nikon 16-80 vs Sigma 17-50
- Thread starter heton
- Start date
Soldato
Haven't used the Nikon but have used the Sigma which was great. The price of the Nikon would be a massive limitation for me particularly as the equally excellent and significantly cheaper Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 C is available.
I upgraded my old nikon 17-50 2.8 to the nikon 16-80
As I got a decent price for my old lens the extra cost wasn't a problem for me.
I've never used the Sigma but I'm very happy with the nikon.
Lighter than my old lens.
More range.
VR is supprising good.
I don't think you can go wrong with either lens.
We're I on a tighter budget I would probably get the Sigma.
As I got a decent price for my old lens the extra cost wasn't a problem for me.
I've never used the Sigma but I'm very happy with the nikon.
Lighter than my old lens.
More range.
VR is supprising good.
I don't think you can go wrong with either lens.
We're I on a tighter budget I would probably get the Sigma.
Soldato
It's a bit of a weird comparison, as they're quite different in terms of use.
A better one would be the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 HSM OS C lens, which is a bit more expensive than the 17-50 F2.8 HSM OS lens, but still quite good with the added benefit of more range.
If I were choosing between the Sigma 17-70 and Nikon 16-80, I'd probably go for the Sigma just because of the price difference as I believe there isn't that much of a gap in terms of optical performance, unless I really needed that extra mm at the wide end and 10mm at the tele.
Otherwise the Sigma 17-50 HSM OS is a bargain regardless, but less of a 'walk around' lens than the other two.
A better one would be the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 HSM OS C lens, which is a bit more expensive than the 17-50 F2.8 HSM OS lens, but still quite good with the added benefit of more range.
If I were choosing between the Sigma 17-70 and Nikon 16-80, I'd probably go for the Sigma just because of the price difference as I believe there isn't that much of a gap in terms of optical performance, unless I really needed that extra mm at the wide end and 10mm at the tele.
Otherwise the Sigma 17-50 HSM OS is a bargain regardless, but less of a 'walk around' lens than the other two.
Soldato
Not really in real life usage. DxO rate the 17-50 at 20, the 17-70 at 19. It's not really noticeable unless you're using the lenses professionally in challenging conditions all the time, or in completely different ways.
The 17-50 is best at 50mm (75mm equiv), the 17-70 best at 24mm (35mm equiv), so I guess it depends what you're gonna do with it.
Last edited: