well off buying back some shutter speed by opening up to f/2.8 on a lens that can do that. Which ... doesn't help if you have compositional/DoF reasons to stop down more than that, in which case the VR is pretty handy!<br /><br />It's a witch's brew of variables, choosing a lens in that range. But if you're not going to be into the longer focal lengths very often, I'd rather have a constant (and faster) aperture than the VR. If you're out at or past 50mm in low light, then the VR is a very useful tool.</p>

[Two23]

<p>"Time and time again I read that no "pro" would use a third party lens and that they cannot possibly equal a Nikkor "</p>

<p>Totally ridiculous. I'd immediately dismiss the credibility of anyone writing that. A pro will use whatever the best tool for the job is, whether or not it says "Nikon" on it or not. I have no doubt that some of the key people now at Sigma, Tamron, etc. were once working for Nikon, Canon, etc. IMO, the Sigma 30mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.4 beat the Nikon equivalents. There are some terrific third party lenses out there, some that Nikon doesn't even have an answer for.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I'm a professional and find it ridiculous to arbitrarily eliminate third party lenses. I very recently bought the Sigma APO EX 50-150 f/2.8 HSM for my D70s and am extremely happy with it. Nikon does not make anything equivalent. I also have a Tokina 12-24 f/4 that is fantastic, sharp and built like a tank. I'm planning on getting the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 or Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 (if the focus is fast enough) for my other D70s (and future D300 replacements) so when I'm working I can cover the long standing 'professional' focal equivalent 24-200mm. I'm one who has no need to go to full frame, I'm extremely happy with Dx.</p>

[evilsivan]

<p>In my opinion the Sigma 18-50f2.8's AF is not very fast. I also think that it is not sharp beyond a few feet (I own only one so this is not a large sample). If I could have affordede the Nikkor version I would have got that one.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Here's the kicker to me... You wrote [i understand that I am comparing a fixed aperture lens to one that is variable but with VR and the fact I would be shooting mostly out of doors is it even an issue?] If you are truly shooting out of doors mostly, the 2.8 aperture might indeed not be an issue. But being able to open up to f2.8 when needed might be a big deal for some shots. Only you can know for sure. Also, as soon as the light gets dim, the long end of a lens that is at f5.6 can get touchy with AF.</p>

[sgireland]

<p>Thanks for the feedback. I am going out shooting today and will spend some quality time with the Sigma. <br>

I think I am likely to stick with it as I can't really justify the extra cost of the 16-85 when I still want to get a telephoto down the road. <br>

Cheers!</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>play with it some more. you need to do that because samples vary, including nikon lenses.<br />i shoot weddings and other events on the side. i started with the D200 with the nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 because even in my film days as a photojournalist, it has always been nikon for me.</p>

<p>as i got older, i tried both the tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (non-motor) and the sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 and chose the sigma. my sample was better than the tamron in image quality, speed, zoom ring smoothness and travel (not bothered by the reverse travel), finish and look..........i am equally happy when i was still using the 17-55mm. i tried a friend's 16-85mm and it's slow. you just get spoiled with f/2.8.......you have a D90 so you really don't need the VR that much for high iso demands.</p>

<p>each shooter has different preferences, benchmarks and style. see if the sigma will fit in.<br>

yes, save the money for the telephoto down the road.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I checked both the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro and their test results were very similar. I bought the Tamron only because it was less expensive and had a longer warranty. Other than that they were pretty equal.</p>

[bsd230]

<p>I've seen many "pros" using 3rd party lenses. I would almost always take a Sigma EX line lens over a consumer level Nikon lens. Of course I would take a top of line the Nikon lens any day, but they are usually 3 times the price of Sigmas. The 24-70 HSM is very close in image quality of the Nikon at half the price. Is the Nikon better? Yes. Is it twice as good? No. In fact you would likely never be able to tell the difference in image quality unless you were pixel peeping with two exact images side by side.</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>I use a Sigma 50-150 II HSM. I get paid for the pictures it produces. I guess that makes me a pro?</p>

[sgireland]

<p>I've been using the Sigma for a couple of days now and am quite pleased with it. Having only owned primes I really appreciate the 2.8 aperture of this lens. Image quality is good, a little soft at 18mm and wide open but still acceptable to me. Impressive build quality in the EX line. I'll be looking to Sigma again for my upcoming telephoto purchase.</p>