What would you choose?

ross.anderson.58

ross.anderson.58

Suspended / Banned
Messages
616
Name
Ross
Edit My Images
Yes
Apologies if this has been done to death elsewhere but I kept finding differing reviews of all.

I'm a keen but very much amateur photographer doing it as a hobby, not a career and I'm looking for a 'normal' zoom lens.

I currently own:

Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6
Nikon 50mm f1.4
Sigma 105mm f2.8

My girlfriend who is also into photography has a 35, 50, 85 all f1.8.

While I can go out and use them all, it would mean carting like 5 lenses about which I don't want to do. So I'm looking for something from 17/18mm zooming to 50-80mm. I've done some research and come up with what I think are the best options but have found differing reviews from different places on all three.

1. Sigma 17-50 f2.8
2 Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4
3. Nikon 17-55 f2.8 (if I can find one at a good second hand price)

What would you choose as a general walkabout lens? Or are there others I haven't included. Budget is around about £200-300. Going to be used on a Nikon D90. (Hoping for a full frame upgrade in the future but certainly not in the next few years)

Thanks for the help.

Ross
 
ross.anderson.58 said:
Apologies if this has been done to death elsewhere but I kept finding differing reviews of all.

I'm a keen but very much amateur photographer doing it as a hobby, not a career and I'm looking for a 'normal' zoom lens.

I currently own:

Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6
Nikon 50mm f1.4
Sigma 105mm f2.8

My girlfriend who is also into photography has a 35, 50, 85 all f1.8.

While I can go out and use them all, it would mean carting like 5 lenses about which I don't want to do. So I'm looking for something from 17/18mm zooming to 50-80mm. I've done some research and come up with what I think are the best options but have found differing reviews from different places on all three.

1. Sigma 17-50 f2.8
2 Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4
3. Nikon 17-55 f2.8 (if I can find one at a good second hand price)

What would you choose as a general walkabout lens? Or are there others I haven't included. Budget is around about £200-300. Going to be used on a Nikon D90. (Hoping for a full frame upgrade in the future but certainly not in the next few years)

Thanks for the help.

Ross
Click to expand...
I had the Sigma, I found it too wide for walk about. Images got too distorted, got some nice beach shots with it though. Got some nice sprawling blue skies and sandy beaches. I would probably like the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 , if I had the spare cash.
 
Last edited:
For me I would always go for a constant aperture, I have all f/2.8 myself, apart from the sigma 10-20, and for me the small difference between 50 and 70mm is not worth worrying about as I have a 17-50 and my next lens up is 70-200 and never miss the bit between.
 
17-50mm f2.8, either Sigma or Tamron. I would personally go with the Sigma OS HSM as although the sharpness is the same as the Tamron on the D90, the Sigma is slightly sharper on some other Nikon bodies if you decide to upgrade say to a D7100 or something in the future. I haven't found one Nikon body yet where the Tamron is the sharpest although not looked at them all.
 
I use a Tamron 17-50 non vc f2.8 with my D90 and have been very happy with it. Sold all my other dx lens but have kept this one and the D90 for now.
 
TLR-330 said:
Sorry, is the sigma a full frame lens? Are you sure?
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter if the lens is FF or for Crop body the focal length stated on the lens is the actual focal length of the lens and does not take into account the crop factor (at least on interchangeable lenses), therefore even if a lens is specifically designed for APS-C sensors you still have to multiply the focal length by the crop factor to give you the effective field of view. Therefore the both the Tamron and Sigma 17-50mm lenses will give you the effective FOV of 25.5-75mm on Nikon (the above calculation of 28.5mm is wrong ;))
 
snerkler said:
Doesn't matter if the lens is FF or for Crop body the focal length stated on the lens is the actual focal length of the lens and does not take into account the crop factor (at least on interchangeable lenses), therefore even if a lens is specifically designed for APS-C sensors you still have to multiply the focal length by the crop factor to give you the effective field of view. Therefore the both the Tamron and Sigma 17-50mm lenses will give you the effective FOV of 25.5-75mm on Nikon (the above calculation of 28.5mm is wrong ;))
Click to expand...

Maths was never my strong point.
 
No, the crop factor lenses are what they write on the label. The full frame lenses are the focal length they say they are but as they produce a bigger circle of light so they cover a bigger sensor, we effectively take a small "englargement" or "a crop" from that bigger circle, so on a crop camera the shot is as if the lens was x1.5 longer.

If you have FF lenses on your list, do the list again but multiply them by 1.5, and leave the crop lenses as they are.
 
TLR-330 said:
If you have FF lenses on your list, do the list again but multiply them by 1.5, and leave the crop lenses as they are.
Click to expand...
so you will have a list of actual focal lengths and "effective" focal lengths.

I like it when I quote myself :geek:
 
TLR-330 said:
No, the crop factor lenses are what they write on the label. The full frame lenses are the focal length they say they are but as they produce a bigger circle of light so they cover a bigger sensor, we effectively take a small "englargement" or "a crop" from that bigger circle, so on a crop camera the shot is as if the lens was x1.5 longer.

If you have FF lenses on your list, do the list again but multiply them by 1.5, and leave the crop lenses as they are.
Click to expand...
I think you need to look into crop factor and lenses a bit more as you have it wrong I'm afraid. The Sigma 17-50mm will give you the field of view of 25.5-75mm on a crop sensor, just like my 12-40mm gives me 24-80mm FOV on my Olympus m4/3 (which has a 2x crop).
 
snerkler said:
I think you need to look into crop factor and lenses a bit more as you have it wrong I'm afraid. The Sigma 17-50mm will give you the field of view of 25.5-75mm on a crop sensor, just like my 12-40mm gives me 24-80mm FOV on my Olympus m4/3 (which has a 2x crop).
Click to expand...

Uhmm. Just looked at Nikon. Three 50mm lenses AF Nikkor f1.4, AF f1.8D, AF-S f1.4G all produce 46 degrees viewing angle in their native format but the first two produce 31.30 degrees in DX format. For the time being I stick with what I think I know. You may however have a point about some cropping from third party lenses as the same lens could be designed to work with a variety of sensor sizes.
 
Last edited:
For £200 you will be be able to pick up a used Nikon AFS18-200mm VR lens Great walk around and general lens.
It's all I carried with my Sigma 10-20mm before going FX
 
TLR-330 said:
Uhmm. Just looked at Nikon. Three 50mm lenses AF Nikkor f1.4, AF f1.8D, AF-S f1.4G all produce 46 degrees viewing angle in their native format but the first two produce 31.30 degrees in DX format. For the time being I stick with what I think I know. You may however have a point about some cropping from third party lenses as the same lens could be designed to work with a variety of sensor sizes.
Click to expand...
The Nikon site can be misleading as for some FX lenses they state the DX FOV and for some they don't, which to be frank is pretty poor.

You are of course entitled to believe what you think but I hope that you do do some more research otherwise you may end up buying a lens with a FOV that you don't want (y).

To give another example using the Nikon site, if you look at a 35mm FX lens it gives a 63 degree FOV on FX, and a 44 degree FOV on DX, i.e. 52.5mm eq. If you look at the 35mm DX lens (a lens designed for APS-C with a smaller image Circle) it gives a 44 degree FOV NOT a 63 degree, therefore the 35mm DX is still giving the effective FOV of a 52.5mm lens even though it's sepcifically designed for DX.

You have to think how the image hits the sensor, the DX lens does not physically enlarge or reduce any part of the image compared to an FX lens, it is purely down to sensor size that creates the magnification/FOV difference.
 
Last edited:
Yes I thought I was looking at a 50mm DX but subsequently found the 35mm DX and its field of view is narrower than the 50mm FX. I did not want to delete my comment by editing it but I could not find an option to cross the text out (overstrike).

Thanks. I will go and scratch my head now ;-)

EDIT. My calculation for lenses is wide or wider, not so wide, long, and how long can I get? Having spend all my life with one lens I can now enjoy having many lenses and take cr@p photos.
 
Last edited:
Nikon 17-55 2.8, I'd always choose 2.8 and the Sigma isn't up to scratch IMHO.
 
You could also consider a used Nikon DX 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR. Bought used it would be within your budget, and is an excellent lens unless you need a 2.8 lens and accept the increase in weight.
 
Last edited:
It all depends on what you want from the lens when it comes to walking about. Do you want the best quality for pixel peeping? 17-55 Nikon, Verastility? 18-200 VR. Light weight? 35/1.8D or a 'kit' 18-55

I've used the first three on a D90, and the last on a D5200, and quite honestly, unless you are wanting to keep apertures large, you'd be hard pressed to tell which lens took a shot if it was printed at10" x 15".

The 17-55 is a great lens, but pretty much useless on FX, So, looking at what you already have, and the hope to go FX in the future, a 24-85VR Nikon might be an option as it fills a bit of space in your line up, it's lightish, and it's good on FX.
 
Phil V said:
Nikon 17-55 2.8, I'd always choose 2.8 and the Sigma isn't up to scratch IMHO.
Click to expand...
Depends what you've used and/or read and trust, and of course sample variation can influence this. But in terms of lab scores (which I admit need to be taken with a pinch of salt) the Sigma is slightly sharper than the Nikon on the D90 and significantly sharper on the D7100 and D500 compared to the Nikon 17-55mm.

However, I believe the Nikon is a bit sharper, but as the Sigma and Tamron deliver 95% of the performance (imo) for a fraction of the cost, and are a lot lighter then they're hard to look past. Plus the OP can't stretch to the Nikon as they're £450+ used.

A lens that would beat all these in terms of IQ is the Signa 18-35mm F1.8 but focal length is limiting and again it's out of budget.
 
snerkler said:
Depends what you've used and/or read and trust, and of course sample variation can influence this. But in terms of lab scores (which I admit need to be taken with a pinch of salt) the Sigma is slightly sharper than the Nikon on the D90 and significantly sharper on the D7100 and D500 compared to the Nikon 17-55mm.

However, I believe the Nikon is a bit sharper, but as the Sigma and Tamron deliver 95% of the performance (imo) for a fraction of the cost, and are a lot lighter then they're hard to look past. Plus the OP can't stretch to the Nikon as they're £450+ used.

A lens that would beat all these in terms of IQ is the Signa 18-35mm F1.8 but focal length is limiting and again it's out of budget.
Click to expand...
The only lens I ever sent back.

Other people will have different experiences, I'm not a techie lens measurer, I've owned dozens of lenses, and the only one I ever rejected was the Sigma 17-50, eventually buying the Canon, which has been awesome (mostly)
 
Phil V said:
The only lens I ever sent back.

Other people will have different experiences, I'm not a techie lens measurer, I've owned dozens of lenses, and the only one I ever rejected was the Sigma 17-50, eventually buying the Canon, which has been awesome (mostly)
Click to expand...
Yeah there'll always be a bad egg, and we know Sigma (non art) and Tamron do have more QC issues than Canikon. That being said I did have to return my Nikon 18-35mm due to AF issues, but the replacement has been stellar.
 
On FF my general purpose lens is the Nikon 28-300... basically the FF version of the 18-200. On APS I'd seriously consider the 18-300 (I use a 70-300 on my Nikon1 a lot). There are plenty of compromises w/ a variable aperture super zoom, but in good light and used well it is more than adequate for most needs. IMHO, having the right focal length for the perspective/composition you want matters more than almost everything else (especially if you have the ability to use longer exposures).

When things are more serious/important, then I use more expensive specialty lenses... but that's not "general walkabout" to me.
 
I liked the Nikon 16-85mm VR as the most versatile DX lens for quality, size, weight and cost. The 16mm makes a surprising difference compared to the 18- whatever lenses, and the 85mm overlapped nicely with my 70-300mm. I don't really do portraits, so wide apertures aren't that important to me. I liked the lens so much I bought a 2nd one when the 1st was stolen. :)

I've only recently upgraded to the 16-80mm VR because I found it at a good price and had some money for a change, ;) and the 16-85mm was getting a bit tired with age. I haven't had a chance to really use it yet, but I'm hoping there will be an increase in quality to justify the cost. :thinking: It will have to go some to be better at f8, because the 16-85 was great.

The OP may be able to get a good 2nd hand one within budget.
 
snerkler said:
Yeah there'll always be a bad egg, and we know Sigma (non art) and Tamron do have more QC issues than Canikon. That being said I did have to return my Nikon 18-35mm due to AF issues, but the replacement has been stellar.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a 'bad copy' it had awful CA and I do a lot of contre jour shooting which means for me, it's not fit for purpose.
 
ross.anderson.58 said:
Even with the APS-C crop factor? Which would make it what? A 28.5-75mm
Click to expand...

I'm guessing from his first post and those after, that he was talking about the 10-20 you already have rather than the 17-50 you are considering.

With regards to a zoom, I used to shoot Canon and used the Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non-VC) and it delivered excellent results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top