Nikon vs sigma

[jordanogrady]

As the title suggests, what's the best 17-70mm lens, value for
money, sharpness, weight? Just generally what would you buy.

Nikon 18-70mm F3.5/F4.5 AFS DX

or

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1020681

I basically have a kit lens and a 35mm on the way, just wanted a little better than a kit lens, and bit more zoom.
Should I wait and get a VR model?

Cheers

[Markk]

Hmmm, tough. Ultimately I'd go with the Sigma here, possibly save on some money and eventually get 2.8 glass like the 17-55 one day.
Or skip it and save for the f2.8 starting now...

[leaky5]

I am sort of half keeping an eye out for the Nikon 18-70. If you are on a real budget, then that is probably the way to go.

I noticed you have seen the current one for sale in the forums, another one was snapped up about 2 days ago for about £125. I was watching a slightly damaged one on Ebay the other day, it went for £99.

Although in another thread recently someone said they had gone this to the Sigma and noticed even more of an improvement.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=1677151&postcount=11

[awp]

Skip and save for a Nikon 17-55mm -the differeence will amaze you. Good glass costs money.

[sdb123]

Skip and save for a Nikon 17-55mm -the differeence will amaze you. Good glass costs money.

Well yes, it does...but it doesn't fit the OP's requirements. :)

Personally, out of the two lenses listed I would get the Nikon 18-70mm.

[Doug]

I picked up a 18-70 for my D300, its a really cracking bit of kit for the money!

[jordanogrady]

The nikon I was looking at on here has sold, so I'm keeping my options open.

[Martyn...]

I would suggest a used 28-105 f3.5 - f4.5D Nikkor, around £140 - £150 nice and sharp, and very good image quality, ffords usually have them, I know mifsuds do but that was a bit pricey (but may be mint).

[specialman]

The Nikon 18-70mm is brilliant but the slightly faster apertures on the Siggy might come in useful for more creative photography. Build-wise they're very similar*–*very good.

[Scotty B]

Both lenses are excellent but my Sigma 18-50 2.8 Macro does was an upgrade in everyway to my 18-70 Nikon.

[jordanogrady]

Cheers guys, also been looking at the 55-200 VR Not sure what to get!

[Frenzied Dwarf]

the 55-200 VR is pretty nice along side the kit lense, i just picked up a second hand tamron 100-300 to go with a similar setup :D tele is the way to go!

[jordanogrady]

Yeah think I've got a decent starter collection now, got kit lense, 55-200 VR and a 35mm and a polorizer tht fits them all! Just need to learn how to use the camera now! Haha

[Flash In The Pan]

What about a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8? It's almost as good optically as the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8, but less expensive. The ones with the built-in motor are less popular secondhand, so cheaper - which would be good news for you ;)

[kman]

Its really hard to find a tamron 17-50 with built in motor second hand (trust me i've been looking!!). On the other hand I like my Sigma 17-70 I've been using recently and that extra reach has proven useful as I don't have a tele.

[Flash In The Pan]

There was one on here not that long ago....

[jordanogrady]

There was one on here not that long ago....

Yep that's what got me asking the question! Ended up with a 55-200 nikon *** LOL

[kman]

a tamron? musta missed it! argh. doesnt matter now anyway im changing bodies :D