Which lens is better?

K

kevin612

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,008
Name
Kevin
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

I am looking at the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 and Nikon 16-85mm
I don't know which one is better than walkabout lens.
They both seems to be a good lens overall.
And with HSM on the Sigma both second hand price are about the same. So really hard to choose..
Also if in same condition, using D80, D90, D300? will the image quality of the lens be the same?

Anyone can give me an idea?
I would like to see real image sample if you have got some. :)

Thanks all
 
I would help if I could.. but I'm not familiar with Nikon lenses (just to show your thread is being read). From my experience of using Sigma lenses on Canon bodies I'd always recommend getting the EX lenses if possible.
 
I've never owned either, but a mate in Belgium has the Sigma 17-70 and really rates it on his D300.

I did toy with the idea of the 16-85 at one point and did play with one - a very nice lens indeed.

I think for general walkabout, the Nikon might edge it for me - not only for the VR but also the extra coverage each end.
 
Alastair said:
I would help if I could.. but I'm not familiar with Nikon lenses (just to show your thread is being read). From my experience of using Sigma lenses on Canon bodies I'd always recommend getting the EX lenses if possible.
Click to expand...

It's alright thanks.
Just realise the Sigma has 2 version.
17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC Marco (HSM)
17-70mm F2.8-4 DC OS (HSM)

I know the second one has vibration reduction but optical quality is it better than the first one?

Also so u think the new 17-50mm F2.8 EX would be alot better than the two above?
 
Don't know these particular lenses - BUT if you have a choice - NIKON every time!
 
justinitus said:
I've never owned either, but a mate in Belgium has the Sigma 17-70 and really rates it on his D300.

I did toy with the idea of the 16-85 at one point and did play with one - a very nice lens indeed.

I think for general walkabout, the Nikon might edge it for me - not only for the VR but also the extra coverage each end.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but would you go for larger aperture at tele end?
As 16-85mm is F3.5-5.6 only
 
I've had two (and still have one of them) Sigma 17-70mm's, and really rate it highly - one was used on a D200 and the other is still used as the only lens for my S5 Pro - I never even knew they had a OS version of it out now, but have never missed having it.

I don't think they normally change the lens optically when adding things like OS, so I'd expect both to be the same IQ-wise, but you'll obviously pay quite hefty premium for the OS I'd imagine.

Sigma a good bit faster than the Nikon as well, which is a bonus - as many on here will testify, it's a cracking lens.
 
DekHog said:
I've had two (and still have one of them) Sigma 17-70mm's, and really rate it highly - one was used on a D200 and the other is still used as the only lens for my S5 Pro - I never even knew they had a OS version of it out now, but have never missed having it.

I don't think they normally change the lens optically when adding things like OS, so I'd expect both to be the same IQ-wise, but you'll obviously pay quite hefty premium for the OS I'd imagine.

Sigma a good bit faster than the Nikon as well, which is a bonus - as many on here will testify, it's a cracking lens.
Click to expand...

What do u think of the 16-85mm, will you want to change it or keep the Sigma?
 
Also I want to know if the 18-70mm can be better than the Sigma or Nikon 16-85mm? :P
 
kevin612 said:
Also I want to know if the 18-70mm can be better than the Sigma or Nikon 16-85mm? :P
Click to expand...

lol... you're going to drive yourself crazy at this rate... and when you do decide what to get, and then get it, you'll convince yourself that the 'other lens' would have been better... such is life with photography as a passion... :D
 
DekHog said:
lol... you're going to drive yourself crazy at this rate... and when you do decide what to get, and then get it, you'll convince yourself that the 'other lens' would have been better... such is life with photography as a passion... :D
Click to expand...

Yes you are right.
Cause I haven't decide which one to go with yet and would like to know more about each lens feels in different people hands.
And I am constantly looking at sample pictures to see which one I like.
 
Nikon is almost always better - the answer is easy! :) ...and yes I do have a couple of Sigma lenses!
 
trencheel303 said:
You say this constantly and yet I've never seen you offer a justification; if you could be so kind as to do so...?
Click to expand...

I've earned my living from using Nikon glass for almost 40 years - what sort of justification do you want - if you can't see the difference - then that's great for the likes of me!
 
not that its going to be much help but i have the siggy 17-70 on a pentax fit and it lives on the body and would say use that 90% of the time.....
 
Rule of thumb- "Always Buy OEM"
Especially if u are buying zooms. Quality Primes Maybe...
And sigma is renowned for dudds in there low end line up!
 
The nikon 16-85 is just simply a perfect lens. The only thing the siggy 17-70 is better is its little wider aperture but well, if you want a wider aperture, why not buying another 35f/2 or 50f/1.4? f/2.8 at 17 and f/4 at 70 is useless anyway, you won't need that aperture.

Also, the 16-85 as I remembered, never have the same price as the siggy, it always about £100 higher. So if you can grap the used ones for the same price, the 16-85 is no brainer!


PS, don't compare the siggy 17-70 with the nikon 16-85, they're not in the same league! Do it with the Nikon 18-70 :D



*** Lol I forgot to mention that the 16-85 has VR...
 
I upgraded from the Nikon 18-70mm to the Nikon 16-85mm about 3-4 years ago, and when I had my gear knicked a few months ago, I got another 16-85mm. I've found it a great lens. A good range, wider than the usual kit lens, and with a little extra reach without going to extremes and asking the lens to cover to big a range. I know the extra 2mm at the wide end between those two lenses was quite a big difference, not sure 1mm between the Nikon and the Sigma would be significant but worth seeing the difference if you can.

I have no experience of the Sigma, but I didn't even consider anything other than the 16-85mm as it is a very versatile lens, has VR and overlapped well with the Nikon 70-300mm VR. (when I had it :( :lol:)

Here are some pics I took over the weekend with the 16-85mm on a D300S.

Try and get somewhere to try them side by side if you can.
 
trencheel303 said:
You say this constantly and yet I've never seen you offer a justification; if you could be so kind as to do so...?
Click to expand...

Errr...because they are better?
He doesn't need to justify something which, as anyone who's used both lenses has found, is a statement of fact...
 
Why not buy both second-hand, have a good play and then decide. Sell on the "loser" - you will not lose money (or if you do it will be peanuts).
Fact is most consumer lenses are very good and it's the little, "subjective", things that make the difference like "feel".
Someone gave me this advice a couple of months ago and it's worked for me.

Altenatively, buy both new and return the "loser" within 7 days for a full refund - you will only lose P&P.

PS Of note I've got the 16-85mm and love it. I did think about the Sigma but the little extra each end and the VR (versus OS/VC etc.) sold it for me.
 
Went for the 16-85mm as found one "nearly brand new" from a LCE in Manchester for 320.
Very impressive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top