Nikkor 17-55 2.8 or Sigma 18-50 2.8?

Jeremy Winterberg · November 19, 2009

I want to hear from people that have these lenses what they think about them. When I shot Canon I was ALWAYS using my Promaster 17-50 2.8, so I'm planning on getting a version of this lens no matter what.

I can get a used Nikkor version for $950 (good deal?), and the Sigma is around $420 new (I would try to find a used copy).

Is it worth spending the extra cash on the Nikkor? Or should I just get the Sigma? I have nothing against using "off brand" lenses as long as they're sharp and focus quickly.

I'm planning on making a purchase by this weekend. Waiting for my last canon lens to sell (80-200mm f/2.8L)

I will be receiving my D300 on Monday, and I need a lens to go with it! And would like to have it before Thanksgiving so I can take pictures of family members and whatnot.

Thanks!

Jeremy

ziggy53 · November 19, 2009

I believe that the Promaster 17-50mm, f2.8 is really a Tamron lens of the same specs. I have a Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8 EX DC (before the current Macro version) and if anything happens to it I would replace it with the Tamron, which I believe has better AF. The Sigma mis-focuses occasionally and many report the same problem. The Tamron does not seem to have the AF problem and reviews seem to indicate slightly better edge and corner performance as well.

I do like the Sigma and I have learned how to get around the AF problem and I won't replace it until it fails. (The Tamron was not available when I purchased the Sigma.)

jrmyrnsm · November 19, 2009

hey Jeremy(nice name) your gonna really enjoy that d300 even though I think you edged me out of the one you got...

As for the lens, I've got a Tamron 17-50 and the Sigma 18-50 and I find them to be similar in performance(at least my copies). I typically grab my tamron just because I like the slightly wider field of view. 1mm sounds like nothing but I can tell when I'm shooting with the Sigma that its not there... As for the Nikon 17-55, if you can afford it, its an excellent performer and feels like a pro lens. I borrow one from time to time and have been really impressed with the quality(both build and picture). I know they just came out with the Tamron 17-50 VR which also might be a good one to consider. Depending on how you shoot I would also recommend checking out the new 35mm 1.8, when I shoot I use the 35 on my main body and the tamron on my second body about 90% of the time. Have fun with the switch to Nikon!

Jeremy Winterberg · November 19, 2009

This Tamron?

Looks like a sweet deal. I'll have to look into that lens more.

And yep, I beat ya by an hour! haha..

jrmyrnsm · November 19, 2009

Yup thats the one! Like I said I havent used it but I love the 17-50 and having VC/VR is a nice bonus. On the flip side you can pick up a used Tamron in the $350 range... so is the new VC version worth an extra 275? who knows... Honestly I think you will be happy with whatever you end up with, I've used all the mentioned lenses except the new Tamron VC on a D300 and they all do great. Good luck!

Jeremy Winterberg · November 20, 2009

jrmyrnsm wrote:

hey Jeremy(nice name)

haha, wow, we have the same first name... we fought for the same D300... Ironic. Great minds think alike!

Yeah, well, my budget if my lens sells for the reserve price ($650) would be roughly $920 lets just say $1000 to make it easy.

I need to get a flash... that's a necessity. I'm thinking either an SB600, or a couple Vivitar 285HV's...

so, let me do the math..
$1000
- $600 for the VC Tamron
- $220'ish for the SB600
---
$180 Left

OR
- $160 2 vivitar 285HV's
---
$240 Left

OR
- $400 invested in some studio monolights ... FINALLY (thinking calumet genesis series)
---
$0 Left

Jeremy Winterberg · November 22, 2009

Ended up going with a Nikkor version... found one for $825 on Fred Miranda - And I'm also getting an SB600... found one for $169 on Fred Miranda as well lol. Good deals on there if you didn't know already!

bmoreshooter · November 23, 2009

17-55

Jeremy Winterberg wrote:

I want to hear from people that have these lenses what they think about them. When I shot Canon I was ALWAYS using my Promaster 17-50 2.8, so I'm planning on getting a version of this lens no matter what.

I can get a used Nikkor version for $950 (good deal?), and the Sigma is around $420 new (I would try to find a used copy).

Is it worth spending the extra cash on the Nikkor? Or should I just get the Sigma? I have nothing against using "off brand" lenses as long as they're sharp and focus quickly.

I'm planning on making a purchase by this weekend. Waiting for my last canon lens to sell (80-200mm f/2.8L)

I will be receiving my D300 on Monday, and I need a lens to go with it! And would like to have it before Thanksgiving so I can take pictures of family members and whatnot.

Thanks!

Jeremy

If you are looking for a 17-55 nikor I have one listed here on an earlier post. I have it listed at 1000.00 but wil be willing to drop to 900.0 if your interested. It's in perfect condition.

Jeremy Winterberg · November 23, 2009

bmoreshooter wrote:

If you are looking for a 17-55 nikor I have one listed here on an earlier post. I have it listed at 1000.00 but wil be willing to drop to 900.0 if your interested. It's in perfect condition.

Sorry, I already bought a Nikkor 17-55... I got one or $825...

Zerodog · November 24, 2009

I love my Nikon 17-55. It is the lens that lives on my D300s. Have fun with your new baby. It is a fast focuser and is razor sharp!

Nikkor 17-55 2.8 or Sigma 18-50 2.8?

Comments