frjeff Loc: Mid-Michigan

Debating between buying one of these two topic lenses to replace my Nikon 18-55 Kit lens. Shooting a Nikon D5300.
Reasons: both would give me faster glass (the 17-50 particularly) and cover almost or more than the kit FL.

Both get acceptable reviews for the price, with the 17-50 perhaps a bit better for the 17-50 (due to its constant aperture). All reviews claim both of these lenses is an improvement over the kit (although my feeling is that the kit is pretty darn good for its price).

Either would be my daily walk-around, changing to my 70-300 or 35 f/1.8 prime when needed. The 17-70 would give me full FL coverage from 17-300 (although I do not see the 50-70 FL loss with the 17-50 as a major killer).

Am I on the right track here? Your thoughts on these or other options I am missing?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

If it is replacing a lens with the top end of 55, which you are used to using, I probably would appreciate the constant aperture more.

throughrhettseyes Loc: Rowlett, TX

I have a Nikon D500 and love my Nikon 16-80mm f2.8 DX. It is very clear and sharp from corner to corner. It has a fast focus system too. I use it 80% of the time. It is not as praised as the 17-50mm f2.8 because it is a DX lens. Nikon people have this problem with DX lenses. As they do with DX cameras. It's a snobby thing that they think if you aren't a full frame photographer than you aren't really a photographer. Not true. I would compare my work with their full frame photos any day. I don't like sigma's lenss quality and have been very disappointed in the 2 Sigmas I have bought over the years. Stick with Nikon glass and you won't go wrong. You will need the extra mm to compensate for the DX lens cropping anyway. This is what I have in my DX camera bag. A Nikon D500, 2 each Nikon D200s, a Nikon 16-80mm f2.8 DX, a Nikon 18-200mm f3.6 DX, a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 DX, a Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 FX, and a Nikon 200-500mm f5.6 FX. Along with 2 each D200s with various old lenses i have collected over the last 30 years.

UncleBuck Loc: Malvern, Arkansas

I have had both, and kept the 17-50. Overall I was more pleased with the results from it and the 2.8 constant was a big plus in the decision. I use it on a D500 and consider it to definitely be a keeper.

grandpaw

I have the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 and use it on my Nikon D500 and it is a very good lens and is this combination that I use each time I go to Disney World. It is sharp, fast and light. Highly recommend. Grandpaw

fchretdet

I have the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 and use it on my Nikon D7200. It's been a very good dependable lens that I've been using as my "Go to/walk-around lens" for several months.
I recommend it.

aflundi Loc: Albuquerque, NM

I'll join the chorus in favor of the 17-50/2.8. It's been a terrific lens for me that gives very nice images. The only nit I have with it is that it doesn't have full-time manual override so the focus ring turns as it auto-focuses. Not a big deal, but when I first pick it up, I often find my fingers being shoved aside as it focuses. If I lost the one I have, I'd buy another without giving it a second thought. The price:performance ratio is just too good.

I haven't used the 17-70/2.8-4, but is does get good reviews and is dockable with the Sigma update dock. I don't think it'd be a terrible mistake to go that way either, especially if you tend to use an auto-exposure mode so the variable max aperture doesn't bite you, as can happen if you zoom a lot in manual-exposure mode.

jayw Loc: Contoocook, NH

Traded in my Tamron 18-300mm for this lens and couldn't be happier having it mounted on my D5300.

Images are quite sharp and very little noise. I don't print much on glossy stock on my Canon Pro-100. I use mostly Canon Pro Luster. So a little bit of noise is not an issue for me. The texture masks most, if not, all the noise that does appear. Even when I print 8x10 on Epson Glossy stock, the noise factor is barely noticeable. In this case, I may opt for a water color filter if things are really bad.

Reason for the trade? Using a Tamron 18-200mm & 18-300mm on both my D70s and D5300 I came to realize for the kind of photos I take, I didn't really need the reach the Tamron's have. Recalling my days of film using a 35-105mm on a Contax RTSII and getting really good images, I decided to trade the 18-300mm for the Sigma.

With a 1.5 crop factor, the Sigma 17-70mm = 25.5-105mm.

Another reason to trade, was weight. The big zooms were much heavier and some what bulkier for me.

Either Sigma lens I think will make you happy.

Enjoy whichever you get.

walkurie Loc: East Stroudsburg, PA

I have the 17-50 f/2.8 on my D5300. Very happy with performance/price given the faster aperture over the kit lens. An excellent walking around lens.
Gary

User ID

All modern lenses are constant aperture when
used on modern cameras, at most apertures.

The exception is the widest maximum opening,
which is where the variable aperture intrudes.

Depending upon your working conditions and
working style, you may never be bothered by
the supposed annoyance of vari-max-aperture
zooms. I have a very convenient constant f/4.0
28-105 zoom that happens to also offer, at the
flick of a small control, a 28/2.8, built right in !

Negative thinking calls that lens a vari-aperture
2.8 to 4.0 zoom. I ignore that. It is without any
doubt a constant 4.0 lens at all FLs. Having that
option to use a 28/2.8 without juggling lens caps
and lens barrels, and letting dirt into the camera,
thaz just an odd little bonus :-)

Photocraig

I love my SIgma 17-70. It performs in all venues. On a camera with a sufficiently large number of MP, shooting at the wide (f2.8) end and cropping is acceptable. Since I'm usually in Aperture Priority, the variable issue isn't a problem for me. Portraits at 50-70mm f4 have produced excellent sharpness at the focus point, the eyes, and good subject focus and great background separation, in studio and on location. It weighs a pound. I had one stolen and replaced it with the same. The 17-50 has its appeal for street and low light, but I don't expect there would be too much difference depending on what and how you shoot.

I seriously doubt if I would carry both. And if I were convinced I needed the faster lens, I'd seriously consider the Sigma 18-35 (29-52 Canon Full frame Equiv) f1.8. There is a large $ premium fo 1-1/4 stops faster.

C

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

I'll add my own two cents into this, as well.

Two years ago, just before our trip to Hawaii, I had bought the Tamron 17-50. Why? Because it was $100 less than the Sigma, that's all. Upon viewing the images afterwards, it seemed to me that the colors were not as vivid as they should have been. In fact, rather "flat". Photos of the same scenes, but shot with my Nikon 70-300 showed the colors as they should have been. HUGE difference.

As soon as we got back home, I returned the Tamron to Adorama and exchanged it for the Sigma. I am VERY pleased with the performance of the Sigma. Sharp as a tack, good color rendition and STILL a fourth the price of Nikon's 17-55, and doesn't weigh as much! Sure, it's not built like a tank, as the Nikon is, but at this price ($389), if I dropped it and it shattered to pieces, I'd just buy another one.

VERY happy with the Sigma.