Reddit reviews Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM FLD Large Aperture Standard Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital DSLR Camera

Canon: https://www.amazon.ca/Sigma-17-50mm-Aperture-Standard-Digital/dp/B003A6H27K

Nikon: https://www.amazon.ca/Sigma-17-50mm-Aperture-Standard-Digital/dp/B003A6NU3U/

Sigma makes two variants of this lens. You have posted eBay links for a Canon lens and a Nikon lens.

The focal range of the 24-70 is designed for FX cameras with a larger sensor. This lens on your camera would have a FoV equivalent to a 36-105 mm lens, which I consider too narrow at the wide end for "general use"/"walkabout"

On the flipside, the 17-55 mm lens would have a FoV equivalent to about 25-72 mm, which you can see is very similar to the 24-70, showing that they're lenses intended to provide a similar FoV albeit on different sensor formats.

The Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 is crazy expensive, however. I've never used one, but the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 can be bad for $300 USD at a mere fraction of the cost. It's very highly regarded, so definitely check it out.

I have been shooting on Nikon for a while now. The D7000 is a solid camera. Going from my old D80 to the D7000 it was like stepping into the future. The full RGB meter and the 6400 ISO range make for some amazing shots.

Now as for lens that largely depends on your budget.

• The standard starter 50mm f/1.8 $219.00
  
  The 50mm will give you razor sharp images work in low light and is a great lens to learn on. If you ever move to a FX (full frame) camera is will work on there as well. On your crop camera it will be 50mm x 1.5 (crop factor) = 75mm lens. This is a little long for some folks which leads to our next lens.
  
  
• Great starter just for DX Cameras 35mm f/1.8 $196.95
  
  The 35 is a DX lens (build just for your crop camera so it won't work well on a FX camera) but its a great place to start. This lens is a "normal" lens. Meaning it is close to what your eye sees. Its cheap and has many of the qualities of the 50mm.
  
  
• If you have some money to burn the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 $594.00
  
  I just picked up this Sigma a few days ago from Amazon and I can confirm its sharp as a tack. I honestly like this lens better than the 17-55 Nikon which is 1500 ish dollars. It has optical stabilization and is lighter than the hulking Nikon lens.
  
  I have stayed away from lenses with, in my opinion, crappy f-stops. You can find cheaper lens out there but you will suffer from high f stops like 5.6 which will kill your ability to shoot in low light, and to isolate your subject and have real control over your depth of field. These lenses are great place to start and they will stay in your camera bag for years to come. There are more lenses out there from zooms to telephoto to macro if you give us some idea of what you want to shoot then we can help recommend a more specialized lens. Happy shooting.
  

A camera in the same family would be one of the D7000-series cameras (D7000, D7100, D7200).

> She also wants a zoom lens with larger aperture and VR.

A common (affordable) suggestion for that would be the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS. Good zooms with large apertures tend to be pretty expensive, it might be a good idea to consider a prime or two instead which will be much more affordable.

Sigma 17-50 2.8

Tamron 17-50 2.8

These are your standard options for that budget. Both have compromises. I went back and forth, umming and aahing over which to get. The Sigma is good but you can be unlucky on build quality. The Tamron is good but the AF is slow and noisy. The Sigma is sharp between A and B but sucks at C, the Tamron is sharp between X and Y but sucks at Z. And so on and so on. Neither of them will give you the sharpness of the 35mm 1.8 throughout their zoom range.

But the Sigma 18-35 1.8 ART will. It's out of your budget new, but I bought it mint-condition second hand for £400 - so you might find one closer to your budget that way. It is one of Sigma's new 'Global Vision' lenses, which is marketing speak for 'we've pulled our finger out in terms of build quality, sorry about that'. It is astonishingly sharp right across the zoom range, even wide open at 1.8: yes, as sharp if not sharper than the 35mm. The AF is fast, silent, and (in my experience anyway) accurate. It is built like a tank. It has FTMF. It looks the dog's.

The drawbacks are: it doesn't have the reach of a 17-50, obviously. In the end, I decided I didn't care: I used the Nikon 35mm 1.8 almost exclusively for 2 years and didn't really feel the need for a longer lens the entire time. Admittedly I don't take many portraits, but when I do I just shoot 3/4 length. As someone who leans towards landscape photography, I was more interested in the wide end. It's quite big as far as standard zooms go, and quite heavy, but I'm a grown up, I can handle it. The image quality more than makes up for it, and on my D7000 with a grip it actually balances perfectly.



^Yeah, ^I ^went ^there ^dasazz

Yeah, this is what I'm considering too - what's best to learn on.

How do you figure out what is newer - is this the one you mean?

I've got the Sigma on my d7100. I think it's great. I've not compared it to the Nikon one. The one I have is - https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B003A6NU3U/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

$1000 is more than enough to get a great camera and lens!
Buy this lens on sale now, with its pro features it's the best first lens investment you can make.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003A6NU3U/ref=twister_B0064I7J2E?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1
This body also has lots of pro level features and will be perfect for you to learn on.
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-D7000-DSLR-Body-Only/dp/B0042X9LC4/ref=sr_1_2?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1451087122&sr=1-2&keywords=nikon+body+only+d7100

Oh, yeah I checked and I don't have the room for a 50mm. I'm considering getting this lens now. I'm not sure if a 35mm 1.8 prime would be better though.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B003A6NU3U/ref=olp_twister_child?ie=UTF8&mv_customer_package_type=0&mv_style_name=1

While my go to lens for someone with a crop nikon is the 35mm 1.8, if you want to shoot portraits, you want a 50mm.

https://www.amazon.com/YONGNUO-Standard-Aperture-Nikon-Cameras/dp/B01E38TZDC is a very budget friendly version that will auto focus with your camera.

As far as closeups, the cheapest way to up your macro game is a set of close up filters - https://www.amazon.com/Vivitar-VIV-CL-52-Close-up-52mm-Lens/dp/B004E54LBQ/ is a set that will work on your kit lens.

Now if you have a bit more money to spend - https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-17-50mm-Aperture-Standard-Digital/dp/B003A6NU3U would replace your current lens. It is capable as a starting portrait lens, and gives a wide amount of zoom. https://www.amazon.com/Vivitar-Close-Up-Macro-Filter-Pouch/dp/B004E580PY would be a set of close up filters for that lens...

Your best bet if you want to shoot the night sky at a budget is look for refurbished or used units (on the net - Amazon, Cameta, or your local classifieds.) From a very quick browse, if you want a dedicated night sky shooter, then the Nikon D3300 (refurb $295 from Cameta) and the Rokinon f2.8 14mm = 21mm equivalent ($279 new from Amazon) will let you take amazing night photos. The Nikon D3300 is a great low light shooter - large sensor, paired with a solid image processor. The Rokinon gives a large field of view (equivalent to 80° horizontal) and is fairly fast at f2.8. With this setup, all that's needed is you going to a nice location with little light pollution, snapping away in raw, and then maybe doing some required post-processing.

Also note that I've seen way better deals for the D3300 - seen it at $250 with Kit Lens after discounts and cashback, new, you might be able to find something like that with the Black Friday sales. If you need a more general purpose lens then the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 (~300 Amazon) is a great alternative to the Kit Lens - it's faster at f2.8 and slightly wider angle 25mm-75mm in 35mm equivalent. Also, you could look for an equivalent Canon DSLR (1200D from the top of my mind) with a similar lens. Good luck!

Edit: Also note that ultra wide angles <20mm are really expensive new. The 21mm will get you fantastic results, or if you want panoramas, then you might have to stitch pictures together - an entirely different topic!

If you can up your budget just a bit, try the Sigma 17-50. This was permanently attached to my D7000 before I went full frame. It's an amazing lens. Looks like you can get one used for $300.

Have you considered upgrading the glass? Consider the Sigma 17-50 2.8 It's by no means a budget buster.

https://smile.amazon.com/Sigma-17-50mm-Aperture-Standard-Digital/dp/B003A6NU3U?sa-no-redirect=1&th=1

http://www.bythom.com/Sigma17-50mm_lens_review.htm

Hey guys, I'm planing to travel to Thailand and I want to buy some new lenses for that trip. At the moment I only have my Nikon D5300 with the kit lens 18-55. The lenses I'm planing to buy are: Tokina 11-16 2.8 // Nikon 50 1.8 G // Nikon 35 1.8 // Sigma 17-50 2.8. I love doing landscape photography, astrophotography and portraits, but I can't afford all these three lenses and I don't want to travel with all that weight on my bag. What would u do in my situation? Thanks for the comments.

I think you are pretty good, I would pair down as others said rather then fill up. I would definitely leave the 50mm at home. Then if you think you would use it less the 20% of the time leave the Tokina behind since the coverage/aperture is pretty well covered by your 18-300. I love my Tokina but I really don't use it as much as I think so it's just weight in the bag.

You say you aren't concerned about weight but I always regret a lens by the end of a long day of walking around. I also often bring the lenses with me but then leave it in the hotel room, that way my fear of missing a lens is assuaged.

You didn't list it but I assume a charger in there, I got a small USB based one that is easier to manage then the bulky one you get with the camera for like 10 bucks that does the trick and it plugs into a big 4 port USB AC adapter with a Euro Plug that I got which let's me charge phones and ipads at the same time from one socket.

If $500 is burning a hole in your pocket. The one thing I sometimes carry with me is a a Point and Shoot or a little mirrorless. I have a OM-D EM 10 with a Panasonic 20mm 1.7 pancake that fits in my wife's purse for when we go out to dinner. Don't want to show up at a fancy restaurant looking like a tourist. Only to wish you could get a shot of the square outside. In fact one of my favorite shots I took in Croatia was like this and it's hanging on my wall right now. However nowadays I usually even leave that at the hotel because my phone can do almost the same thing.

Also you may want to look at the Sigma 17-50 2.8 walk around lens which can be had for 200-300 bucks and that could replace the 1.8's and the Tokina. Sure it's not as good as 1.8 but you get a fair amount of light and shave 3 lenses from your kit.

That $500 is better spent on a few great dinners for you and your wife, or a day trip to a different city IMHO.

Also, my wife and I have a new policy where at least one day of the trip I leave the camera gear in the hotel and just use my phone. It allows me to enjoy the day and spend time with her and my Daughter and not my gear. I really recommend it. The world doesn't NEED your personal take on Vienna : )

https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-17-50mm-Aperture-Standard-Digital/dp/B003A6NU3U/ref=sr_1_3?crid=1VNX8IBCB1S1K&keywords=sigma+17-50mm+f+2.8+nikon&qid=1558120352&s=gateway&sprefix=Sigma+17-%2Caps%2C194&sr=8-3

I think the first decision you have to make is does it make sense to stick with Canon or would it be better long term to switch to Nikon. The two biggest factors I would consider is price and availability. Do you have canon-mount lenses readily available to purchase? Or is it easier to get Nikon products?

If you decide to stick with Canon the first thing i would do is buy another lens or two - NOT a new body. I started out with a Nikon D5100 kit with two lenses (18-55 & 55-300) and replaced my 18-55 pretty quickly. The kit lens was fine, but the lenses I did end up purchasing really helped my images to step up a level (linked below for reference).

• Nikon 35mm
  
• Sigma 17-50mm
  
  If you decide to switch to Nikon I would pick up a used body (best series you can afford) and a lens. I would not buy the D3400 kit, the lens is going to be comparable to whatever you have.
  
  ​

The sensor is the same for all of nikons cameras in the D3xxx range, even the d5xxx are the same.

When it comes to the final product your lense is going to be way way way way way more important than the camera body itself.

That being said If I were in your position I would find a used D3300 body or buy it cheap on black Friday. If you can do that, then get yourself a prime lense like the 35mm or 50mm f/1.8. The image quality will be like night and day. I found my 50mm for $100 on Craigslist.

If you really want zoom or primes sound too restrictive then get a Sigma 17-55 f/2.8. It's around $250 new but well worth it. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003A6NU3U/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_9Sn7BbX57NZK7

If you want to spend a little more and get INSANE image quality get a Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 for around $600. It's like a zooming prime, the only one of its kind and its phenomenal when it works. Chances are you'll have to spend some time calibrating it. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DBL09FG/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_1Qn7BbP45FKSJ

Good luck.

https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-17-50mm-Aperture-Standard-Digital/dp/B003A6NU3U/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1496770892&sr=8-2&keywords=sigma+17-50+nikon

That's the one you should be looking at just to be clear.

/u/stripperjuice - congratulations on the new GH4!

The [£149 (on sale) 25mm f1.7] (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Panasonic-H-H025E-K-F1-7-ASPH-Lens/dp/B014X35XLU//ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&linkCode=ll1&tag=hybrcamerevo-21) is a great starter lens, but if you don't mind shooting manual, a [£265 Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8] (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-17-50mm-Optical-Stabilised-Digital/dp/B003A6NU3U//ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&linkCode=ll1&tag=hybrcamerevo-21) for Nikon mount with a [£15.99 K&F Concept Nikon G to micro four thirds adapter] (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-Micro-Thirds-Concept%C2%AE-Adapter/dp/B00LECYYR8//ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&linkCode=ll1&tag=hybrcamerevo-21) [Referral Links] would give you a wider range of focal lengths and be a little more flexible.

This is probably the least expensive constant f/2.8 zoom lens you'll find for your camera.

[Here] (https://youtu.be/hDlcINjuu1w) is an example shot with the Sigma 17-50 and the GH4.

I have a Sigma 18-50mm constant f/2.8 for 4/3 mount on my GH4 (seen [here] (https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipNhrvl5mciudesmrlnBuiNBTm7KZ6sgXoThjGDwL6oeTSxYw3Bz67zo5BgMq6gG1A/photo/AF1QipO0D_iofmZeRpzKE4xJF-AGvxwgkCCUz_HB7myA?key=ZV83NXBEUTBwa0JOOTdBaWtJY3JKRXNHU1Jid013)), and I love it.

Hope this is helpful and good luck finding the right lens for your needs!

The Sigma is definitely within his budget if you consider Amazon Germany

I think MSRP is $669. Looking at the camelcamelcamel listing for it on Amazon, it seems to have dropped from $669 earlier this year to $369 over the course of several months. Even the Sigma website is advertising the $300 off though.

I'm looking to replace my Nikon 18-55 kit lens and I'm not sure on what to get. I've got a D5300 and mainly use my 35mm f/1.8, which I love, but I want something a little wider. I don't need anything extending into the telephoto range as I already have a 70-300 and a 150-500.

My 'dream' lens would be the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, but it's beyond my budget. I'm currently looking at the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 - is this a good choice? Is there a better option? Or should I wait & save up for something a little better?

I'm not a Nikon guy, sorry. But this one looks interesting.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003A6NU3U/

It's a zoom, but a 2.8 constant aperture one, and under $300 used.

Image gallery:

https://pixelpeeper.com/lenses/?lens=13315

In general, a prime would be faster with less distortion, but I'm not seeing any cheap ones right off the bat.

sigma 17-50mm 2.8 lens has been great for me on my d5100. been a good all-around lens for traveling i've found and not a bad price point.

​

35 1.8g https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=35mm%20f1.8g

sigma 17-50 f2.8 for nikon https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-17-50mm-Aperture-Standard-Digital/dp/B003A6NU3U?th=1

tamron 17-50 2.8 vc https://www.amazon.com/Tamron-17-50mm-Vibration-Compensation-Digital/dp/B002LVUIXU/ref=sr_1_2?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1479243079&sr=1-2&keywords=tamron+17-50+vc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt0iMmC2qvo <-replace anytime he say 24-70 to 17-50 (24-75 equivalent in 35mm) and obviously it's not weather proof

Is it this lens?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-17-50mm-Optical-Stabilised-Nikon/dp/B003A6NU3U

just a possible combo, with used prices from amazon:

• Nikon D7000 - 900
  
  
• sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS HSM - 410
  
  
• Nikon 35mm f/1.8 - 160
  
  
• Nikon SB-700 - 280
  _____
  $1750

You got the wrong one. I meant these three lenses (it looks like the last sigma just got sold). I meant this Sigma.

I suggest the Sigma 18-50mm

do you find yourself missing the extra aperture at all compared to the 1.8 on the 35mm?

also what are your thoughts on this one instead? https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003A6NU3U/ref=psdc_173565_t2_B000144I2Q

Wanting to buy new lens for my d3300 and I'm stuck between this Tamron and this Sigma. I currently have 35mm f/1.8G Nikkor Prime and I like it because I can shoot low light landscape shots of NYC as well as portraits when needed (although its not perfect, but it does the job). I'm looking at these zoom lenses because I feel like a little bit more versatility can help me out with the zoom. My question is, which one is better, and will switching from a prime lens to a zoom lens mean less picture quality? I know the f number is lower so lower light situations and bokeh for portraits might not be as good, but will the overall picture quality be worse? In terms of sharpness and detail because I mainly shoot landscape shots of NYC, but I also want good details for portraits when I do shoot portraits although it's just for friends and a lot more rare.

I'd recommend a lens with a wide zoom range. For lifestyle-type shots where you are shooting yourself/your friends/the journey from a more intimate perspective (read -- up close) and the occasional landscape, I'd recommend a lens that gives you at least a 18-24mm focal length at the bottom end. It's hard to take pictures of the car or your friends with a 200mm telephoto lens, unless you want an up close and personal shot of the pores on your friends' noses.

My 18-135mm kit lens that came with my Canon works wonderfully for me when I'm on trips. It's very versatile. The lens that I'm referring to is this (this is a CANON lens, it won't fit your Nikon):
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-18-135mm-3-5-5-6-Lens/dp/B008UGMLWQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1500062853&sr=8-1&keywords=canon+18-135

.
Alternatively, for YOUR particular camera, I'd recommend something like this Sigma 17-50mm:
https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-17-50mm-Aperture-Standard-Digital/dp/B003A6NU3U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1500062448&sr=8-1&keywords=sigma%2Bcanon&th=1

The latter lens has a shorter zoom range (17-50mm) than my Canon lens that I mentioned, but you get a nice, low aperture of f/2.8 throughout the entire zoom.

A cheaper option that is similar to the Sigma lens that I mentioned above is a Nikon lens that can be found here:
https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-18-55mm-3-5-5-6G-Vibration-Reduction/dp/B00HQ4W4PC/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1500062981&sr=8-2&keywords=nikon+lens+18-55

The Nikon lens listed has a variable aperture, and the lowest that it will go is 3.5. I'd spend the extra ~$100 and get the Sigma lens. You'd probably get a TON of use out of that Sigma for a long time.

Please feel free to reach out if you have some more questions. :-) There are some great people here.

That is the plan. This is the one that I would like to get

consumer/kit lenses all have comparable image quality. That includes all variable aperture 18-55, 18-105, 18-135, 18-140, 18-200, 18-300, 55-200, 55-300, 70-300, with those with a shorter focal range having slightly better image quality.

Truth be told, image quality comes at a price, and that price is convenience (and also $$$) - shorter focal range, heavier and bigger lenses.

If you want to stay with a zoom, I'd recommend the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM FLD. I am not aware of a quality zoom beyond 50mm in your price bracket. Sigma made a 50-150 f2.8 which was quite good, but has been discontinued. Nikon isn't giving much love to their DX lens lineup, so there isn't much there.

There's also the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 Art DC HSM and the Sigma 50-100mm F1.8 Art DC HSM. Both very pricey and incredibly big and heavy, but the image quality is amazing (for a zoom lens). Not something you want to take on a hike.

Maybe you should try out a lens like the Nikon AF-S DX 35mm f1.8G to get a feel for high image quality. That might change your need for a large zoom range.

It depends on what you want to do with it. You have an APS-c camera, so your 50mm 1.4 will be more of a portrait lens (roughly 75mm equivalent) than a "normal" lens. If you like taking portraits, this will quickly become your go-to lens; though I will also throw out a recommendation for the Sigma 17-50 f2.8, which is also excellent and will act as a moderate wide angle-portrait lens on your camera, for a little over $100 more than the 50mm.

The 35mm 1.8 is a good recommendation because it's inexpensive and performs really well; but you don't need to buy it new. People offload that lens all the time when they move to an FX body, so you should be able to get a near-pristine one for somewhere around $120-$130 if you're patient.

edit: Sigma's is a 17-50, Nikon's is a 17-55.

I have a 35mm 1.8 prime lens and a sigma 17-50 2.8 as my set up. They’re both crisp lenses and allow me to get most of the pictures I want to obtain. The low aperture allows for a nice bokeh. With the crop factor the 35mm is closer to a 50mm and the sigma is closer to a 25-75 which gives you a good range, not too wide or too zoomed in. The sigma is on sale at amazon for around 290.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003A6NU3U/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_p8EzDbZF2WVH1

This combination of equpiment is used by a popular youtuber to make nail polish videos:

https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-D5300-Digital-Camera-Built/dp/B00FXYT12G
https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-17-50mm-Aperture-Standard-Digital/dp/B003A6NU3U
https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Micro-NIKKOR-Vibration-Reduction-Cameras/dp/B000EOSHGQ

I'd like to have a setup that can take good close up videos of nails, but her setup is literally over $1500. Surely there must be a cheaper macro lens + camera combination? Hell, even the DSLR Isn't so bad to pay for, but that $900 lens is intense. I'm looking for alternative recommendations.