Nikon or Sigma (16-85 vs 17-70)

[pbng80]

D5100 user here.

Thinking of getting a versatile lens that would help take moderate wide angle shots and something that would be good for portraits as well.

The two lenses I have shortlisted are

Nikon 16-85 f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

Sigma to 17-70 f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS

With the Nikon, I would get 15mm of added focal length (22 mm on the D5100) and I assume overall it would be a better lens than the sigma (b'coz it's Nikon maybe?)

However with the Sigma, I'd be getting a marginally faster lens because of the low f stop number.

The Sigma is around $125-150 cheaper than the Nikon.

Which one would you guys suggest in this scenario? I am neither just a portrait shooter or just a landscape shooter but I'd want one that would suit ideally for both.

If you guys have suggestion for any other lens, please advise as well.

Thanks

 

[baloo_buc]

I don't know how good Sigma lens is (some will swear for it) but my main lens since 2008 is Nikon 16-85 mm VR. I managed to fine tune it properly on my D7200 and it is excellent. The range is optimal for me so it seems for you. Sigma lenses have AF issues so if you buy it take also the USB dock to fine tune its AF.

You cannot go terribly wrong with either.

Here is a gallery with that lens: https://goo.gl/photos/8aRHhVAVDMsXQY49A

 

[pbng80]

Thank you so much, Victor. As far as my very limited knowledge goes, Nikon lenses are better in optics and more durable than Sigma and Tamron but it's the lower f count of the Sigma that was making me a bit inclined towards it.

Regards

 

[pbng80]

I managed to fine tune it properly on my D7200 and it is excellent.

Could you kindly explain what you meant by 'Fine tuning' it?

 

[pbng80]

One more thing- while we are at this, what do you guys think of the Nikon 18-200 VR against the 16-85mm

I was reading the review of the 16-85 on http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/16-85mm.htm where he concludes the review of this lens with the following

I wouldn't buy this lens: I prefer the higher zoom ratio of the 18-200mm VR, which for the same price, replaces two lenses, not just one.

Thoughts?

Thanks

 

[baloo_buc]

I managed to fine tune it properly on my D7200 and it is excellent.

Could you kindly explain what you meant by 'Fine tuning' it?

You don't have available AF fine tuning in your camera body. Nikon D7200 can fine tune the AF by shifting the AF plane closer or farther.

 

[baloo_buc]

I was making the same decision 9 years ago and 16 mm were more too tempting. Almost the same time a friend of mine had to make the same choice between 16-85 mm and 18-200 mm. He regretted, I didn't. You may be happy with it. It all depends on how much you will use 85-200 mm range and how much you want to compromise for that.

Ken Rockwell advises have to be taken with a big grain of salt if not with a salt block.

 

[pbng80]

Thanks baloo.

 

[baloo_buc]

It seems I worded a little confusing the previous post. My friend chose 18-200 mm VR.

 

[pbng80]

It seems I worded a little confusing the previous post. My friend chose 18-200 mm VR.