Nikkor 17-55 f2.8 or Sigma 17-50 f2.8?

Started Feb 24, 2012 | Discussions thread
Visualiza
Regular MemberPosts: 141
Like?
Lay off already.
In reply to SunLyte, Feb 29, 2012

SunLyte wrote:

Jon wrote:

Let me preface this by saying that I am an amateur and as such, you can probably assume that I barely (if at all) know what I am doing.

If this is true then why even bother posting? What if you needed surgery and your doctor started out his diagnosis with "I barely (if at all) know what I am doing..." ? I don't think you'd care much what he says after that.

The day you find an amateur surgeon who operates on people as a hobby , then come back and try again. Good grief.

For portraits, I found that the extra 5mm on the Nikon made it so that I could stand a half step back to take the picture that I wanted, but honestly I would have preferred both lenses go to 60mm to achieve a true 85mm equivalent.

Because someone who barely knows what they're doing has such discerning tastes? At 55mm it is equivalent to 83mm so I don't think you would notice a whole lot of difference between 55mm and 60mm on the long end.

Why do you feel the need to be so hostile? You could have made your point without that insulting first sentence.

I hated the size and weight of the Nikon. I wanted an event and portrait lens, where i could participate in the event and take pictures. The sigma was okay for this, but the Nikon was just a monster. If you are a pro and you are at the event to do your job, then it would probably be fine, but it's not something that I would bring to an event unless my primary purpose at the event was to be the photographer.

Incidentally the 17-55mm is a pro lens intended for people whose primary purpose is photography. It sounds like you would have been well served with a point-n-shoot.

Newsflash: any lens is intended for people whose primary purpose is photography. Do you have a superiority complex, or are you always such an elitist snob?

The 17-55mm is heavy but I find that it balances out just fine with the D7000...so much so that I am able to get sharp shots even at lower shutter speeds where motion blur is typically a problem.

I think the decision on these lenses is an entirely personal one, so you're not going to get your answer in a web forum. Funny story - I rented both of these lenses to see which one was better, and the experience has convinced me to buy the 16-85 and the 50mm 1.8 instead. The 50mm for portraits and low light and the 16-85 for everything else. If Nikon made a high quality (and cheap!) 20mm DX prime, I would probably skip the 16-85, too.

Further testing would probably lead you back to point-n-shoot territory. You're obviously more interested in taking snapshots than artfully framing photos.

And you obviously have a chip on your shoulder. I get it; you prefer pro caliber Nikkor glass for your own reasons. Good for you. Don't think that gives you an excuse to belittle others because you have an ax to grind.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow