17-55s and 80-200s

[Frobius]

Does anyone have any experience of the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS HSM vs the Nikon
17-55 f2.8? Does the Sigma come close optically? They can both be got for similar money it seems. I like the idea of the OS for really low light. Not too keen on the Tamron as I'd want the VC but have heard it's a bit crap compared to the old non VC.

Also, how does the 80-200 f2.8 Twin Ring compare to either the AF-S version or the 70-200 VR? Seems the twin ring is about £500, AF-S about £700 ish and the VR about £1k. Sadly not quite rich enough to think about the VRII yet..

 

[Aledafis]

I did a lot of reading on this a couple of weeks ago, and came to the conclusion that there's very little between the two 17-50/55 lenses. Most reviews state that the Sigma is ever so slightly softer that the Nikon at 17mm, but they're pretty equal by 21mm and the Sigma even betters it at it's longer end, both lenses seem to be fully usable from f2.8 so they don't need to be stopped down to produce quality images.

The difference then comes down to the bullet proof build quality of the Nikon vs the optical stability of the Sigma, and also the fact that the Sigma can be bought new with a 3 year warranty for less than the Nikon second hand. I personally opted for the OS as this could be very useful in low light as you mention (a mate of mine has the Nikkor 16-35 and finds the OS even on that short focal length quite useful) and also the peace of mind of the warranty. I should have the lens sometime next week, can't wait!

Cheers
Aled

Edit: I used some of the "saving" over the Nikon to buy a Black Rapid strap which is awesome!! It transforms how you carry a DSLR, and how you think about taking it out with you when you just wouldn't have before. Yes they're expensive, but the difference really needs to be experienced, it's one of those rare eureka moments that makes you think why you didn't buy one years ago!

 

[Frobius]

Yeah thats the impression I've got from various readings - just wanted to check with this forum too! I think I'll ultimately go for the Sigma 17-50 OS as, as with any Nikon Pro spec lens the cost is somewhat prohibitive.

I see there's another thread starting up on the Sigma 70-200, albeit the non-OS version. Reference my second query, does anyone have any experience of the Siggy 70-200 OS vs the Nikon equivalent? (VRI rather than the VRII).

I'm thinking that with a 10-20, 17-50, Nifty Fifty, 70-200 and my 300 prime, I'm pretty much covered across the board.

 

[specialman]

Had the Siggy 70-200 (mk1), the 80-200mm AF-D and currently have the Mk1 70-200 VR.

The Sigma was a great buy (£450 new) and was built like a tank but I had to send it off twice for recalibration and in the end, although it was a great optic, I couldn't put 100 per cent trust in it to help me get the shot when i wanted.

80-200mm AF-D is amazing for the price; AF is fast for a screwdriven lens and it's sharp throughout the aperture range Not great shooting into light at times but solid and stood up to anything the weather threw at it.

70-200mm VR is amazing. VR works a treat and it's sharp throughout, a tad sharper than the 80-200. I got mine used for £900, which I see as a fair price. Again, it's stood up to all weathers (snow, dust, sand, rain).