skornfeld

I have done a lot of reading and still not sure about which one to get. Unfortunately I don't have anyplace locally that would let me try them out for a bit. I have a 7200 and already have a nikon 50 1.8 and a Tamron 16-300 and looking for a good lens around $1,000 or less in the shorter zoom range. I shoot mostly landscape (into paths in forests), photos of our black lab and grandchildren, portraits and travel pics. I don't do birds but will do some sports for when my grandson starts baseball but think the tamron will work fine for that. I do understand that my camera is a crop sensor and the 35mm equivalents. I am aware the Nikon has the VR but wondering about IQ between the two.

Opinions (I do understand that they are like a body part) and suggestions welcome.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

The Sigma also has VR, but they call it OS (Optical Stabilization vs Vibration Reduction)

When I am looking at comparing lenses, I will check DXO site for lens comparisons, unfortunately they have not tested the Nikon yet, but data is available for the Sigma.

https://www.dxomark.com/lenses

I myself have several Sigma lenses and find they are plenty sharp and fast for my use, in particular the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 I also have a pair of Tokina lenses, which are another alternative to Nikon lenses and plenty sharp.

Plieku69 Loc: The Gopher State, south end

I have the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 on a Canon and really like it, way better than Tamron.

Ken

skornfeld

thanks to both of you - DNGallagher - looked up the Sigma but hard to compare when as you said the Nikkor isn't there. I will look into the Tokina
Ken - I like the Tamron 16-300 zoom I think I have this lens narrowed down to the Sigma or Nikon.

Thanks

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Good deal - BTW - if you are looking at spending up to 1k on a lens, you might want to consider a fixed aperture, like an f/2.8 throughout the zoom range. A variable aperture will be slightly slower to focus and may be harder to use in low light conditions.

FWIW:

I have several variable aperture zooms, and will take my fixed aperture lenses anyday. You can still shoot at f/8.0, but focusing and metering is done at f/2.8, and shooting low light shots is much better with a fast lens. I manage good shots indoors at sporting events using a 17-50 f/2.8 and camera in burst mode shooting with no flash, even from the stands crops come out well lit and tack sharp focus.

Don't give up on that 50 mm f/1.8 either - great lens for low light/indoors/sports events.

skornfeld

Love the 50mm but where can I find a 2.8 fixed aperture in or near that focal range for around a $1,000k. Wasn't actually looking at those on B&H or Audorama since I figured they were out of my price range? Suggestions?

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

I got my Sigma 17-50- f/2.8 off Amazon - same price as Sigma direct and it was under $500.00, probably under $400.00 now. A 17-50 would be very close to a 17-70, and if you want to get into macro, pick up a Tokina 100 mm 1:1 macro lens as well...probably $350.00 - $400.00 now.

On a crop sensor camera, a 50 mm gives the field of view of a 75mm lens, and with a f/1.8 that lens would be good for portraits. I have also made use of my 100 mm macro from Tokina to shoot ball games from the dugouts - it does a great job, very sharp and plenty to crop from without needing a zoom lens.

B&H, Adorama, Cameta Camera, Amazon, (not the Amazon Market Place advertisers), have good reps.


Here are the two lenses I am talking about on Amazon. I have both and have nothing bad to say about either on my D7100.

https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-17-50mm-Aperture-Standard-Digital/dp/B003A6NU3U/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1486412511&sr=8-2&keywords=sigma+17-50

https://www.amazon.com/Tokina-100mm-Macro-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000CMNL52/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1486412647&sr=8-1&keywords=tokina+100mm+f2+8+macro+nikon

skornfeld

Now I've got even more to think about! Thanks