Thom reviews sigma 17-50/2.8 OS HSM

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>typically IQ is better with the Nikon than the Sigma.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>everyone says the nikon is a bit better, but how much is a "bit"? that part seems somewhat subjective. all zoom lenses involve compromises. in the case of the tamron 17-50, it's actually sharper (<a href="http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/290-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-nikon-test-report--review">according to photozone</a>), but in my experience, had a lot of distortion @17mm. not necessarily field-relevant, as most zoom lenses have some distortion at their widest end--the 24-70 AF-S being no exception--and for critical landscape shots, zooming to 20 or 24 corrects the problem (for the nikkor i go to 28). for people shots, 17mm is no problem. same thing with the sigma 17-50 OS. i dont find that i <em>need</em> to stop down just to get acceptable sharpness any more than with any other 2.8 lens. if i can, i <em>will</em> stop down because f/4 gives you more wiggle room than 2.8, but i also do the same thing with my pro nikkors. i have no hesitation in shooting the sigma at 2.8.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would rather pay a bit more and get a bit more than pay less and have less.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>again, "more" is subjective. with the nikon, obviously, you get better build (though the sigma's isn't bad). you also get better edge to edge sharpness at 2.8, although that's where it matters least because of shallow DoF. but you don't get stabilization, which is helpful in low-light situations with static subjects. i don't always need this feature, but it's nice to have. the nikon's AF is probably better than the tamron 17-50, but the sigma seems snappy enough on the bodies i've tried it on (d90 and d300s), so no complaints there. but what you're really getting "less" of is weight and size. as i said earlier, there are times i grab the DX kit over the FX kit simply for these reasons. so that's <em>absolutely</em> a field-relevant factor. if i wasn't getting acceptable results, i dont think i'd continue to do that. in my case, even if the nikkor has better IQ in some ways, compactness gets prioritized. other people's needs might be different.</p>

<p>but as i said earlier, the 17-55 is a 2003 design, made at a time when DX bodies were clunky and mirrorless compact bodies didn't exist. the sigma and tamron 17-50s allow one to have a high-performance, somewhat compact kit which is perhaps truer to the spirit of what DX is supposed to be. the differences get even more pronounced when you look at the size comparison between the 70-200 and 50-150. so, i'll conclude by saying that while absolute IQ is nice to have, it's a fairly subjective term which doesn't even really exist in zoom lenses, except maybe in the case of the 14-24, which is reputedly better than most equivalent primes. if you wanted the best possible IQ, your kit would consist of an FX body with Zeiss manual focus primes and/or nikon's 24/35/85 G lenses. OTOH, for several thousand dollars less, you can have a compact kit which delivers excellent results, suitable for publishing or framing. Which is to say, i really see no reason to spend $1400 on the 17-55 at this point. $700 is much more reasonable, but even then, not only are you not getting a warranty, but you're still going to be schlepping around a big clunker whose size, weight and bulk might deter you from even bringing your camera out in the first place.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Sorry double post</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>No lens is at its sharpest wide open. If you expect that you will always be disappointed.<br>

I have Nikon lenses from 1958 that work just fine.I also have a lens from the late 1890's and it works just fine. They are manual focus. The internal AF motors have a finite lifespan. At the facility where I work we have all Canon equipment that is rented out to students and about once a year at least one of the lenses is going back because of AF problems. Its not always the motor sometimes its other things. We also get a lot of decenterd lenses because they get dropped.<br>

Yes I know they are Canon lenses but they are also all L lenses and Canon has been doing the AFS thing longer then Nikon so you would think they have all of the bugs worked out.<br>

Believe me I wish we had Nikon gear to work with but Canon gives the school a lot of gear and Nikon has yet to step up to the plate.<br>

All that aside if it is for my professional work I do not buy used AFS lenses. I don't care who makes them. I have no problem buying manual focus or D type AF lenses used.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>as i said,i've been using the sigma 17-50 OS for almost two years; thom's review just came out this week. do i feel validated that hogan would give the thumbs-up? absolutely. did i need hogan's blessing to use this lens? absolutely not. the wonderful images i've shot with this speak for itself. i couldn't imagine taking the 17-55 when traveling, as i did the tamron when i had it, and now the sigma. i think its pointless to try to find silver linings in the 17-55, since it is what it is: as of 2012, an anachronistic lens, way overpriced (if you buy it new) and far too big for its britches. it's a clear winner in IQ only if you need edge sharpness at 2.8, which in my case, isn't often. i guess it all depends on where you set the expectation bar. if you have to buy a used lens just to make it a reasonable choice, then you should be prepared to lower your expectations accordingly if something goes wrong -- and possibly be out your purchase price. i should probably also mention that this is the third version at a standard DX 2.8 zoom that sigma has tried, which benefits the end-user, since this one is much improved from its predecessors. again, all lenses have compromises, but i can live with the sigma. it's not only paid for itself, but it's also proved it belongs in my bag.</p>

[howard_owen]

<p>The 17-55 has surpassed the Sigma and Tamron lenses I've attempted to use in terms of absolute image quality, focus acquisition and build quality (especially v. the Tamron line). Sigmas are built a bit better and are probably more durable than Tamrons, provided you don't mind the paint flaking off.</p>

<p>The 17-55 is anachronistic? If it is, then so are the stunning images it produces. Come to think of it, we *do* seem to live now in a smart phone / facebook world where good enough has become, well, <em>good enough</em>. Maybe it's time to lower my standards.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>howard, there's no need for snark. the facts speak for themselves: no one's making big heavy 'pro'-spec DX lenses anymore. nikon hasn't even attempted to do so since 2003. that's nine years ago, practically an epoch in the fast-moving world of technology. maybe building lenses that big results in less optical compromise, but it involves compromises in other areas, namely portability. and, if i want "absolute" image quality, i reach for the 24-70 and the FX body. FWIW, when i had the tamron 17-50, i was always worried about its dinky-looking build, but it proved to be a lot tougher than it looked. scoff all you want, but it survived many a night of shooting nightclub performances and drunken patrons with flailing elbows, thanks to its rubber bumper/focus ring. the sigma has yet to chip any paint in two years.</p>

<p>i hate to tell you this, but the 17-55 isn't so far ahead of its competitors in image quality that it comes down to lowering standards. surely a stickler like thom hogan wouldn't be using the sigma and not the nikon in his kit, were that the case. if the 17-55 were the zenith of optical perfection, it wouldn't be so easy to find one used. not to say it isn't capable of stunning images, but so are the other lenses you dismiss so casually. maybe it's time to rise above lens snobbery. i'm not telling you to trade in the 17-55, just pointing out that the sigma is better than a lot of folks are willing to give it credit for. sure, in a Prius era, some people continue to drive Cadillacs. they both go from point A to point B, so, i guess it comes down to, YMMV.</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>" no one's making big heavy 'pro'-spec DX lenses anymore"</em> Well, actually that is not true - Nikon is.</p>

<p><em>"the 17-55 isn't so far ahead of its competitors in image quality"</em> According to you (you have said this a couple of times and I do take your word for it), the 17-55 <strong>is</strong> ahead in the IQ department. Perhaps that is why people still buy them today even though the design is nine years old. I guess this lens was ahead of its time then and can still be a good lens to invest in for DX users (IMO used only).</p>

<p>I think Howard is on the money with his last comment. A photography friend and business associate just brought in a nice image of his dog, and asked me to guess what camera it was taken with. Obviously impossible to tell, but since he has 4 Nikon bodies, a D40, D40x, D90 and D7000), I went through them all. But the photo it turns out was taken with his iPhone! He rarely uses his Nikon gear and instead uses his iPhone and Lumix P&S.</p>

<p>I think Howard is on the money - for many, good enough is, well, good enough. </p>