Em chuẩn bị mua con Nikon D7500, nhu cầu chụp ảnh đời sống, phong cảnh, chân dung bình thường, em đang phân vân nên mua kit 18-140 hay sigma 17-50. Các bác tư vấn giúp e chọn kit (rồi tích tiền mua thêm 50 1.8g) hay sigma ạ? Em cảm ơn. I have been going round and round in my head about which lens to get. Do I want a bit more reach or better light across the whole zoom range. What I came to for a conclusion is that either of those scenerios would be benificial over the kit lens so now I have narrowed it to 2 lenses that are "somewhat" in my budget range. The Canon 15-85 The Sigma 17-50 F2.8 Now to my question. Since I have decided that both increased reach or increased light would be a step up for me I am going to make my decision based on Image quality from the lenses regardless of the fact that they do different things. So I was hoping people could tell me their good (and bad) experiences with either of these lenses and which they think is the better lens. To be honest I am leaning toward the Canon as I have heard lots of stories about "needing to get a good copy" on the Sigma. Also as I want this as a walk around lens and actually have a canon 35mm f2 for low light and portraits. So, I'm wondering does anyone has any experience with both lens? Which is the better one (and why not the best zoom lens) for D7000 in your opinion? Nikon 17-55/2.8 is not an option - VR is a must have. I've heard also some very good things about Tamron 17-50/2.8 and got totally confused. So, the billion dollar question - should I stick to the old piece of gold 16-85, or times has changed and here there are better options? A piece of advice which one to pick up is highly appreciated. Pics from both lens are also welcome. Best, Alex Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available) The one above is SIGMA 17-50/2.8 Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available) This is Nikon's 16-85DX Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available) Again - the Sig 17-50 Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available) Nikkor 16-85DX What do you think?
Try them both in low light situations! Nikon is the way to go IMHO. If Sigma is not totaly compartible with your D90, will it work with some next generation body? Nikon will work, always! PS. There are sample variations, even with Nikon lenses. Try several copies of the lens and choose the best if you can. 
I'll remind you of the obvious: the Nikkor is a lot better than the Sigma from 50 to 85mm.:wink:
Also, to confuse you and maybe save some money, check the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4. Very well regarded lens too.
Having shot both the 16-85 on a D300 and a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 without stabilization on a Canon, I would say go with the f/2.8 option. There is simply not enough subject isolation with an f/5.6 lens on DX. I don't think stabilization is that important on the shorter focal lengths. Most pros shoot a 24-70 f/2.8 on FX and it is not stabilized.
Yes, that's the naked truth Also, to confuse you and maybe save some money, check the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4. Very well regarded lens too. Thanks Russ, never tried this one. Will look for reviews on photozone.de. Having shot both the 16-85 on a D300 and a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 without stabilization on a Canon, I would say go with the f/2.8 option. There is simply not enough subject isolation with an f/5.6 lens on DX. I don't think stabilization is that important on the shorter focal lengths. Most pros shoot a 24-70 f/2.8 on FX and it is not stabilized. Ron, what about the new version of this Tamron with VC? I heard its not as good, as the version you're talking about? Is it true? Never owned Tamron before... What do you guys think about the color reproduction from the shots above?
I always think Sigma glass reminds me of German optics when it comes to color reproduction by having a slight amber/warmish cast whereas the Nikon seems to have more of a blue tone if that makes any sense. I think both are acceptable, but it is always amazing to me how much it can vary between lenses and manufacturers.
@Ford Photo - yes, I think the same - Sigma looks more warmer, which actually is not a bad thing (to me). I like more saturated, more warmer pictures. This is why I set the white balance of my D7000 to A2 and increased the saturation to +2/+3, depending on the profile. The result is really nice (at least to me). Nowadays very few people are talking about "color reproduction" in lens, as "the color" really doesn't make any sense in the digital photography IMHO. Moving back and forth - I looked at what dxOMark is about to say about these lens and... the results are quite clear See the screenshots below. It looks like I'll buy my 1st 3rd party lens... Surprisingly to me - even the Tamron (I'm afraid of this brand) is far ahead the 16-85... So, which is the best "universal" lens for D7000? Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available) You can see from the image below the obvious advantage of the Sig... Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available) Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available) Edit: The complete comparison between Sigma 17-50 f/2.8; Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and Nikon's 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 - Even more interesting comparison at DxOMark between the Sig 17-50 f/2.8; Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and Nikon's 17-55 f/2.8 goes here Interesting "conclusion" which one - again on dxOMark - HERE Last edited by a moderator: Dec 13, 2011
In my humble opinion the "best" lens is the lens that gives you the results you want. I own the 18-105 VR and I tell you that it is very capable of excellent images. If you need a lens with a f2.8 aperture then it is obvious that the 18-105 will not fit the bill. I had a Sigma years ago and I did notice that the colors were no match for my Nikkors. The 16-85 VR is a well regarded lens and a great performer. I use the 18-70 and I am very happy with my lens and the results it gives me. Let me repeat it once again, if what you need is a f2.8 lens none of these lenses will be useful to you. To make it short, what lens do you need? Only you know and do not buy the lens based on reviews. Try the lens first and see if it fits your photographic subjects. The "best" lens is the lens you need for your style of photography and the majority of lenses today will do their job if you do yours. William Rodriguez Miami, Florida.
I had the 16-85 for a fair while and used the 17-50 for a month or so before moving to FF. I found the 17-50 to be excellent - very sharp even at 2.8. I enjoyed using it more than the 16-85.
William, thank you for your comment and piece of advice. I completely agree with you regarding "THE BEST lens". There's no such classification "best" in the lens world. If I may clarify - I was asking which one is the better option for "universal" lens than 16-85 (if any) for D7000 body. I own Nikkor 18-105, which came together with the body. It is good performer, but on the D7000 sensor it suffers from a resolution point of view. IMHO this lens performs much better when fitted on D90 than D7000. For me, personally, it is a good lens, but not good *enough* when compared to 16-85 or to 17-50 from Sig and Tamron. I had the 16-85 for a fair while and used the 17-50 for a month or so before moving to FF. I found the 17-50 to be excellent - very sharp even at 2.8. I enjoyed using it more than the 16-85. Dean, that's what I wanted to see - comments from people who own them both and can compare from their point of view. Could you please clarify which 17-50 you are talking about? Tamron or Sigma? |
