Sigma 18-35 versus Nikon 17-55 on a d300

Started Jan 30, 2014 | Discussions thread
KOOOOBA New Member • Posts: 6
Re: Sigma 18-35 versus Nikon 17-55 on a d300

anotherMike wrote:

This one, as most of these questions always do, comes down to what, specifically, your focal length needs are.

From an absolute sense, taking away the obvious extra range of the Nikon, the Sigma 18-35 flat out blows the Nikon 17-55 away in image quality. It's simply at astounding lens in quite a few use cases. Not perfect - the wider end of the Sigma is best at longer distances while the longer end of the Sigma is best at shorter distances, with 24mm falling in the middle. Sharpness on something demanding like the D7100 can be *astounding* with the Sigma. However, on the lower rez D300 body, that does mitigate the advantages somewhat - you'd buy the Sigma if you saw yourself upgrading in the DX lineup down the road (obviously it's not an FX lens).

I sold my last DX body a while ago, and with it the Sigma 18-35, but during the time I owned that little heavy zoom, color me way the hell impressed. 20mm at F/5.6 or so on moderate distance subjects was in Zeiss category of quality, I kid you not. Crazy sharp.

But if you need 55mm, well, there's the answer, right?

-m

What???

I'm curious, why would the Sigma 18-35 not be so great on a D300?

I'm considering this lens, but your statement has me curious.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow