New Lens Question

[kmclark]

On all my trips to do Disney in the past year I have been renting a Sigma f1.8 18-35mm for my Nikon. I love the lens as it is WAY much better than any "kit" lens. I am ready to buy the proverbial bullet and buy a good lens. I am wondering if I should stick with this lens to buy or go for a 2.8 with a longer range of say 17-50mm. My camera is a Nikon D5300.

Here's what I am currently considering:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/689623-REG/Sigma_583306_17_50mm_F2_8_EX_DC.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/909805-REG/Sigma_884306_17_70mm_f_2_8_4_DC_Macro.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/967345-REG/sigma_18_35mm_f1_8_dc_hsm.html

 

[havoc315]

It's really a subjective question. *Personally* I'd rather have the 17-50, because it is wider and longer. For my purposes, the limited range on the 18-35 makes it very much a specialty lens. Absolutely fantastic for Disney dark rides, but more questionable for most every day shooting.
It's the equivalent of 27-52mm. A 17-50 is the equivalent of 25.5mm to 75mm.

Looking at the usefulness of each --- I like to shoot my landscapes at around 24mm often. The 17-50 gets me pretty close to that, while the Sigma would be noticeably a little too narrow.
I like to shoot portraits at 70mm plus... So the 17-50 would let me shoot some of my portraits. The Sigma would be too short for most portraits.

On the other hand, the Sigma does have fantastic IQ, and that very fast 1.8 aperture -- A 17-50/2.8 is generally considered a good aperture for indoor shots, etc. But 1.8 would really open up low light doors even further. So if I was shooting *extensively* in low light, I might prefer the Sigma.

 

[jec6613]

Depending on your budget, the new, "King," of lenses in this range will likely be this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1166860-REG/nikon_af_s_dx_nikkor_16_80mm.html

Nano coating, electronic aperture control so you can control the iris during video, fluorine coatings, and all of the rest of the good stuff. Pretty much every feature thrown into a single lens. It's also not cheap, but this is one of the, "You get what you pay for," things.

I'm not a fan of the 18-35. Optically it's good, but my problem is just that the range isn't that useful to me - it's not really a wide angle and it doesn't get past the mid. The 17-50 is older now, and I'd skip it and go to the 17-70 or 16-80 for better features, optics and compatibility.

Whatever you get, also check the 35 mm f/1.8 DX from Nikon. It's a lens I use more than almost any other.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

It really depends on what you are going to shoot. Because I primarily shoot motorsports, I shoot with all fast lenses (17-50 f2.8, 28-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 100-300 f4). For Disney I have the 30 f1.4 for the dark rides. When I go to WDW, I leave the 100-300 at home, but bring the others. I use the 28-70 as my walkaround, the 17-50 when I want to go wider/inside character meets and the 70-200 for reach and as I stated the 30 for the dark rides. When I'm shooting motorsports the 17-50 is for victory lane, the 28-70/70-200 for general shooting and the 100-300 for shots from the top of the grandstands when I need the longer reach. The reason I include all this is because I don't have an unlimited budget and use my lenses for multiple uses. Since Disney and motorsports both have lowlight challenges, I try to get the fastest lenses, I can afford that I can use multiple ways. This is just my style. For yourself, I would analyze your style and purchase a lens/lenses that fit the most needs.

 

[mom2rtk]

Not sure if the Nikon copies of that Sigma 18-35 have been better than the Canon copies, but the one I had was just awful.

If you do decide to go that direction, I would test the focus thoroughly right away to give yourself time to return it if you get a bad copy.

 

[jec6613]

The 18-35 (and any other Sigma lens, really) should be purchased with a USB dock so that you don't run into those issues, and if you do, you can adjust them out.

And, yes, the Nikon version is a bit better than the Canon because of the interaction between the lens coatings and the hot mirrors Nikon uses (Sigma coatings are closer to Nikkor than Canon coatings), but that causes a pretty much imperceptible loss in contrast. On the flipside, the aperture on the Nikon versions is less accurate, leading to exposure variance - they giveth, and they taketh away.

As for me, I've ended up returning every Sigma I ever tried, not for focus maladjustment or anything else, but because they didn't solve the issue I purchased them for. I've found the Nikkors suit me much better, and I have a six prime/three zoom full AF-S shooting set, and take what I need on a particular day with me. I don't have any unlimited budget either, so the bulk of them have been purchased refurbished (or weren't very expensive to begin with).

 

[kmclark]

Well I haven't made up my mind yet. I have a trip in a few weeks to WDW and I might rent the f2.8 this time around instead of the f1.8. Does anyone have a good coupon for borrowlenses or lensrentals?