Walk-around Zoom for Nikon

I need help making up my mind. As many of you know, I am in the process of building my kit and looking toward retirement.

To that end I have settled on the Nikon D7100 (after things settle a bit), thought seriously about going FX but realized DX was a better fit.
Now to my problem, after a lot of looking I am down to two contenders. The Nikon 16-85 VR and the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 HSM. Both are currently on sale at significant savings and cost difference between them is $5.

Sigma has faster lens (f2.8) better DXO Mark, but less range on both wide and telephoto end, and the customer reviews aren't as good as the Nikon.

Nikon has better range and far better customer reviews, but slower and variable aperture, and DXO scores aren't really any better than the kit lenses.

Thoughts or recommendations anyone? The Sigma is on sale thru the 17th, but I have until 30 Mar to pop on the Nikon.

EDIT: To tell the truth I would go for the Nikon without hesitating if it weren't for the DXO Mark scores. Thom Hogan says its significantly better than the kit lenses (on the other hand the Sigma 17-50 is in his bag) and customer reviews are almost 100% positive on the Nikon.

What do you shoot mostly? What else do you have in your kit?

CrimsonRequiem said:

What do you shoot mostly? What else do you have in your kit?

Click to expand...

Not sure how that figures into choosing between these two lenses, but will furnish the info. Will edit this post to add it.

EDIT: My current kit includes

Several P&S cameras

Nikon D5000
SB400 Flash
Manfrotto Tripod and Ballhead
18-55 kit lens
55-200 kit lens
70-300mm AFS VR
18-200mm AFS VR
35mm f1.8
11-16mm f2.8 Tokina

Main interests are landscapes (especially lowlight)
Wildlife (birds, bugs etc)
Casual Portraiture

RavingMac said:

Not sure how that figures into choosing between these two lenses, but will furnish the info. Will edit this post to add it.

EDIT: My current kit includes

Several P&S cameras

Nikon D5000
SB400 Flash
Manfrotto Tripod and Ballhead
18-55 kit lens
55-200 kit lens
70-300mm AFS VR
18-200mm AFS VR
35mm f1.8
11-16mm f2.8 Tokina

Main interests are landscapes (especially lowlight)
Wildlife (birds, bugs etc)
Casual Portraiture

Click to expand...

I ask because of the focal ranges. The two that you listed cover wide angle to Portrait. When I buy glass I want to make sure it's not overlapping with what I already have. Unless it is better at that focal length.

No Macro lens?

I would go with the Sigma because of low-light situations. Another option: Nikkor AF-S DX 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED. Replaces your kit lens in that range a little bit better than the Sigma.

CrimsonRequiem said:

I ask because of the focal ranges. The two that you listed cover wide angle to Portrait. When I buy glass I want to make sure it's not overlapping with what I already have. Unless it is better at that focal length.

No Macro lens?

I would go with the Sigma because of low-light situations.

Click to expand...

Macro decision is later.

Lowlight is part of why I am leaning Sigma (that and Thom Hogan shoots it), plus it reads as significantly sharper in DXO Mark.
On the other-hand I seriously consider user reviews. It is a major disconnect that the test scores say one thing, but people who own the Nikon say the opposite.

EDIT: The reason for deciding now is I have had my eye on the Sigma for a year and it finally went on sale.

RavingMac said:

Macro decision is later.

Lowlight is part of why I am leaning Sigma (that and Thom Hogan shoots it), plus it reads as significantly sharper in DXO Mark.
On the other-hand I seriously consider user reviews. It is a major disconnect that the test scores say one thing, but people who own the Nikon say the opposite.

Click to expand...

If it were me. I would see if I could rent them both out and test them side by side. A little more of a hassle but at least you won't be wasting hundreds of dollars and regretting it later.

CrimsonRequiem said:

If it were me. I would see if I could rent them both out and test them side by side. A little more of a hassle but at least you won't be wasting hundreds of dollars and regretting it later.

Click to expand...

An excellent recommendation in other circumstances. But the major kick against Sigma is sample-to-sample variation. If true I could rent and love one and then buy and end up with a lemon.
I really don't want to get into testing and returning lenses looking for a good one, which is why I am interested in the Nikon, since it seems to be uniformly praised.

Just can't get my head around the poor DXO scores on the 16-85 AFS lens. That is the only thing that keeps me from buying the Nikon and moving on with life.

RavingMac said:

An excellent recommendation in other circumstances. But the major kick against Sigma is sample-to-sample variation. If true I could rent and love one and then buy and end up with a lemon.
I really don't want to get into testing and returning lenses looking for a good one, which is why I am interested in the Nikon, since it seems to be uniformly praised.

Just can't get my head around the poor DXO scores on the 16-85 AFS lens. That is the only thing that keeps me from buying the Nikon and moving on with life.

Click to expand...

just my tuppenth worth here, as a photographer.

DXO is a benchmark program, very technical and has no....whats the word for it "soul" is the closest i can come up with. Its good that you take note of the dxo score but listen more to the people who have them and use them. Practical use experience will always outweigh lab tests. If this lens is "uniformly praised" in the nikon community, then listen to them... that praise comes from practical usage not from a synthetic enviroment.


just my tuppenth worth
(btw i shoot canon so i know squat )

AWSPhotography said:

just my tuppenth worth here, as a photographer.

DXO is a benchmark program, very technical and has no....whats the word for it "soul" is the closest i can come up with. Its good that you take note of the dxo score but listen more to the people who have them and use them. Practical use experience will always outweigh lab tests. If this lens is "uniformly praised" in the nikon community, then listen to them... that praise comes from practical usage not from a synthetic enviroment.


just my tuppenth worth
(btw i shoot canon so i know squat )

Click to expand...

Thanks,
That is precisely the type of input I am looking for (even from Canon shooters). Being a cheapskate I didn't want to pay $600 for a lens that was no better (in terms of sharpness) than my 18-55 kit lens.

if you are on about sharpness, its very very rare that a kit lens outperforms a non kit lens.
and wherever you can stick with brand glass (nikkor for you). Dont get me wrong sigma is very very good and for the price diff is amazing, but it all comes down to how much your willing to invest in your photography.

I had a sigma 150-500 which i bought for about £600 and was extreamly impressed with it.... untill i bought my 2nd hand ef600mm (£5.8k)... you get what you pay for... however within the price bracket you set yourself its always good to get feedback from your camera community on any of the lenses you are looking at ... Thats the best way not to wind up with a lemon

RavingMac said:

EDIT: To tell the truth I would go for the Nikon without hesitating if it weren't for the DXO Mark scores. Thom Hogan says its significantly better than the kit lenses (on the other hand the Sigma 17-50 is in his bag) and customer reviews are almost 100% positive on the Nikon.

Click to expand...

this is what you need to look for

I've used the Nikon 16-85VR and don't like it much, as I find its uses fairly minimal. It doesn't suit my style of "casual" shooting, as it doesn't offer much or any shallow depth of field. This hurts portraits obviously, and for the money better can be had IMHO. Sharpness is fine for landscapes, and of course you're also going to stop the lens down for maximum sharpness anyway.. but if you have a preferred focal length, I'd still go for a prime.

Unfortunately I can't speak with any authority on that particular Sigma, but from what I can see, samples look great. Of course there's the chance that you can get an bad sample of the lens, but they'll replace it if that is the case. I've got two Sigs, and both are fantastic for what they offer. Both were great out of the box.

Here are some samples from the Sig you're looking at:













I'd personally go for the Sig at this point, knowing what I know about the Nikon. I'd also say that a good percentage of Nikon shooters are snobby when it comes to choosing their glass. I totally understand the risks that come with buying third party, from a QC perspective, but IME when you get a good Sig copy, it's as good if not better than the Nikon equivalents.

Doug

Thanks, Doug, and everyone else for input.

Sigma 17-50 ordered. Deciding point (besides feedback and awesome sample pics) was Sigma sale ends 17 Mar, while the Nikon is on sale thru the 30th. If I decide for some reason I don't care for the Sigma I still have time to catch the Nikon on sale.

RavingMac said:

Thanks, Doug, and everyone else for input.

Sigma 17-50 ordered. Deciding point (besides feedback and awesome sample pics) was Sigma sale ends 17 Mar, while the Nikon is on sale thru the 30th. If I decide for some reason I don't care for the Sigma I still have time to catch the Nikon on sale.

Click to expand...

Well thought out reasoning. I hope you get a good sample, and have some subject matter in mind to shoot? Also, when is the 7100 supposed to arrive, and did you pre-order it? Those sample images above were from a D7100 btw!

Doug

Doug b said:

Well thought out reasoning. I hope you get a good sample, and have some subject matter in mind to shoot? Also, when is the 7100 supposed to arrive, and did you pre-order it? Those sample images above were from a D7100 btw!

Doug

Click to expand...

After buying the Sigma it will take a few months to save up for the D7100. I figure by about Aug or Sep we should know whether the D7100 has any problems/fixes and my piggy bank will be full.

Sounds good. The 7100 appeals to me as well, but I'm waiting for a real D300 replacement, which the 7100 is not. It's likely I may get into full frame while waiting, and I've also got my eye on the Fuji X100s as a street shooter and vacation camera. Samples look amazing thus far, but I'm wondering if perhaps samples look at bit "too" sharp/sterile at this point. The X100, while having some of the worst AF issues, produces some of the most excellent and film-like photographs for a mirrorless...

Doug

I waffled back and forth between FX and DX, the final straw was pulling the AA filter from the D7100. It has everything I am looking for, and the added reach for birds etc is very nice!

EDIT:
I was actually starting to get itchy fingers and thinking of ordering the D7100 at release, but the Sigma went on sale and helped me to wait.

Either way, looking forward to some samples from your new lens!

Doug

Doug b said:

Either way, looking forward to some samples from your new lens!

Doug

Click to expand...

Will try to put some up next weekend, the Sigma is supposed to arrive middle of next week.

sigma make the nikon cameras look good
(something canon users dont need )

hahaha sry couldn't resist... only joking
although i'll do the canon vs nikon jokes... i just want to state for the record i'm not a fanboy of either,,, in my mind they are tools to do a job, and both do it equally well