Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 for Nikon DX: I am learning landscape photography and have a Nikon 3300 with a Nikon 18-200 f3.5 and a Nikon 50mm f1.8. Would the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 be a good...

augieg27 Loc: Central California

I am learning landscape photography and have a Nikon 3300 with a Nikon 18-200 f3.5 and a Nikon 50mm f1.8. Would the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 be a good addition? Your comments will be appreciated.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

This lens is the better alternative to the Nikon kit lens, 18-55mm. And being a f2.8 makes it even better. It has good reviews and you won't end up breaking the bank buying it. It should perform well on your D3300 with 24 megapixels.

Plieku69 Loc: The Gopher State, south end

I use that lens on a Canon and it is very sharp. In my not so humble opinion as good as or better than Cannon L glass. With proper setting the RAW image requires no post processing.
It has turned out to be a wonderfully versatile lens for out door, indoor and product shots.
Ken

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Plieku69 wrote:

I use that lens on a Canon and it is very sharp. In my not so humble opinion as good as or better than Cannon L glass. With proper setting the RAW image requires no post processing.
It has turned out to be a wonderfully versatile lens for out door, indoor and product shots.
Ken

So, which L series lens is this Sigma better than? If you honestly believe a $350 Sigma lens is built better than even an inexpensive $1000 L series, you obviously don't own any. I do own the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 in Nikon mount and yes, it is a really nice lens but, I also own several Canon lenses, both black and off white with the sexy crimson band, and the Sigma lens is not as well made as any of them.

Plieku69 Loc: The Gopher State, south end

rmorrison1116 wrote:

So, which L series lens is this Sigma better than? If you honestly believe a $350 Sigma lens is built better than even an inexpensive $1000 L series, you obviously don't own any. I do own the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 in Nikon mount and yes, it is a really nice lens but, I also own several Canon lenses, both black and off white with the sexy crimson band, and the Sigma lens is not as well made as any of them.

My statement is for picture quality, the Sigma is that good.
Your statement concerns build quality, for the price I would expect the Canon to be better. How much so is objective since neither of us can test that. Both Sigma and Canon build a quality, well made lens. The OP will do well to get the Sigma.

Ken

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Plieku69 wrote:

My statement is for picture quality, the Sigma is that good.
Your statement concerns build quality, for the price I would expect the Canon to be better. How much so is objective since neither of us can test that. Both Sigma and Canon build a quality, well made lens. The OP will do well to get the Sigma.

Ken

I never said the Sigma was not a good lens, quite the opposite. I asked which L series lens is the Sigma is better than, and being the sharpest lens in the drawer does necessarily make it the better lens. IMMHO , tack sharp is way over rated.
Yes, I absolutely agree, the OP will spend their money wisely if they purchase the Sigma 17-50, it is well worth the cost.

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

I owned and sold that lens when I went to fx format. I had a problem with it flaring in bright sun light. Also, and I might not remember correctly but I not sure if it has a focus motor in it. You using a d3xxx camera, it might not auto focus for you. Check it out before you buy.

suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ

I have the 17-50 mm Sigma lens. I bought it when I realized that most of my landscapes were shot in that range. Being a 2.8 lens opens the doors to some low light situations without having to dial the ISO way up. I use the lens often and like the results. It seems to be built well enough- time will tell about that. But for the price I don't expect it to last forever- but who knows. There isn't much advantage to you on the wide end and certainly a disadvantage on the long end if you need that. If you like what you already have I can't see much advantage to adding the Sigma. Prior to getting the Sigma, the only other zoom that I had was a 12-24 mm and that focal length just kept coming up short for most of what I do.

augieg27 Loc: Central California

Thank you suntouched, your assertion is right on and made me realize the pros and cons of the lens. I certainly appreciate your input.
I was looking into a good wide angle lens sharper than my 18-200mm without breaking the bank. Any suggestions?

suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ

I am not a Nikon user so am not that familiar with the lens lineup. However, if you are keeping your 18-200 mm lens, which covers a wide focal range, then consider a fast, sharp, small prime lens instead of another zoom. Maybe in the 14 mm focal length?

OOPs- I just checked for that range and it's a 2000.00 lens!

suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ

Looks like the 14, 15, and 16 mm Nikon lenses are in the 800-2000.00 range. You might look at a 3rd party prime for your Nikon. Rockinon has several wide, manual focus lens for Nikon. At that focal length manual focus is not a problem. Check out the consumer reviews. Some get excellent reviews- some do not. I personally have purchased 2 wide Rockinon lenses and have been very happy with them.

Or come over to Pentax where excellent lenses are still reasonably priced (and many weather resistant) :)

augieg27 Loc: Central California

Thanks again. I'll look into the different alternatives you suggested.