Has anyone got a sigma 17-50mm f2.8 ex dc os hsm?

I'm think of replacing my 18/55 kit lens with a sigma 17-50mm f2.8 ex dc os hsm. Has anyone got one? What is it like? Is it sharper and optically better than the kit lens? Thanks

Red Storm said:

Red Storm wrote:

I'm think of replacing my 18/55 kit lens with a sigma 17-50mm f2.8 ex dc os hsm. Has anyone got one? What is it like? Is it sharper and optically better than the kit lens? Thanks

Click to expand...

I'm surprised that no one has responded to this.

Check your PMs.

msc

It was my first lens on my first dslr. A Nikon D7000 which had autofocus issues. The lens was very sharp with somewhat soft corners at 2.8.

I picked one up because I wanted a faster lens for indoors and lowlight auto focusing. At f2.8 the central area is good but the corners are softer. By F4 it inmproves across the frame. I had to AF tune mine at 50mm but 35 and down didn't seem to need any. This on my D7100. I may send in the lens and my D7100 to Sigma providing they only AF tune the lens. Wish it was an ART lens so my USB Dock would work with it. You may want to look at the 17-70 F2.8-4. If you have to AF tune for more then one focal length you can with the USB Dock.

I own this lens and have been pleased with the results. This was the first upgraded lens I purchased and the one I have the most time on. I am new to photography so my opinion is based on my limited experience.

I had one, and used it a lot on my D200 and D90. After I bought the D7000, I sold it and bought the Nikon 16-85 and 70-300. I wish I could have kept it, but I needed to sell it to cover the other lenses.

I bought a Sigma 17-50mm EX OS HSM about a month ago and took it on vacation to the west coast to try it out. I also took my Nikon 18-105mm "kit" just in case I didn't like the 17-50mm. I found the 17-50 to be superb. Much sharper than the 18-105 and I loved the F/2.8. The flash was never used. I was able to shoot at F/2.8 in dimly lit wineries with no problem. Landscapes are superb.

I did tons of research comparing a Sigma 17-70 "C" and the Nikon 16-85mm before deciding on the 17-50mm. I didn't miss the extended reach of the other lenses. Once I pulled out the Tamron 70-300mm VC USD but the rest of the hundreds of images were with the 17-50.

I didn't find the corners to be objectionably soft. They actually surprised me as I expected them to be soft from reading the reviews. It was a snap to adjust it to my D7000 using the Dot Tune method. 17, 35 and 50 all averaged within one number of being the same.

I'm extremely satisfied.

Jim

I got the Sigma as a replacement for a stolen kit lens and a 35 1.8G. I tend to do a lot of low light shooting in pubs and the like and wanted a lens which would help in photos in that setting. When I was still shooting primarily DX I felt little urge to replace the 35 even though I think that lens is fantastic for the price. I don't know if the Sigma is sharper than the kit lens (never tested side by side), but I have no complaints about the center at 2.8 and I am fine with the corners when stopped down to f/4 or beyond.



Some snapshot below with this lens

Have had it since soon after it came out, and first used it with a D90. Sharp, fairly fast focus. But lately it has been a problem on my D600, especially when focusing wide angle. Soft images. I don't know what changed, as I used to need no adjustment on it, now it's at +20 for wide angle shots. Will have to do some tests.



Here's a shot I took back in June, straight out of the camera, no sharpening, no adjustments of any kind, about 60% crop of image.

Red Storm said:

I'm think of replacing my 18/55 kit lens with a sigma 17-50mm f2.8 ex dc os hsm. Has anyone got one? What is it like? Is it sharper and optically better than the kit lens? Thanks

Click to expand...

Yes I have the 17-50 f2.8. I have not owned the 18-55 lens so have not compared it but I do also have an 18-105 kit lens. The 18-105 is a very good lens and sharp throughout the focal length range. It is a very useful range too which is why I keep it. The 17-50 is as sharp or sharper when comparing at there respective sweet spots but is generally sharper at f5.6 throughout their common range. The only downside to the lens is that the focus ring rotates when auto-focussing and you cannot touch up the focus manually.

The 17-50 paired with the 10-20 is what I use for landscape. The 17-50 is the better lens over the common range so the 10-20 is only used if I need to go wider than 17mm, so the 17-50 is the workhorse.

For family events or for anything where I am unlikely to want to make prints larger than 12x8 I would most likely use the 18-105mm since the extra sharpness of the Sigma doesn't yield any advantage when not printing large,and the extra range is useful.

I don't make frequent use of the f2.8 as a shooting aperture but it is nice to have and does help the AF in lower light and for low contrast subjects.

I would think it would make a nice upgrade from the 18-55mm, but it does weigh a bit more (but less than Nikons 17-55 f2.8)

Regards

John

JCB123 said:

I would think it would make a nice upgrade from the 18-55mm, but it does weigh a bit more (but less than Nikons 17-55 f2.8)

Regards

John

Click to expand...

Weighing a bit more is quite an understatement I think. It's significantly heavier, on my D5100 it feels like I've tied a brick to the front of the camera.

It's clearly better optically though, from F4 it's excellent, F2.8 is just ok.

--
Shooting for fun and memories.
My Flickr - http://www.flickr.com/photos/christianhass/

Here are couple snapshots that I took while on vacation in California wine country. They're both inside, natural light F/2.8 @ 17mm with my D7000 and Sigma 17-50mm. Shot in NEF and converted in Lightroom 5 with my standard work flow.

Jim

Have one, love mine. It's one of the reasons to go ASP-C instead of u4/3, IMO.

Thanks people. This is all very useful. Is there any other lenses to consider replacing the 18-55 kit lens with?

ChristianHass said:

JCB123 said:

I would think it would make a nice upgrade from the 18-55mm, but it does weigh a bit more (but less than Nikons 17-55 f2.8)

Regards

John

Click to expand...

Weighing a bit more is quite an understatement I think. It's significantly heavier, on my D5100 it feels like I've tied a brick to the front of the camera.

Click to expand...

Well there you go. Ask for opinions & you'll certainly get variation. I've used this lens a lot and never considered it to be heavy - just not as light as the 18-55.

ChristianHass said:

It's clearly better optically though, from F4 it's excellent, F2.8 is just ok.

Click to expand...

I use it typically at f5.6 to f11. Above that things start to soften although f16 is fine for small or medium sized prints. As I said I don't frequently use it at f2.8 but when I do I find it quite sharp in the centre. Shooting at f2.8 the edges and corners are OOF so sharpness there is not an issue.

Regards

John