Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 or Sigma 17-50mm f2.8???

[daredevil123]

@Daredevil yup with the crop if you compare then yes they are pretty close. With the focus point being slightly different yet if you look at Picture A there is more detail that carries through, look at the band between the black patch and the leather patch and you'll see what i mean

To me details are almost the same, just the contrast is different.

[daredevil123]

@Daredevil yup with the crop if you compare then yes they are pretty close. With the focus point being slightly different yet if you look at Picture A there is more detail that carries through, look at the band between the black patch and the leather patch and you'll see what i mean

To me details are almost the same, just the contrast is different.

BTW, Picture B is shot with Nikon 24-70. Picture A is shot with Tamron 28-75.

To put it in perspective I did had to lower the exposure slightly...

[kane-rulez]

BTW, Picture B is shot with Nikon 24-70. Picture A is shot with Tamron 28-75.

To put it in perspective I did had to lower the exposure slightly...

aha so i was right about the tamron. and if the pictures are this close then for a person on a budget the Tamron 28-75 would be a good buy.

@daredevil do you also have comparative pictures of a portrait shot with these two lens. That would help put the final nail on the coffin

[daredevil123]

aha so i was right about the tamron. and if the pictures are this close then for a person on a budget the Tamron 28-75 would be a good buy.

@daredevil do you also have comparative pictures of a portrait shot with these two lens. That would help put the final nail on the coffin

Not the same picture... I sold the Tamron a while back... Both are capable lenses. The Nikon is faster in focus acquisition, and a lot more accurate as well, even in low light. Tamron is slightly slower in usual cases, but in low light, focus acquisition can be quite a challenge. The Nikon is also much more contrasty than the Tamron, but PP usually can level the playing field in that aspect.

SOOC, pics from the tamron is slightly lower in contrast. once you up the contrast a bit, and down the exposure slightly, it is very hard to tell the difference. Some of my friends are able to tell though.

Street portrait taken with the tamron:


Street portrait taken with the nikon:

[Fudgecakes]

Not the same picture... I sold the Tamron a while back... Both are capable lenses. The Nikon is faster in focus acquisition, and a lot more accurate as well, even in low light. Tamron is slightly slower in usual cases, but in low light, focus acquisition can be quite a challenge. The Nikon is also much more contrasty than the Tamron, but PP usually can level the playing field in that aspect.

SOOC, pics from the tamron is slightly lower in contrast. once you up the contrast a bit, and down the exposure slightly, it is very hard to tell the difference. Some of my friends are able to tell though.

Street portrait taken with the tamron:

Street portrait taken with the nikon:

Again it's the skill that makes the photo, not the lens~

[grievor]

Thanks for all the advice people. Really appreciate it,tons of helpful information. In the end i decided to go for a 85mm 1.8g prime lens because it suits my needs for now and its afforadable. now currently shooting with my 35 1.8 , 85 1.8 and 11-16 2.8. i think some time down the road, when i can afford it , ill go for a 17-55 nikkor, really no doubt about it. I tried the sigma, tamron and nikkor all at the store...honestly..once you tried all of them , the quality of the nikkor will be the deciding factor ...( of cuz your budget too,ahhaha=)