nikkor 17-55 vs sigma 17-50 ex hsm os


May 2, 2009
156
0
0
#1
hi guys!

need your help here. i'm getting one of these. i can buy the sigma bnew for 800 and the nikkor for 1.3k. i did my research and nikkor wins hand down from tests but sigma isn't that far away.

for those who have used both, what are the real life differences when it comes to overall quality? sharpness?color rendering? etc. thanks!
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#2
hi guys!

need your help here. i'm getting one of these. i can buy the sigma bnew for 800 and the nikkor for 1.3k. i did my research and nikkor wins hand down from tests but sigma isn't that far away.

for those who have used both, what are the real life differences when it comes to overall quality? sharpness?color rendering? etc. thanks!
you pay for what you get, if budget allow, get Nikon, else, there are many alternative and just be contented with that.
 

May 2, 2009
156
0
0
#3
catchlights said:
you pay for what you get, if budget allow, get Nikon, else, there are many alternative and just be contented with that.
i'm ok with nikkor in terms of price. however, if the sigma performs at par with the nikkor, then i'm better off getting another lens or flash with their price difference.
 

jeff7id

Senior Member
Oct 15, 2008
4,863
10
38
#4
There is other alternative. For sharpness, definitely the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 won't disappoint you.

With the price difference, you can purchase another lens or flash. ;)
 

May 2, 2009
156
0
0
#5
jeff7id said:
There is other alternative. For sharpness, definitely the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 won't disappoint you.

With the price difference, you can purchase another lens or flash. ;)
i had the tamron before but the IQ isn't my cup of tea.

the price difference between the sigma and used nikkor is 500 which i feel is ok given the resale value of the later ebut the sigma has warranty so there's peace of mind. sigma also has OS so it's quite attractive.
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,662
68
48
lil red dot
#6
i had the tamron before but the IQ isn't my cup of tea.

the price difference between the sigma and used nikkor is 500 which i feel is ok given the resale value of the later ebut the sigma has warranty so there's peace of mind. sigma also has OS so it's quite attractive.
So what part of the Tamron's IQ is not up to your satisfaction?
 

kennykck

New Member
Jan 3, 2011
32
0
0
38
#7
Constantly heard about 3rd party lens is soft wide open, slower AF speed, and back/front focusing issue. Maybe TS can rent both lens to try and compare himself.
 

Omega23

New Member
Mar 12, 2009
1,074
0
0
#8
I got a copy of tamron 17-50 which is sharper then the nikkor.. Color is much more neutral too.. Cheers..
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,662
68
48
lil red dot
#9
Constantly heard about 3rd party lens is soft wide open, slower AF speed, and back/front focusing issue. Maybe TS can rent both lens to try and compare himself.
Slower AF? yes slightly. AF hunts sometimes? yes happens once in a while. Soft wide open? No. The tamron is very sharp esp the non-VC version.
 

May 2, 2009
156
0
0
#10
if the tests between these two lenses are true that IQ wise they are very similar, then sigma wins because of the price and the OS.

Price wise, with the bargain I can get for the nikkor, i don't mind.

OS wise? this is the first time i will use a non-vr lens and i don't know whether the lack of stabilization will disappoint me.
 

ragnarok95

Senior Member
Mar 8, 2006
529
1
18
#11
Spend a few days shooting using your current setup with VR off and see if there are any diff as compare to your usual shooting style with VR on.

Then after that decide whether VR is important to you or not.
 

May 2, 2009
156
0
0
#12
ragnarok95 said:
Spend a few days shooting using your current setup with VR off and see if there are any diff as compare to your usual shooting style with VR on.

Then after that decide whether VR is important to you or not.
i tried. at 50mm using kitlens w/o vr and same shutter speed, images a bit out of focus but not that much with vr on. i think a fast lens like the nikkor f2.8 can compensate for the absence of vr but then again i think sigma has an edge on this.
 

May 4, 2007
148
0
16
42
#14
Try not to get 3rd party no matter how much you safe and good it is.

The original nikon will haunt you.. Trust me
 

May 2, 2009
156
0
0
#15
elisya said:
Try not to get 3rd party no matter how much you safe and good it is.

The original nikon will haunt you.. Trust me
one of my thought as well. plus the fact that sigmas got cases of focusing problem and may need calibration from one body to another.
 

yqt

Senior Member
Sep 8, 2004
1,750
0
36
East of Singapore
#16
I've owned both these lense before.

Got the sigma for about a year before I bought the Nikon and my view is that in every aspect, nikon performs better and is well worth the extra $$.
 

May 4, 2007
148
0
16
42
#17
I've owned both these lense before.

Got the sigma for about a year before I bought the Nikon and my view is that in every aspect, nikon performs better and is well worth the extra $$.
Exactly
 

cheesy

New Member
Aug 31, 2010
716
0
0
#18
sometimes i find the bokeh of sigma lens kinda noisy and you will not go wrong with nikkor 17-55mm.
 

May 2, 2009
156
0
0
#19
yqt said:
I've owned both these lense before.

Got the sigma for about a year before I bought the Nikon and my view is that in every aspect, nikon performs better and is well worth the extra $$.
does sigma's os an advantage over the nikkor? any significant help when handheld?
 

jeff7id

Senior Member
Oct 15, 2008
4,863
10
38
#20
does sigma's os an advantage over the nikkor? any significant help when handheld?
Whatever OS or VR or VC or IS, currently I own and shoot with Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 (non-VR) and it's one of my favorite lens, more than 70-200 f/2.8 VRI.

Just imagine that you are shooting at 200 mm with that non-VR lens.
So far I don't miss the VR though.
 

Last edited:
Top Bottom