A few questions before purchasing a lens!

Geo-Gamer · 22 Apr 2013 at 13:47

Hi all I just wanted a few quick questions answered before i go pick up the lens this evening and just get a few thoughts on my decision.

I basically want to replace the kit lens for a 'all round better lens' and the kit lens i am using at the moment is a 18-55mm nikon 3.5-5.6 lens with my d5100.

The lens that i have currently been looking at is the sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4 which goes for a round 320-360 pounds. But I have currently found it on gumtree around the corner from me going for £220 and he claims his throwing in a uv filter which costed him £50.

I worked out that if i sell my kit lens for around £60 and I have already sold my dads ancient canon lens for 90 pounds that all i will be doing is putting on top is £70 for this new lens.

The question is do you think my upgrade is worth it for the extra £70 spent? Not only do i get a 20% increase in focal length it is also a sharper lens and I wanted an all round lens for my trips to florence and vegas so i thought this might fit the bill?

Thanks for the help and please go easy on me as I am still a beginer

Raymond Lin · 22 Apr 2013 at 14:04

I think the Nikon kit lens is pretty decent for the money anyway?

This Sigma isn't known for its sharpness and I think you will only achieve F/2.8 at 17mm, as soon as you start to zoom the aperture goes down.

The lens to go for at this budget is a Tamron 17-50/2.8. The extra reach (of lack of) is not a problem as it is not that massive.

a1ex2001 · 22 Apr 2013 at 14:17

I would agree with Rymonds advice go for something considerably better and faster of stick with what you have and the sigma will not be a huge upgrade and the increased length isn't big enough to warrant the money. Especially when you could get the excellent tamron 17-50mm f2.8 non-os for the same or less.

The sigma 17-70mm's are very good lenses the one I had took some excellent images and I did like the range it offered. Double check with your gumtree seller there are two versions of the lense the 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 and the 17-70mm f2.8-4 OS while both are really good optically the second commands a premium for it's excellent OS system.

D.P. · 22 Apr 2013 at 17:00

As above, the Sigma 17-70 is kind of an intermediate lens, better than the kit but not really anything worth upgrading to.

There are 2 main options really:
1) Go for a Tamron/Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 and get a nice fast constant aperture zoom.
2) Something more versatile like the Nikon 16-85mm VR. The 16mm end adds a lot of new photographic options and may save buying an ultra wide angle, the moderate tele end helps when a little more reach is needed, e.g. photographing architectural details.

The choice of option 1 or 2 depends on what you like to shoot, for landscape, architecture, urban, nature, expedition then the versatility of #2 is best. For portraits and getting better subject-background separation then # is best (but a prime lens like the Nikon 35 or 50mm f/2.8 would be much better again).

Geo-Gamer · 22 Apr 2013 at 18:22

Thanks all for your feedback...Been so clued up on the fact its a 17-70 and an all rounder that I have not stopped to think if I will ever use the 50 + focal length and i probably ever wont :|

In that case I will just settle for the 17-50 being my all rounder as it is a constant 2.8. Now i just need to decide between the sigma or tamron version

I was supposed to go and pick up the lens at half 6. Best text him saying i have a change of mind

Thanks for your helps guys once again i appreciate the input on helping me make my decision

mrk · 22 Apr 2013 at 18:40

The difference between 16mm and 17mm isn't huge enough to claim new photographic options though. I used the 16-35 in Finland and the 1mm extra didn't give anything noticeable over my 17-40. I would instead focus efforts on what additional features that lens gives such as VR (useful even at the wide end, especially for video).

I agree on the longer end though, 85mm will come in handy.

D.P. · 22 Apr 2013 at 18:56

mrk said:
The difference between 16mm and 17mm isn't huge enough to claim new photographic options though. I used the 16-35 in Finland and the 1mm extra didn't give anything noticeable over my 17-40. I would instead focus efforts on what additional features that lens gives such as VR (useful even at the wide end, especially for video).

I agree on the longer end though, 85mm will come in handy.

Depends very much on the lens though and the actual angle of view. The Difference between 16mm on my 16-85 compared to 18mm on other 18-xxx lenses I have tested is worlds apart. The Nikon16-85 angle of view at the wide end is closer to about 15.5mm, while most of the 18-xx are nearer 19mm. The 17-5x f/2.8 lenses are also more like 18-5x mm.

In terms of angle of view the 16-85mm is 83degrees, most 18mm lenses 75degrees, so quite a bit narrower. The Tamron 17-50mm has a wide FoV of 77 degrees.

At these wide angles 1-2mm focal length differences are easily noticeable.
In FF equivalence the 18-xxx lenses tended are around 28mm, the Nikon 16-85 is 24mm or even wider. These are 2 different prime lenses on FF and for good reason, 24mm is noticeably wider than 28mm.

In terms of use when I owned the 18-70mm f/4.5 I would nearly always take along my 10-20mm, since getting the 16-85 I often leave the 10-20mm behind as the 16mm end is so much wider.

mrk · 22 Apr 2013 at 19:08

Hmm interesting point about the fov differences. There really wasn't much in the 16-35 vs 17-40 at the wide end, I guess they're closely matched FOV wise anyway.

Geo-Gamer · 22 Apr 2013 at 19:47

a1ex2001 said:
Double check with your gumtree seller there are two versions of the lense the 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 and the 17-70mm f2.8-4 OS while both are really good optically the second commands a premium for it's excellent OS system.

O i forgot to comment it is the newer hsm version that goes up to a maxiumum of 4 instead of 4.5. Sad to let it go as it was kinda cheap and mint condition. [The uv filter that he also through in that costs 50 pounds doesnt really bother me though).

Geo-Gamer · 22 Apr 2013 at 20:04

Just to add, im very happy i listend to you guys! I was going to give away my hard end £220 for a used sigma 17-70mm when i have just gone on digital rev and seen the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical for £220 brand new :|

However, the sigma 17-50 is £420 and dont really see the point in spending £200 more for that :|

The links are down bellow :

Tamron : http://www.digitalrev.com/product/tamron-sp-af-17-50mm/MzQxNQ_A_A

Sigma :http://www.digitalrev.com/product/sigma-17-50mm-f2-8/OTc4Mw_A_A

Reality Bites · 24 Apr 2013 at 16:38

Geo-Gamer said:
Just to add, im very happy i listend to you guys! I was going to give away my hard end £220 for a used sigma 17-70mm when i have just gone on digital rev and seen the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical for £220 brand new :|

However, the sigma 17-50 is £420 and dont really see the point in spending £200 more for that :|

The links are down bellow :

Tamron : http://www.digitalrev.com/product/tamron-sp-af-17-50mm/MzQxNQ_A_A

Sigma :http://www.digitalrev.com/product/sigma-17-50mm-f2-8/OTc4Mw_A_A

Are digital rev uk stock? Amazon have the vc version of the tamron for 330, that comes under uk warranty then.

Edit: they advertise uk warranty but its actually them giving you a uk type warranty. Just bare that in mind when looking at prices.

Ksanti · 24 Apr 2013 at 17:13

Geo-Gamer said:
O i forgot to comment it is the newer hsm version that goes up to a maxiumum of 4 instead of 4.5. Sad to let it go as it was kinda cheap and mint condition. [The uv filter that he also through in that costs 50 pounds doesnt really bother me though).

There's a new 17-70 from Sigma since the refresh of their lineup so that's probably why the values dropping a little bit on the older models

K.C. Leblanc · 24 Apr 2013 at 20:49

Depending on how you use the lens another option to consider would be the Nikkor 35 f1.8. Not as versatile as a zoom but faster and cheaper.

Ksanti · 24 Apr 2013 at 21:00

I hate when people immediately equate a zoom with being versatile. For me I always found the 35 1.8 far more versatile than the kit lens because of the aperture.

Reality Bites · 24 Apr 2013 at 21:15

Ksanti said:
I hate when people immediately equate a zoom with being versatile. For me I always found the 35 1.8 far more versatile than the kit lens because of the aperture.

I guess that depends on your subject? Try tracking an infant with a prime and I struggle to capture the right frame. Yes the 35 will be quick but the versatility of the zoom would be needed then. Exactly the reason I'm looking at a 17-5x 2.8 zoom.

Geo-Gamer · 25 Apr 2013 at 12:15

Reality Bites said:
Are digital rev uk stock? Amazon have the vc version of the tamron for 330, that comes under uk warranty then.

Edit: they advertise uk warranty but its actually them giving you a uk type warranty. Just bare that in mind when looking at prices.

Hi and thanks, I think digital rev are a company based in hong kong but i see a lot of folks from the U.K. giving them good reviews over the years. Its £220 for the non vc version and £280 for the vc version on the digital rev site. However, I have been reading a lot of reviews commenting on how the vc version is noticeably a lot less sharper than the non vc version. After doing my own research on the two lenses it deffiently seems that the non vc version is the sharper lens [and being £55 pounds cheaper ].

K.C. Leblanc said:
Depending on how you use the lens another option to consider would be the Nikkor 35 f1.8. Not as versatile as a zoom but faster and cheaper.

My first choice was the 35 mm 1.8 but now having time to think about it I want a sharp lens which is wide enough for my trips to las vegas and florence. I will deffiently pick up the 35mm eventually but for now i want a all round sharp lens that is wide for all the vegas lights and scrapers and it will replace my kit lens.

The only lenses I can see in the 17-50 range with a 2.8 apature and can replace my kit lens are:
-Tamron 17-50mm non vc= £220
-Tamron 17-50mm vc=£275
-sigma 17-50 HSM OS= £420
-Nikor 17-55mm = £1000

The nikon is way way out of my budget as a student. I really do like the sigma but even thats £200 more than the tamron and by the looks of it the Tamron non vc is on par with the sigma in some reviews.

Reality Bites · 25 Apr 2013 at 12:28

To be honest, if it were me I'd go for a uk stockist. Tamron give you a 5 year warranty where digital rev appear to only give a year?

I'd read the same reviews suggesting the non vc is sharper but also read that this was mainly the early ones and tamron have since sorted this issue out. Saying that, I'm not sure how much the vc helps on such a short zoom. It will help in some situations but you could live without.

I spent a long time contemplating the tamron but am going for a second hand Nikon now instead. I also tried the sigma and although its better built and a lot more quiet, it didn't seem as sharp as the tamron.