Nikkor 18-55 kit lens vs Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 non stabiilzed

[irvine.short]

<p>Hey All,</p>

<p>I have a D7000 that for the last year I have been using almost exclusively with the 35mm F1.8G lens.</p>

<p>I love the low light and sharpness but sometimes I miss the wide angle.</p>

<p>I pretty much have a nonexistant budget but I can get, used, either a stabilized 18-55 3.5-5.6 Nikkor or a unstabilized Sigma 17-70 2.8 - 4.5</p>

<p>The Sigma is bigger and heavier.<br>

The kit lens is small and is apparently pretty good.</p>

<p>They are both available at the same price. Any thoughts?</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>If the choice is really just between those 2, I'd get the Sigma. Its range is more versatile, it's a bit faster aperture and tested really quite well.<br>

But this without knowing if you have any other lenses alongside the 35mm. A 24mm f/2.8 prime does not have to cost a lot second hand, for example. Or save up a bit more and try to get the 18-105VR (versatile, not expensive, optically good). It might be worth it trying to save up to make the budget somewhat existant, as it can open up a lot more options.</p>

[irvine.short]

<p>Thanks Wouter.<br>

Next to the 35mm F1.8 I use my 100mm F2.8 manual lens quite a lot. If it were AF it would be perfect. It is great for music on stage but for dance I miss most shots as I cannot manual focus on people moving around that much.<br>

I am lusting after an AF 85mm F1.8 that I will save up for.<br>

I have a 55-200VR kit lens that was chucked in, brand new, for $100 when I bought the camera but other than a few test pics I have never used it in the year I have owned it. Maybe when I go to my daughter's next netball game perhaps...<br>

A 24mm prime is an interesting idea.</p>

 

[elliot1]

<p>A 24mm AF lens is much more expensive than Nikon's 18-55m. The 18-55mm VR is about $100 with shipping. An it is wider than the 24mm which you state you need. And it is only 1/2 stop slower than Sigma (possibly/probably insignificant). I owned the Sigma lens you are asking about a long time ago and have had several others. And although they were all good, I was never fully satisfied with them and found the Nikon counterparts I traded them for have always given me better IQ, more reliable AF and seem to hold their value better than Sigma zooms. And Nikon lenses never have compatibility issues that are sometimes reported (I had no compatibility issues).</p>

<p>Regardless of the lens you choose, if you cannot borrow one to try out, I suggest you buy from a place like KEH which accepts returns for any reason if you are not fully satisfied.</p>

<p> </p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>I'd go for the 18-55mm. A 24mm lens on our cameras isn't wide at all. It has a dinky build and a slowish aperture, but its optics are superb. As a bonus, get the older 18-55mm II instead of the 18-55mm VR; its optics are better (because for the new VR lens, they had to omit the ED element) and it goes for much cheaper. I sometimes use my micro 4/3 camera, and I don't find image stabilization to be especially useful on a midrange zoom. I think it was put there to appease the Best Buy/Walmart buying crowd that is easily lured by advertising banners promising cheap tricks like more megapixels or image stabilization.</p>

[andylynn]

For the same money I'd definitely take the Sigma. It's sharper, with a bit more range, a bit faster, better build quality

and better close focus.

[eric_arnold]

<p>i'd get the sigma. besides having a rep for better IQ, its not held together by tape. realistically, VR isnt a must in a wide angle lens. 5.6 at 55mm is pretty slow. OTOH, 2.8 gives you a brighter viewfinder in low-light conditions, which helps focus accuracy.</p>

[bruce_brown]

<p>"used" is a bit of the operative word here ... all thing being equal, you will be happier with the Sigma (I think) the 2.8 is well worth having ... Sigma's QC has come up quite a bit in the last 12-18months ... how used? </p>