Sigma 17-70mm or Nikon 18-105mm

adz740

adz740

Messages
218
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
Yes
Now that I've stepped up and bought a d300 I need to look at getting a nice walkaround zoom lens to go with it. I've currently only got a 35mm 1.8, which i love but is a bit limiting.

So should i get a 18-105mm VR II and save around £200 or get the Sigma 17-70mm OS and look to buy a longer zoom at a later date?
 
Out of those two I'd probably just opt for the Nikon. The Sigma is decent I just don't think it warrants the price difference. Are you considering any other options? The Tamron 17-50 2.8, Sigma 18-50 2.8 or Nikon 16-85 VR maybe? Or you could save yourself a packet and go for a Nikon 18-70...
 
I'd look at other options, yes. Open to anything really :)

It does have to have VR/OS though as I've got shaky hands and would like the ability to shoot handheld at night if possible.
 
I can't comment on that particular Sigma, but I'm a fan of the 18-105. Purely for it's flexibility,mine spends more time on my camera than any other lens. I have sharper lenses, and those better in low light, but the Nikon is sharp enough IMO, nice and contrasty, and has great range. I think I paid £140 for it in the classifieds here, and I consider it money well spent.
 
adz740 said:
I'd look at other options, yes. Open to anything really :)

It does have to have VR/OS though as I've got shaky hands and would like the ability to shoot handheld at night if possible.
Click to expand...

In that case I'd be looking for something with 2.8 aperture and image stabilisation. Obviously the Sigma you mentioned does 2.8 but only for a fraction of zoom range. There is the Tamron 17-50 VC 2.8. The VC version seemed to be poorly regarded a while ago but there seem to be some glowing reviews these days so maybe it's had a bit of a tweak. Sigma also do a 17-50 OS 2.8 which is a lovely lens and highly underrated in my opinion. Quite pricey though at over £400.
 
There is always the option to go for the Nikon 18-55mm VR instead of the others for the short term and look to get a decent 2.8 like the Sigma or Nikon in the future. Doing a bit of reading it seems that the 18-105mm isn't the greatest lens.

Too many choices! :)
 
I had the 18-105 and it was a lovely walk around lens. In fact I think I sold it to Nick above! I only sold it as I had a 70-200 f 2.8 and wanted something faster at the wider end than the 18-105.

I went with the tamron 17-50 f2.8 non vc. I use this lens the majority of the time and it produces great results.

A recent one:


Hat's Entertainment, hat's entertainment! by Sir SR, on Flickr

The majority of recent stuff on my flickr is with the tamron. Harrisons have one for 250 at the mo.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63852338@N07/

And one from the 18-105 (before I sold it, experimenting with speedlights for the first time)


I want a go!! by Sir SR, on Flickr

Hope that helps

S
 
I've just ordered the Sigma 17-70mm 2.8 from Digitalrev. I'd like to have stretched to the 17-50 Sigma but couldn't justify spending the extra money at the moment. Think it'll be better spent when i add a longer zoom to my kit next :)

Thanks for the advice guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top