Ultra Wide... Nikon, Sigma or Tamron


Status
Not open for further replies.

wongwm70

Member
Dec 5, 2003
272
0
16
50
Woodland
Hi guys! Need some advise here.... thinking to get a ultra-wide angle lens... in mind, here is the 3 i short listed which is close to my budget....

1. Sigma 17-35 2.8-4 DG HSM
2, Tamron 17-35 2.8-4 Di
3. Nikon 18-35 3.5-4.5 ED/IF

Pls share your experience.....THANKS!
 

2100

Senior Member
Mar 3, 2004
3,589
0
0
50
wongwm70 said:
Hi guys! Need some advise here.... thinking to get a ultra-wide angle lens... in mind, here is the 3 i short listed which is close to my budget....

1. Sigma 17-35 2.8-4 DG HSM
2, Tamron 17-35 2.8-4 Di
3. Nikon 18-35 3.5-4.5 ED/IF

Pls share your experience.....THANKS!
You using digital? If so, gotta get sigma or Nikkor 12-24. Both are not sharp lenses but if you ask me i'd get the sigma. But to share my practical experience, the type of unsharpness in the sigma, you can easily apply careful USM to force out decent sharpness. Don't know how to explain it, but i can force out better/more/useful sharpness (for screen/print) from the sigma 12-24 compared to lousy lenses kind of unsharpness like 28-200 zooms.

Else for this lot, i think Nikon is the best. Followed by Tamron. Sigma 17-35 is optically decent but got some complaints on build quality and stuff, HSM is not that fast so don't be fooled (though it's silent). However, for the best bang for the buck, the 18-70DX would be best and more convienient. All the samples i have seen from the 18-35s you mentioned, i'd not say they are better....just that the 18-70 got some moustach distortion at the wide end (so depends on what are you after). But seriously, the 18-35s, i just read stuff on the net as i was looking to buy then, so don't quote me.
 

ckiang

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
6,405
0
36
47
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
www.ckphoto.net
2100 said:
You using digital? If so, gotta get sigma or Nikkor 12-24. Both are not sharp lenses but if you ask me i'd get the sigma. But to share my practical experience, the type of unsharpness in the sigma, you can easily apply careful USM to force out decent sharpness. Don't know how to explain it, but i can force out better/more/useful sharpness (for screen/print) from the sigma 12-24 compared to lousy lenses kind of unsharpness like 28-200 zooms.

Else for this lot, i think Nikon is the best. Followed by Tamron. Sigma 17-35 is optically decent but got some complaints on build quality and stuff, HSM is not that fast so don't be fooled (though it's silent). However, for the best bang for the buck, the 18-70DX would be best and more convienient. All the samples i have seen from the 18-35s you mentioned, i'd not say they are better....just that the 18-70 got some moustach distortion at the wide end (so depends on what are you after). But seriously, the 18-35s, i just read stuff on the net as i was looking to buy then, so don't quote me.
I used to use the Nikkor 18-35 until I switched to a 12-24. Sharpness is decent. Picked the Nikkor over the Sigma 17-35 as I really don't like Sigma products (stiff zoom/focus rings, huge 82mm filter, etc). No experience with the Tamron. You should be able to get the Nikkor used for about $600-700.

Regards
CK
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
I'm letting my Nikkor 18-35 go if you're interested... :)
 

KNIGHT ONG

Senior Member
Dec 18, 2003
5,903
3
38
PAKISTAN
www.pbase.com
wongwm70 said:
Hi guys! Need some advise here.... thinking to get a ultra-wide angle lens... in mind, here is the 3 i short listed which is close to my budget....

1. Sigma 17-35 2.8-4 DG HSM
2, Tamron 17-35 2.8-4 Di
3. Nikon 18-35 3.5-4.5 ED/IF

Pls share your experience.....THANKS!
for ultra wide angle better to get the Nikon or Sigma 12-24mm, gives you more wide than the three you listed. ;)
 

2100

Senior Member
Mar 3, 2004
3,589
0
0
50
ckiang said:
I used to use the Nikkor 18-35 until I switched to a 12-24. Sharpness is decent. Picked the Nikkor over the Sigma 17-35 as I really don't like Sigma products (stiff zoom/focus rings, huge 82mm filter, etc). No experience with the Tamron. You should be able to get the Nikkor used for about $600-700.

Regards
CK
You have Nikkor 12-24? Wah lao, used this in wedding last week. Luckily got SB-800, 12mm really gotta use off-camera flashing when taking pics in really close quarters. (eg when groom is storming the gate to pick up bride, and you are holed up in a corner).
 

wongwm70

Member
Dec 5, 2003
272
0
16
50
Woodland
2100 said:
You have Nikkor 12-24? Wah lao, used this in wedding last week. Luckily got SB-800, 12mm really gotta use off-camera flashing when taking pics in really close quarters. (eg when groom is storming the gate to pick up bride, and you are holed up in a corner).
Thanks all for the advise.

I tried the sigma DG version. it is contrasty on my D70 but with some lens abberation on the edge. dunno whether it is the manufacturing defects or the design.

The Tamron has a very good review in nikonian wed site. but physicall is not built as good as Sigma. longer but narrower than sigma.

ESPN.... what will be your RP for nikon... ;)

by the way, i still shoot film sometimes. That's why dun need 12-24..
 

ckiang

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
6,405
0
36
47
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
www.ckphoto.net
2100 said:
You have Nikkor 12-24? Wah lao, used this in wedding last week. Luckily got SB-800, 12mm really gotta use off-camera flashing when taking pics in really close quarters. (eg when groom is storming the gate to pick up bride, and you are holed up in a corner).
Of coz, else you get a big ugly shadow if you use internal flash. ;p

Regards
CK
 

ironargon

New Member
Mar 27, 2004
221
0
0
There
Good for the Nikon 18-70mm DX, it is a better buy that the 17-35s listed. This lens is sharp and very contrast is good. It is also cheaper than all the 17-35s listed.
A slight hit of dark edges at 18mm though. But if you look carefully, 12-24 has the same effect at ultrawide too, like more wideangle lens do.
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
ironargon said:
A slight hit of dark edges at 18mm though. But if you look carefully, 12-24 has the same effect at ultrawide too, like more wideangle lens do.
No leh.. the AF-S 17-35 doesn't have it... heehee... ok ok, I'm just being evil here :devil:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.