Sigma 17-35/2.8-4.0 vs. others (wide angle FX)

[rjpierrard]

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>I'm looking to add a wide angle FX lens without spending a horrible amount; I've been doing lots of research online [references deleted in order to post...] but not every lens is reviewed and besides, pesonal experience is extremely useful.</p>

<p>The lenses I've been looking at are (in order of focal length):<br />Sigma 17-35/2.8-4.0 $300; very wide<br />Nikon 18-35/3.5-4.5 $375; quite wide, slower aperture rating, light<br />Tokina 20-35/2.8 $300; wide, fast, not incredible IQ<br />Nikon 20-35/2.8 $650; wide, fast, good IQ, expensive<br />Nikon 20/2.8 $400; wide, fast, light, low distortion, etc, but limited range.</p>

<p>Any of these are wide enough, I think; the major concerns after that are aperture speed and image quality (colour, contrast, and sharpness). I'm especially intererested in the Sigma 17-35 for the aperture speed at its widest and price. The others are also of great interest, but I have very little info on the Sigma.</p>

<p>Any comments and suggestions are greatly appreciated :)</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>robert, i bought a sigma 15-30 used for $160. it works great on FX. i've also been trying to hunt down a copy of the tamron 17-35/2.8-4, which is reportedly sharper than the sigma at 2.8 and 17mm. i can also recommend the tokina 17/3.5 AT-X as an excellent low-cost FX prime.</p><div></div>

[rjpierrard]

<p>A Sigma 15-30 would definitely be a good option!<br>

The Tamron 17-35 unfortunately has huge corner softening, especially on FX (see slrgear for a full review).<br>

Thanks for mentioning the Tokina 17/3.5 - I didn't have that before. </p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>Once I moved to FX I truly appreciated WIDE angles. I find wide angle quite addictive. The Nikkor AF 20mm f/2.8 D prime was neither wide enough for my tastes nor was it particularly sharp across the frame.</p>

<p>I also tried a Sigma 15mm prime- the older f/3.5 version- I adored the vast coverage of the 15mm focal length but the corners were horridly soft, too soft, even for a US$150 purchase.</p>

<p>If you are like me, largely shooting at wider focal lengths at f/5.6 to f/9 then all lenses on your list is capable of producing acceptable images. Depending upon what subject matter you intend to shoot WIDE, you will have to compromise somewhere along the line with aperture, corner sharpness and just how wide you can get (Unless one goes for one of the costly Nikkor wide zooms you wish to avoid........) </p>

[glennpollockphotography]

<p>You may want to look at the Tamron 17-50mm. A quite versatile lens with a short enough focal length for wide angle, but also long enough at 50mm for many other purposes. The softness and chromatic aberrations of the 17-35mm seems to have been greatly improved and with vibration compensation the lens is a great value. No, it's not Nikon, but for the price...</p>

[jonsjons]

<p>I don't have any experience with the lenses you've listed, but I thought I'd add my experience with the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4....and I can confirm that the corners are really bad. I tried it on my 5d mark II and the corners were complete mush, even when stopped down to f/8 or f/11. I ended up returning it.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>You may want to look at the Tamron 17-50mm. A quite versatile lens with a short enough focal length for wide angle, but also long enough at 50mm for many other purposes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>glen, the 17-50 is a DX-only lens. not a good choice for FX.</p>

<p>to the OP: one thing about FX is 2.8 is nice to have on an UWA, but you really dont need it, except for OoF backgrounds. you can always bump ISO and in general, UWAs are best stopped down.</p>

<p>the 17 is a very smart lens. it's good optically and very small. i have the 24-70 so i am sometimes weight-conscious. for those times, when you just need a couple of w/a shots, the 17 is perfect.</p>

<p>here's a couple shots with the tokina 17/3.5 ...</p>

<div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the other reason i got the tokina was, it takes filters, which the 15-30 doesn't.</p><div></div>

[rjpierrard]

<p>That's definitely true - I'm leaning towards the Tokina 17/3.5 now...</p>

[rjpierrard]

<p>Okay, it's down to:<br>

Sigma 17-35 2.8-4.0<br>

Nikon 18-35 3.5-4.5<br>

Tokina 20-35 2.8<br>

Tokina 17 3.5<br>

Nikon 20 2.8</p>

<p>One of the other main considerations I have here is that I'm trying to design a setup that works both on DX and FX - an ideal set of which would still have good IQ in the FX, and a decent range in the FOV.<br>

The DX wide angle I'm looking at (Tokina 11-16/2.8) has a narrow FOV of 82*, so unfortunately the Tokina 17/3.5 would be much too close to that on a DX crop sensor. And the Nikon 20/2.8 is only decently wide, though good IQ, I'm sure.</p>

<p>So in the end I'm leaning towards the Nikon 18-35/3.5-4.5, but the other two zooms are also still in the running.<br>

Anyone have experience with one of these three who can lend some advice?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>ultimatelyi dont think it matters whether you get the 20-35, the 18-35, the 17-35 or something else. i know people like to agonize before they buy a lens, but i've never done that. i just get a lens i need and go out and shoot with it.</p>

 

[photo5]

<p>Don't forget the Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4 SP ASPH zoom lens. I have one and it works well on FX, with just a little vignetting at 17mm. I bought it used on ebay for $150 and at that price it was a real bargain! The below photo was taken with the D700 and Tamron lens:<br>

<br /> http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/473575813_MVMHX-X2.jpg</p>

<p><img src="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/473575813_MVMHX-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>