Thinking about getting a Sigma 17-50 2.8 or another Walk around lens

The D7200 and the 16-80 makes for an awesome combo.

Sigma have a 17-70mm f/2.8-4. Variable aperture over the range. Good reproduction ratio at the long end at about 1:2.8 so good for close up photography and cost about the same as the 17-50.

Nikon has a 16-80mm f/2.8-4. Costs more but wider focal range

Also perhaps an 18-140mm from Nikon? I dont know much about this lens.

I personally went with a 17-50 and a 70-200 on a d7100 as the larger aperture was more advantageous to me than the larger focal range. But you already have a 50 mm prime which i dont.

Meowmix25 said:

Hello,

I currently have owned for a long time a d3200. I feel like it's not enough, it does not capture the clouds well in photos and night time photos have been a challenge. I think its time to upgrade to a better body camera. I want to move to the d7100/7200, I choice this body since it's the best next to FX. So since I am getting a new body and have decided I will not go the Fx route, possibly ever I should get the 24.70 2.8 off my mind. The crop isn't the best on the Dx cameras.

So I have been looking at lens for the Dx and I am having issues finding the right walk around lens. I like the aperture to be at 2.8 lower/a little higher is fine. I like the 17-50 Sigma 2.8, but I am not sure are there other walk around lens anyone suggests? I also own the Nikon 50 1.8 and the two kit lens I received with the camera. My only thing is, is 50 enough reach? is there another lens with more zoom anyone recommends. but also has a low aperture? Thank you in advance!

Click to expand...

I got an 18-200 3.5/5.6 VR and have been pleased with it. it a good size, not all that heavy and takes decent images. I got mine used, at Adorama I think, but the price at all the usual places is within a few bucks of the others.

I used it on a D7000 with no problems and have had great luck on a D3300 with it. With any of the 3(D7100/D7200/D3300) the aperture difference dosen't seem to amount to much from 2.8 to me. With the crazy ISO levels now it works fine.

Just my 1.5 cents worth.

Chuck

Get the 16-85 or 16-80 Nikon lens, Excellent coverage. The only reason to buy third party is if you have budget constraints

Speaking from first hand experience, this in mind I would choose Tamron over Sigma if pressed if not keep to the manufactures glass. I was never so happy to sell off Sigma glass when I was stuck using it namely for my reason mentioned.

The best thing you can do is buy both lenses or rent just figure a way to test nikon and sigma side by side at the same time. I can see a difference then

Had Sigma 17-50 OS w/ D7100. Excellent combo for landscape to single person portrait.

I did find it a bit short once in a while.

Bought my son a D7000 + Sigma 17-70C OS. Excellent combo. Very nice reach and light-weight combo. Just about right for a all purpose lens. Plus it was cheap on the used market. Can find them for $300-$350 for the latest version.

If you are more portrait shooter or short tele, might want to consider discontinued Sigma 50-150OS.

Nikon 16-80 has pretty decent review but hard for me to justify the price when Sigma 17-70C OS and 17-50OS are around $500 new and cheaper used.

For equivalent money spent on Nikon 16-80 + D7200, I would move up to D610 FF with a 24-85mm VR.

Meowmix25 said:

Hello,

I currently have owned for a long time a d3200. I feel like it's not enough, it does not capture the clouds well in photos and night time photos have been a challenge. I think its time to upgrade to a better body camera. I want to move to the d7100/7200, I choice this body since it's the best next to FX. So since I am getting a new body and have decided I will not go the Fx route, possibly ever I should get the 24.70 2.8 off my mind. The crop isn't the best on the Dx cameras.

So I have been looking at lens for the Dx and I am having issues finding the right walk around lens. I like the aperture to be at 2.8 lower/a little higher is fine. I like the 17-50 Sigma 2.8, but I am not sure are there other walk around lens anyone suggests? I also own the Nikon 50 1.8 and the two kit lens I received with the camera. My only thing is, is 50 enough reach? is there another lens with more zoom anyone recommends. but also has a low aperture? Thank you in advance!

Click to expand...

Before going down the path of a much more expensive body and lens combo, perhaps you ought to stand back a bit and work out why you don't get good results with your existing kit.

Yes, it's a bit older than current models but there's nothing wrong with the D3300 as such. You say it does not capture clouds well. What do you mean? And why are night photos a challenge? Neither the 7100/7200/500 or even the latest and greatest FF body will get you better images if your technique isn't quite right.

So please explain why you're disappointed in your results. The folks on this forum are extremely knowledgeable and very helpful and I'm sure they will help if you give them a bit more info.

Regards, John

JohnNewman said:

Meowmix25 said:

Hello,

I currently have owned for a long time a d3200. I feel like it's not enough, it does not capture the clouds well in photos and night time photos have been a challenge. I think its time to upgrade to a better body camera. I want to move to the d7100/7200, I choice this body since it's the best next to FX. So since I am getting a new body and have decided I will not go the Fx route, possibly ever I should get the 24.70 2.8 off my mind. The crop isn't the best on the Dx cameras.

So I have been looking at lens for the Dx and I am having issues finding the right walk around lens. I like the aperture to be at 2.8 lower/a little higher is fine. I like the 17-50 Sigma 2.8, but I am not sure are there other walk around lens anyone suggests? I also own the Nikon 50 1.8 and the two kit lens I received with the camera. My only thing is, is 50 enough reach? is there another lens with more zoom anyone recommends. but also has a low aperture? Thank you in advance!

Click to expand...

Before going down the path of a much more expensive body and lens combo, perhaps you ought to stand back a bit and work out why you don't get good results with your existing kit.

Yes, it's a bit older than current models but there's nothing wrong with the D3300 as such. You say it does not capture clouds well. What do you mean? And why are night photos a challenge? Neither the 7100/7200/500 or even the latest and greatest FF body will get you better images if your technique isn't quite right.

So please explain why you're disappointed in your results. The folks on this forum are extremely knowledgeable and very helpful and I'm sure they will help if you give them a bit more info.

Regards, John

Click to expand...

Hi John,

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my message. So a few weeks ago I went to Iceland with my friend who has a d750 and lens were 24-70 70-200 f2.8. I brought my d3100 (didn't mean 3300 in my original message), 50 prime, and 11-16 2.8. We took photos of everything around the ring road but every time I would look at the photos mine just were not enough. It seemed my body wasn't able to capture the same depth. I'm not too knowledgeable in camera lingo so excuse my lack of correct words, but basically I would take a picture on her camera, then mine and her body just was able to capture much more than mine could. For example when I would photograph a mountain the sky would just be blown out. At night I tried to photograph the northern lights and my body just needed so much more ISO and the pictures were grainy. I figured I don't want a Fx body since this is just a casual hobby but would like to get a better body down the line. I could wait and hold off on getting a body and get a lens instead. I personally like the bokeh effect and I just do not get that with my kit lens I think they start around 4. Would love to hear what you suggest

Meowmix25 said:

JohnNewman said:

Meowmix25 said:

Hello,

I currently have owned for a long time a d3200. I feel like it's not enough, it does not capture the clouds well in photos and night time photos have been a challenge. I think its time to upgrade to a better body camera. I want to move to the d7100/7200, I choice this body since it's the best next to FX. So since I am getting a new body and have decided I will not go the Fx route, possibly ever I should get the 24.70 2.8 off my mind. The crop isn't the best on the Dx cameras.

So I have been looking at lens for the Dx and I am having issues finding the right walk around lens. I like the aperture to be at 2.8 lower/a little higher is fine. I like the 17-50 Sigma 2.8, but I am not sure are there other walk around lens anyone suggests? I also own the Nikon 50 1.8 and the two kit lens I received with the camera. My only thing is, is 50 enough reach? is there another lens with more zoom anyone recommends. but also has a low aperture? Thank you in advance!

Click to expand...

Before going down the path of a much more expensive body and lens combo, perhaps you ought to stand back a bit and work out why you don't get good results with your existing kit.

Yes, it's a bit older than current models but there's nothing wrong with the D3300 as such. You say it does not capture clouds well. What do you mean? And why are night photos a challenge? Neither the 7100/7200/500 or even the latest and greatest FF body will get you better images if your technique isn't quite right.

So please explain why you're disappointed in your results. The folks on this forum are extremely knowledgeable and very helpful and I'm sure they will help if you give them a bit more info.

Regards, John

Click to expand...

Hi John,

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my message. So a few weeks ago I went to Iceland with my friend who has a d750 and lens were 24-70 70-200 f2.8. I brought my d3100 (didn't mean 3300 in my original message), 50 prime, and 11-16 2.8. We took photos of everything around the ring road but every time I would look at the photos mine just were not enough. It seemed my body wasn't able to capture the same depth. I'm not too knowledgeable in camera lingo so excuse my lack of correct words, but basically I would take a picture on her camera, then mine and her body just was able to capture much more than mine could. For example when I would photograph a mountain the sky would just be blown out. At night I tried to photograph the northern lights and my body just needed so much more ISO and the pictures were grainy. I figured I don't want a Fx body since this is just a casual hobby but would like to get a better body down the line. I could wait and hold off on getting a body and get a lens instead. I personally like the bokeh effect and I just do not get that with my kit lens I think they start around 4. Would love to hear what you suggest

Click to expand...

The D3100 is an older camera. If it was me, I would upgrade to at least a D3300 or D5500. Sensor is better, processing is better. If you live in an area with a big box store, you can check out the newer models and get an idea if that is a way to go. A camera store would also have the camera and give oyu a chance to see different lenses on it.

Chuck

Despite reading many reviews on 3rd party lens compatibility and focusing issues on some cameras, I went ahead and took a couple chances and bought two Sigmas.

Firstly, I purchased the Sigma 17-50 2.8 for use with my D5500. I could not get that thing to focus correctly no matter what I did with the camera. The center of the frame(i.e., the intended target) of each photo was always out of focus while the scenes directly behind the intended subjects were crisp and sharp. It was focusing on the stuff behind the subject. I used various aperture settings f2.8-f11 and also used different autofocus points in the camera. Some pics were worse than others and many were flat out blurry on the subject. All of them out of focus. I had to return it.

I then decided to give the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 Contemporary a try. WOW! This lens takes beautiful and very sharp photos with my Nikon D5500 with apertures wide open or closed down and at all the focal lengths. No compatibility issues at all with focusing whatsoever like I had with the Sigma 17-50.

Whether or not this would work on another Nikon body without issues I have no idea, but it is a very good lens on the D5500 for walking around.

RSCPA said:

Firstly, I purchased the Sigma 17-50 2.8 for use with my D5500. I could not get that thing to focus correctly no matter what I did with the camera. The center of the frame(i.e., the intended target) of each photo was always out of focus while the scenes directly behind the intended subjects were crisp and sharp. It was focusing on the stuff behind the subject. I used various aperture settings f2.8-f11 and also used different autofocus points in the camera. Some pics were worse than others and many were flat out blurry on the subject. All of them out of focus. I had to return it.

Click to expand...

It sounds like you got a bad copy of this lens. The Sigma 17-50 is popular with a number of members here who report good results. The focus on mine is dead on and gives excellent results -- very sharp even when wide open. I use it for over half of my photos. I haven't used the Sigma 17-70 but reports indicate it is also excellent. Each is better for different uses: more range or better low light use.¿the

Meowmix25 said:

JohnNewman said:

Yes, it's a bit older than current models but there's nothing wrong with the D3300 as such. You say it does not capture clouds well. What do you mean? And why are night photos a challenge? Neither the 7100/7200/500 or even the latest and greatest FF body will get you better images if your technique isn't quite right.

So please explain why you're disappointed in your results. The folks on this forum are extremely knowledgeable and very helpful and I'm sure they will help if you give them a bit more info.

Regards, John

Click to expand...

Hi John,

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my message. So a few weeks ago I went to Iceland with my friend who has a d750 and lens were 24-70 70-200 f2.8. I brought my d3100 (didn't mean 3300 in my original message), 50 prime, and 11-16 2.8. We took photos of everything around the ring road but every time I would look at the photos mine just were not enough. It seemed my body wasn't able to capture the same depth. I'm not too knowledgeable in camera lingo so excuse my lack of correct words, but basically I would take a picture on her camera, then mine and her body just was able to capture much more than mine could. For example when I would photograph a mountain the sky would just be blown out. At night I tried to photograph the northern lights and my body just needed so much more ISO and the pictures were grainy. I figured I don't want a Fx body since this is just a casual hobby but would like to get a better body down the line. I could wait and hold off on getting a body and get a lens instead. I personally like the bokeh effect and I just do not get that with my kit lens I think they start around 4. Would love to hear what you suggest

Click to expand...

Hi again,

Firstly, it seems as if you're struggling with the dynamic range on the D3100 which is after all a 6 year old camera. You're also comparing to a much better full frame body with fast pro lenses. The D750 has a super dynamic range meaning it better captures the extremes of exposure.

All things being equal (which they never are!) a full frame camera with its larger sensor and pixels that less closely packed together will better capture this wider range.

However, I appreciate you don't want to go the full frame route so you need options which will help you achieve what you want - so a few thoughts:

1. Consider a newer body which will have a newer (better?) sensor. Others have made some suggestions (all good) but it probably boils down to your budget.
2. Consider a faster lens - a small prime or faster zoom. Again, depending on budget there are a number of options both in the Nikon range and from third parties.
3. You don't mention I think whether you shoot jpeg or raw. The latter will preserve all the information captured by the sensor and give you a better chance of recovering highlights. I know full well that many folk argue the merits of both (of which there are many) but it's pretty well unarguable that raw offers opportunities of processing that simply aren't available with jpegs. If you must shoot jpegs however, don't use the more extreme settings (vivid, landscape etc) but set your camera to use something like the neutral or portrait settings which effectively are less processed straight out of camera and which should give you a bit more leeway in your own processing.
4. Consider bracketing your exposures. I'm sure you're not looking for the sometimes horrendous HDRs that we sometimes see but you can merge bracketed exposures and still get a "normal" look but using the different exposures which captures detail in both highlights and shadows.

My D7100 is a long way from being perfect but I find that the combination of a decent zoom (18-140) and cheap 35mm f1.8 prime pretty well gives me most of the options I need. Plus I generally set the camera to shoot both raw and jpeg which gives me the options of choosing which I eventually use.

Anyway, good luck but before splashing out hard-earned money, try a few different techniques and then make an informed decision.

All the best,

John.