Can't say anything about the sigma as I've never used it, but prior to owning my nikon 17-55mm, I owned the 17-50mm Tamron non-vc 2.8. The quality of the Tamron was surprisingly very close to par with the Nikon, only lacking behind in build quality. I do shoot a lot of low light indoor photography, and I often wish the Nikon 17-55mm did have VR, as I would be able to rely less on high iso and could use a slower shutter speed. If you do a lot of low light photography, I do think the image stabilization should be an important factor in your decision.

I got it used... which brings up another point - if depreciation concerns you (perhaps you will move along and finding yourself needing to sell old lenses) you will lose more % of original value from the 3rd party lenses.

As far as it's performance goes? It does a good job wide open, but I am far from a pro, and I also have a good copy of that lens. If I can find a sample for you I will try and post one up

@Paxton: did you mean that you get a used sigma for $350? Or a new one? Does the Sigma at f2.8 perform well?

I have the Sigma, and yes I use the OS on it - it is a nice lens. BUT I got mine at a much lower price than that ($350 US) but with only a $125 difference I would spring for the Nikon.

Hi guys,

I tried to find a thread on the subject but couldn't find it. So I started this thread.

To you who shoot DX and have experience with both 17-55 Nikon and Sigma 17-50 OS, which one does produce better results? Is VR or Os very critical in this range?

Here in Japan, I could find a used 17-55 Nikon for as low as 60,000 yen (around 725 US$) and a new Sigma 17-50 OS for 50,000 yen (600 US$). Is 125-ish US$ worth to take the Nikon one?

I really appreciate your comments.

Thanks