jayw Loc: Contoocook, NH

Last posts I saw on this forum dates back to 2013.

My current lens is a Tamron 16-300mm VR. Very good all around lens, but as I stated in another post, I find myself not using the lens often beyond 90mm (135mm FF equivalent). So, I am considering selling/trading the Tamron in favor of the Sigma. I'm not ready to buy yet and maybe in 2018 there will be other options.

Read many reviews and they seem to give it good ratings with the usual caveats about distortions, CA, etc. that you find with lenses in this price range and size , but none putting it the do-not-consider list.

What I do like on the Sigma is the aperture range of 2.8-4.0 vs. the 3.5-6.3 on the Tamron. Not a major big difference, but enough so.

So here are my questions...

* Those that use this Sigma lens on DX body, what are your comments? I use a Nikon D5300, but I would imagine this lens will have the same results regardless of brand.
* If not this lens, what other lenses should I look at?
* Would I be better to scrap the idea altogether and keep what I have - Tamron 16-300mm?

What I do most is landscape/nature, portrait, family, grand kids sporting events, close-up/macro, etc. Very little of wildlife.

Looking for helpful comments and no snide remarks which I've seen recently.

Thanks for your insightful comments.

rmm0605 Loc: Atlanta GA

You are giving yourself good advice! Take it. Go with the shorter range lens.

02Nomad Loc: Catonsville, MD

I used my Sigma 17-70 2.8 to 4.0 to shoot my cousin's wedding in September and noticed soft focus on a number of pictures.

Jim Bob

It's an OK lens, nothing more. The Sigma 17-50, f/2.8 is considerably better and will make that D5300 shine. Guaranteed. Read some reviews.

jayw Loc: Contoocook, NH

Thanks to all who have replied so far. Will take all comments under consideration.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The aperture range is a MAJOR big difference ! I have and use the 17-70 almost daily. It will do everything you are asking for ......WELL.

jayw Loc: Contoocook, NH

Thanks to everyone's contribution and replies.

Depending on what I can get for a trade-in, I'm going to go with the Sigma 17-70mm. There are several reasons for my choice...

* Macro/close-up capability. Doesn't appear the 17-50mm has that.
* It matches my old Tokina 35-105mm when I was shooting film. That was my one-and-only lens and it worked really fine for what I did from a range point of view.
* Not the sharpest tack in my bag, but seems better than my Tamron.
* There are more reasons that my old brain forgets about for this post, but enough to help me decide.

The only downside is that the 17-50mm has a constant f/2.8 across the board where the 17-70mm varies from f/2.8-4.0. Still not bad.

Here is another question. It looks like the Sigma 17-70mm comes with a USB Dock. I read up on this from the Sigma website and think it has a purpose that may be useful.

From a real world user perspective, those who have this item and use it on Nikon branded bodies, especially the D5300, what are your thoughts? Useful or not and why & why not?

Thanks

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I use it on Canon .....so for Nikon there may be some small difference. I read all the reviews too - but I continue to be amazed at how good this lens is ! I have the earlier non-contemporary version. The dock feature is nice in any case - but for this short of focal lengths, I do not think it a necessity.

jayw Loc: Contoocook, NH

Thanks