eric_arnold Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 <p>http://www.bythom.com/Sigma17-50mm_lens_review.htm<br>his findings? surprising,perhaps, especially for nikon loyalists. but not out of line with my own experience with this lens, which i've had for almost two years now. thom's notoriously brutal with his critiques, but here he finds a lot to like. have a feeling he didn't mind sticking it to Nikon for underdeveloping the DX lens market, as that's been the general theme of his last few website entries.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_angel Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 <p>With a D7000 camera it makes a nice compact travel setup.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orcama60 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 <p>Interesting what Thom said about this lens. It is a candidate for the "DX Nikon-club". The price is $619 at B&H Photography after $50 instant rebate that is effective till January 2013. However Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC is on my list. It will be a tough decision. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariel_s1 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 <p>I agree with Thom about the price and the size of the Nikkor 17-55mm. Optically it's great, but you have to get past those two shortcomings if you want to use it, which is why long ago, I bought the Tamron 17-50mm non-VC and happily use it to this day. The Nikon 17-55mm really did price and size itself right out of the competition for me. About image stabilization, I don't really care. It's a midrange lens, and it's f/2.8, so relatively unnecessary for me. I'd say that most professionals would agree, as I don't see either the Canon or Nikon 24-70mm lenses having image stabilization, so the pros must not be clamoring to the respective camera companies' professional services to add it. It does seem that he's being a little unreasonably harsh on Nikon, due to his frustration with them. But overall, I'm sure that Nikon has a fire lit under their butts, with other companies closing in from all sides.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 <p>i paid $700-something for mine,so the current price is a deal. i used to have the tamron 17-50 and was very happy with it, but the sigma has better specs. one thing thom didn't note was the propensity for color shift under internally-reflected light sources. it has more 'sigma yellow', especially indoors, than other sigma lenses i own, but i would definitely recommend it. where this lens really surprised me was stopped down, where it's capable of edge-to-edge sharpness. if this same exact lens was nikon-branded, it would get a lot more chatter, but nikon won't put one out because they want to nudge folks toward FF and the 24-70.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_zepeda Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 <p>Well, of course the price is lower than Nikon's. The quality control is less stringent. Despite all the praise, Thom tried what, three samples? One was decentered. How many samples of the 17-55 has he tried? How many were unusable out of the box?</p> <p>Sigma can do some impressive things optically, yes. It'd be nice to see them step up their quality game, however. Unfortunately, until they do there won't be much fire lit under Nikon's ass. If there was, you wouldn't see the draconian service policies that Nikon USA implemented this year. Judging by the reported quality of service from Tokina, and the... ahem.. quality issues of Tamron I don't think Nikon's really got much to worry about. They're cocky because they know that (for now) they're in a dominant position.</p> <p><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/lensrentals-repair-data-january-july-2012">http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/lensrentals-repair-data-january-july-2012</a><br> <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/tamron-24-70-f2-8-vc-issue">http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/tamron-24-70-f2-8-vc-issue</a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted October 18, 2012 Author Share Posted October 18, 2012 <p>Alex, my copy is fine. not sure what the tamron 24-70 has to do with this discussion.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_angel Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 <p>Yep, the "sigma yellow"... I forgot it... I have just remembered my lastest Sigma, the 28-70/2.8, (which I bought many years ago, trying to avoid the expense on the 28-70 Nikkor). The chromes were sharp and contrasty along the range, but sadly, always yellowish.... After a few weeks I had to trade it for a Nikon. I was not able to live with it. <br /> Probably not an issue with digital systems.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 <p>I owned and used the Nikon 17-55mm for several years. It was sharp throughout the frame, including the corners and did not suffer from CA or have to be stopped down to gain sharpness. That is the beauty of the Nikon lens and why so many prefer Nikon glass overall to 3rd party glass. I have not used the Sigma version of this lens so cannot comment directly on it.</p> <p>A used Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 lens can be purchased for about the same or a little bit more than the cost of the Sigma lens new (savvy eBay shoppers have paid as little as $550 for this lens recently with 8 being sold at or under $700 over the past few weeks). Based on the review and my experience with two Sigma lenses (both were very good but not as good as their Nikon counterparts), I will continue to recommend Nikon glass over Sigma (or any other 3rd party brand) as IQ is typically better, QC is typically better, build is typically better, and the Nikon versions are and always will be both backwards and forwards compatible. Used Nikon lenses when bought 'right' typically tend to hold their value or appreciate in value, and represent a better overall value when you consider 'everything' and over the long term may be a better investment.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 I really liked the 17-55 Nikkor, it produces good sharpness, clean, clear images with nice bokeh. The build quality is excellent and AF precise. I don't understand the criticism towards this lens - IMO it is easily the nicest of DX Nikkors that I have used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two23 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 <p>I went the same route Elliot did and bought a used Nikon 17-55mm f2.8. While the lightness of the Sigma appeals to me, I think if you buy a Nikon at a good price you can't go wrong.</p> <p>Kent in SD</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_bradtke Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 <p>He tried 4 samples and one of them was decentered. How many people complain about Nikon lenses not being as sharp as they should be and how much sample variation there is.</p> <p>Thom is not a Nikon fanboy and I think he gives a very unbiased reviews. And as a good reviewer he try's more then one sample and give you there impression of the lens based on the sample lot not just one cherry picked lens.</p> <p>I own three third party lenses out of the 30 or so lenses I have in Nikon F mount. A Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 a Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 from the days before we new what AF was. and a Tamron 14mm f/2.8</p> <p>The two Sigmas are because Nikon does not or did not make the lens I needed. If they made the 120-300 f/2.8 I bet the price would be considerably higher. When I bought the 70-300 I was not able to find anything in that range from Nikon.</p> <p>The Tamron 14 was bought from a local store that had it and the Nikon 14 in stock. I took my DSLR in and shot them both. I bought the Tamron because it showed better image quality then the Nikon 14mm.</p> <p>The point I am trying to make here is that 3rd party companies make some real jewels of lenses and Nikon makes some dogs. Nobody's lens line up is 100% perfect.</p> <p>I wonder if anyone would have made a comment if Thom had given the same glowing review about a Nikon lens.....</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariel_s1 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 <p>Alex, the price is lower because they can defray the costs of the lens development across multiple mounts. They use the same basic lens design for their Sony alpha, Canon EOS, and Pentax K mount cameras. While the quality control has historically been a little lower, I would argue that much of a quality control argument is due to people misunderstanding the inherent drawbacks of a phase detect autofocus system. Also, quality control doesn't account for a 220% increase in price. Also, read that link about the repair data more carefully; I don't know how you can come away from that article with the conclusion that they hold Sony, Nikon, or Canon durability in any higher regard than Sigma. In addition, Sigma, in response to the criticisms about quality control, Sigma has instituted a new quality control system in-factory:<br> http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/09/17/Sigma-launches-three-lenses-35mm-f1-4-DG-17-70mm-f2-8-4-DC-MACRO-120-300-F2-8-OS-HSM<br> Overall, physics is physics, and a lens performs subject to its design and build, regardless of which corporation's name is stamped onto the side of it. My Nikon 18-200mm had as many issues as Thom's Sigma 17-50mm (despite being noticeably more expensive), and my old 18-135mm lens that I bought new developed issues as well and had to be sent back to Nikon repair twice, while my Sigma 50-150mm and my Tamron 17-50mm lwwere perfect right out of the box, and continue to blow me away with their performance to this day. If you compare similar build intention lenses, third party lenses can meet or exceed Nikon's performance. The Tamron 70-300mm VC vs 70-300mm VR is a prime example. The various macro lenses are another point; it'd be a hard sell to convince me that the Nikon 200mm macro is superior to the Sigma 150mm or Tamron 180mm, or that the 105mm VR is any better than the Tamron/Tokina/Sigma lenses in the same range.</p> <p>Also, Nikon's draconian repair policies are in regards to gray market gear, not pressure from third party lenses. And as you can see from the lensrentals link that you posted, the inability to buy menial repair parts like tripod feet is definitely a mark against the new measures, although as a whole I agree with them, when discussing the repairs of ever increasingly complex lenses and camera bodies.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_brown4 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 <p>I've beeb burned by enough high-end Sigma lenses, that I have scratched them off my list of suppliers.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted October 18, 2012 Author Share Posted October 18, 2012 <blockquote> <p>I owned and used the Nikon 17-55mm for several years. It was sharp throughout the frame, including the corners and did not suffer from CA or have to be stopped down to gain sharpness. That is the beauty of the Nikon lens and why so many prefer Nikon glass overall to 3rd party glass.</p> </blockquote> <p>elliot, you're acting like the 17-55 is crafted from magic compounds and hand-built by elves. it's a good lens, but not nikon's best zoom by any means. also, i never said the sigma had to be stopped down to gain sharpness; thom notes that it's already sharp in the center at 2.8, which is my own assessment as well. like every other single 2.8 lens ever made, it gains sharpness in the corners when stopped down. (i've also never seen a 17-55 go used for $700, much less $550 -- KEH is currently listing them for $850-$950, but i've seen them as high as $1100-$1200). at the price elliot quotes, it certainly would be worth a look, however, you'd still be stuck with a big heavy lens with no stabilization which isn't optimal for walkaround or prolonged use, unlike the sigma and the tamron 17-50. it may come down to whether you'd prefer the bragging rights of an OEM lens designed almost a decade ago, or a more recent 3rd party lens which is sized more appropriately for DX, which also offers additional features and comparable performance. i shoot much more action than landscape, so if the AF wasn't up to snuff for moving subjects, i wouldn't continue to use it. it's also particularly good for travel/walkaround, two areas where the bulk and heft of the 17-55 make it a liability.</p> <blockquote> <p> Used Nikon lenses when bought 'right' typically tend to hold their value or appreciate in value, and represent a better overall value when you consider 'everything' and over the long term may be a better investment.</p> </blockquote> <p>regarding resale value: if 17-55s are going for 50% of their $1400 current price, as elliot claims, then that means you're taking substantially more than the usual 20% hit with most nikon lenses. that makes the sigma and tamron options even better values, since depreciation is so much less. the sigma is currently going for around $500 used, so the depreciation hit is only $150, not as much as $700. that's quite a difference! if i was a DX user considering moving to FX in the future, that would give me pause before getting a new copy of the 17-55. one must also ask, why does the nikon 17-55 depreciate so much, if its such a great lens? even if you sell one for the upper-range price of $950, you're still taking a $450 hit, or about 1/3rd of the new price, on a $1400 lens. ouch. if nikon was reasonable, the lens would list for about $800-900 new. but its pretty hard to justify costing over 2x the price of the stabilized 3rd party options, for a non-stabilized lens, with performance which is only slightly better, if that--photozone actually rates the original tamron 17-50 as sharper <em>at all apertures and focal lengths</em> than the 17-55.</p> <p>FWIW, i actually haven't noticed CA to be a significant problem with my copy of the 17-50 OS, and i concur with thom on AF speed and super-quiet stabilization, but i will say the (non-VC) tamron 17-50 i had might have been a <em>little</em> bit sharper wide open in the corners and may have had slightly more accurate colors. the only issue i've really found with the 17-50 is color shift indoors, which may be the result of it having a larger front element than the tamron (77mm filters vs. 67mm) and being more susceptible to contra light from florescents--i typically dont use it with a lens hood, so maybe that's the issue. while it does tend, slightly, to veer toward yellowish cast, i wouldn't say significantly so, and overall its both very contrasty and very sharp. the 17-55 may well be sharper in the corners at 2.8--there have to be some compromises made to get a constant, stabilized 2.8 zoom to be so compact--but then i don't usually care about corners at 2.8, and besides, by f/4, the corners pick up considerably.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_bradtke Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 <p>Which ones Dan? Not saying that they do not have gear that fails. But I am curious. Hey my 80-200 has that stupid AF-M switch that has failed on me twice now. That was a great design move on Nikon's part</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted October 18, 2012 Author Share Posted October 18, 2012 <blockquote> <p>I've beeb burned by enough high-end Sigma lenses, that I have scratched them off my list of suppliers.</p> </blockquote> <p>because, as a fair percentage of D800 buyers know, nikon <em>never</em> puts out high-end products with QC issues. FWIW, i also have the sigma 85/1.4, 50/1.4, 30/1.4, and 50-150/2.8. if i had had a bad experience with QC issues, i wouldnt have kept purchasing.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 <p><em> "</em><em> i never said the sigma had to be stopped down to gain sharpness"</em> You are correct, Thom did in his review. Nikon's lens is sharp from edge-to-edge wide open. He also mentioned the CA issue. Along with other things.<br /> <br /> <em>"</em><em>i've also never seen a 17-55 go used for $700, much less $550"</em> Either have I. Until now. If you do an advanced search on eBay and select "Completed Auctions", you will see that in the past few weeks, about 8 auctions have been completed in the range I gave, including one for $550. I would not have posted the information had I not seen it for myself.<br /> <br /> <em>"</em><em>you'd still be stuck with a big heavy lens with no stabilization which isn't optimal for walkaround or prolonged use"</em> If I had a DX body, I would absolutely be thrilled to be be "stuck" with the Nikon 17-55mm lens - it is a fabulous lens. Its weight is not an issue for most. And it is not much bigger or heavier than other similar lenses (yes, it is bigger and heavier but not substantially). The very large lens hood gives the appearance that the lens is much bigger than it actually is.<br /> <br /> <em>"</em><em>if 17-55s are going for 50% of their $1400 current price, as elliot claims, then that means you're taking substantially more than the usual 20% hit with most nikon lenses"</em> Good point. But my suggestion was to buy it used, not new. I have bought virtually all of my lenses used. And the few that I have sold have been sold at or above the price I paid for them. <br /> <br /> <em>"</em><em>why does the nikon 17-55 depreciate so much, if its such a great lens?"</em> My guess is that there are a lot more of them available for sale now as DX users move up to FX - it boils down to supply and demand. <strong><br /></strong><br /> <br /> <em>"</em><em>elliot, you're acting like the 17-55 is crafted from magic compounds and hand-built by elves"</em> I am not an engineer but I am guessing that Nikon's coating are among the best in the industry. They have been making lenses for a long, long time. I have not been inside a Nikon factory so I cannot confirm your elf theory.<br /> <br /> Eric, I know you are very pleased with your lens. Your images are always exceptional. The only point I was trying to make is that for around the same money as the Sigma, you can get Nikon's best, which appears to give perhaps a bit better IQ in some shooting environments and 100% compatibly forwards and backwards compatibility, and if bought right, will be a sound equipment investment.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 <blockquote> <p><em>"</em><em>i've also never seen a 17-55 go used for $700, much less $550"</em> Either have I. Until now. If you do an advanced search on eBay and select "Completed Auctions", you will see that in the past few weeks, about 8 auctions have been completed in the range I gave, including one for $550.</p> </blockquote> <p>In all fairness, that $550 seems like an unlucky sale - only one bidder and probably a place (Ireland) that isn't a hot spot for selling a lens like that (and no description at all for the lens which doesn't speak highly for the seller's ebay experience). There are a few others in the same price range - one with a zoom ring stuck at 55mm and one with a scratch in the rear element. <br /> But granted, prices have come down a bit since I purchased mine (used from KEH 3 years ago) - and as Elliot pointed out, this might be caused by a lot of people selling the lens because they moved to FX. There are indeed a few that are below $700 - most with some cosmetic issues though. All in all, there are about 400 17-55mm lenses in that "completed listings" list on ebay - quite a large number IMO and apparently some took several months to sell.</p> <p>I didn't make the decision to purchase the 17-55 lightly - but at the time the only serious competitor was the Tamron and I didn't like the build quality. I had gone through quite a few mid-range zoom lenses and decided it was time to aim high. Haven't regretted the move but am aware that I might lose quite a bit when it comes time to sell - which Nikon might force me to do if they don't come up with a high-end DX camera...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 <blockquote> <p>with a high-end DX camera...</p> </blockquote> <p>this was supposed to read: high-end DX successor to the D300/D300S...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted October 19, 2012 Author Share Posted October 19, 2012 <blockquote> <p>If I had a DX body, I would absolutely be thrilled to be be "stuck" with the Nikon 17-55mm lens - it is a fabulous lens. <em>Its weight is not an issue for most.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>i'm gonna have to disagree there, big-time. if we step inside the wayback machine and set it to 2003, when the 17-55 was released, we'll find DSLRs at their infancy, and nikon still making APS-C pro bodies like the D2x and D1h. the 17-55 makes sense in that context, since there was no FX, and no prosumer DX bodies -- the d70 was introduced in 2004, and the D200 didn't come out until 2005. so the 17-55 is really a holdover from an earlier era, somewhat of a dinosaur, in fact. how many 'pro' DX lenses has nikon released since its introduction? exactly zero. that should tell you something.</p> <p>In 2012, with DX competing against smaller and lighter mirrorless formats like m4/3 and NEX, and FX occupying the high-end professional market, the need for a big, heavy standard zoom for APS-C has decreased substantially, with competition coming from both ends -- as well as the two 3rd party stabilized lenses at more reasonable prices. i'm sorry, but it's simply unrealistic to speculate that the only reason for the glut of 17-55s is from FX migrators, since the trend over the last 3-4 years for casual shooters and enthusiasts has been toward more compact systems. if you're spending a day at Disney World, do you really need a 17-55 dangling from your neck for six-seven hours?</p> <p>simply put, weight is an issue for <em>everyone</em> but professional event shooters, who maybe have to carry the 17-55 around for a couple hours at most. since there are so many more choices for consumers, we are no longer limited to the choices we had nine years ago. that, i think, is a good thing. when i shoot a paid event, i'm most likely taking the D3s and 24-70. but i would never lug that combo around when traveling. it gets heavy pretty fast when covering things like rallies and marches, espeically if i'm also bringing the 70-200 and a second body. in fact, compact 2.8 standard zoom lenses like the sigma or tamron 17-50s are a big reason why i haven't sold my two DX bodies yet. for casual shooting, walkarounds, travel, and PJ assignments where i need to be fast and light, the 17-50 is my go-to lens of choice. if i need a small but versatile kit, i take the 17-50+50-150, which has probably 90% of the functionality of my FX set-up, but in a much more convenient size which is much kinder to my back, neck, and shoulders. if i could go even lighter and still get the same quality and ease of use, i would, which is why i'm considering the OM-D and XE-1.</p> <p>anyway, my point was that the sigma is not only a good option, but perhaps a better option for a lot of shooters, especially those with smaller cameras than the d300/d300s. the recent freefall in 17-55 used prices is great for buyers right now, but not so good for anyone who bought the 17-55 a few years back, thinking they were gonna recoup at least 80% of their $1400 investment. oops. indeed, if i were buying now, and i could get an unblemished 17-55 in perfect condition for $700 vs. the sigma at the sale price of $619, i'm not so sure i wouldn't opt for the latter. at 2.8, i'm usually throwing the backgrounds out of focus any way, so edge to edge sharpness isn't completely field-relevant, and stabilization is a huge plus. the deal-sealer, however, is the compact ness, which makes the camera/lens combo easier to take places. no matter how good a lens is, it wont take good pictures if its sitting at home,on a shelf.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted October 19, 2012 Author Share Posted October 19, 2012 <p>btw, thom also reviewed the sigma 50-150 (original version), which he calls "the only purely DX telephoto I've kept in my gear locker." his review is about two years too late, since the lens has been discontinued, but it's _exactly_ what DX shooters need. if you come across one, don't hesitate to pick it up. he didn't compare the performance to the 70-200 on DX, but the results, in my experience, are closer than you might think: at 2.8, the nikon has a slight sharpness advantage, but at f/4-5.6, the two lenses are almost indistinguishable without pixel peeping. the 50-150 lacks VR, and might have a bit more falloff on the long end, but it's been a capable and dependable performer.</p> <p>http://www.bythom.com/Sigma50-150mm_lens_review.htm</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_elessar Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 <p>I have one of these, but in a Canon mount, for the same basic reasons Thom describes; I didn't see a great reason to pay almost twice as much for Canon's version, when most reviewers find the differences minimal.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_bradtke Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 <p>"The only point I was trying to make is that for around the same money as the Sigma, you can get Nikon's best, which appears to give perhaps a bit better IQ"<br> And my counter point is that you are then buying a used lens with no warranty. With how much of its lifespan left in it? Against a new lens with more features and a warranty...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 <p>My counter counter point is, and no offense to Sigma users of this or any lens, that typically IQ is better with the Nikon than the Sigma. For me, top IQ is critical and the money is important but secondary. I will take Eric's word that the Nikon is a bit better. And based on his many excellent posted pictures and comments about the lens, I will take his word that the Sigma delivered excellent IQ. When I buy a fast aperture lens, I buy it specifically because of that aperture and expect to be able to use it at that aperture as needed and get excellent IQ at that aperture. I don't want to have to stop it down to f4 or f5.6 to get the best it can offer. Obviously everyone's needs are different. I would rather pay a bit more and get a bit more than pay less and have less.</p> <p>As far as lens life span, who knows... I have 30-40 year old Nikon lens that works perfectly. I had another older Nikon lens, 25+ year old, that worked great until I dropped it. How long will a lens last? Who knows... I don't think that this is an issue with either lens in question.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now