Well, Nikkor was definitely my first choice, but since I'm only a student and photography is only a hobby for now, I only can afford the Sigma. Here is another sample pic taken with the lens.

Hi,

I've stuck with Nikkors and have been happy, poor, but happy.

There have been some Nikon lenses that haven't been as sharp as the pack, but not too many. By and large, if they are engraved with the "Nikon" brand, you generally know you'll be happy with your image.

My best,

Mike

this lens is also on my wishlist as a party lens. I suppose I could wish for the Nikkor, but I might actually get the Sigma.

Looks good. I still want the lens and never got around to buying it again :(

After selling my 18-105 VR I searched quite a while for a suitable replacement. I was in dilemma whether I should buy the Sigma's or the Tamron's. But when I found the price of the Sigma went down to $569 (Thanksgiving's deal), I didn't hesitate and ordered the lens. So far I'm very satisfied with the lens. Here is an example of a photo taken at f2.8

poster said:
Since FX cameras have great ISO performance what's the reason for including VR in 24-70mm? In addition to the lens being 2.8. Would it make that much of difference? Well maybe to people who would want to shoot them at F4 or smaller.

I don't know. I already cringe at the prices of these lenses. Adding VR will bump them at least $300.

I hadn't really noticed any need for my VR until I was taking pictures inside a museum last week. It was great to be able to hand hold pictures without rocketing the ISO up.

I looked at a used 24-70 while I was in the shop. I was horrified how used and abused it was, but it was a similar price to the sigma lens. I just hope Nikon will continue to release some lenses that fall within lines of people that have a budget. The only reason I am considering the lens is because I can't afford any Nikon in that range except the kit lens. Hopefully it works out...I ordered it last night.

Since FX cameras have great ISO performance what's the reason for including VR in 24-70mm? In addition to the lens being 2.8. Would it make that much of difference? Well maybe to people who would want to shoot them at F4 or smaller.

I don't know. I already cringe at the prices of these lenses. Adding VR will bump them at least $300.

poster said:
Hmm... will we see Nikon implementing VR under the pressure from the competitors. It will be interesting to see the game unfold.

No question in my mind since the announcement of the 16-35 VR, poster. It's only a matter of time before at least the 24-70 and probably the 17-55 has VR.

Just had a peep at the reviews... its not a cheap lens! and no wonder ! In the center and stopped down its MTF are through the roof!. No wonder tcole said "I was impressed with it over the Tamron 17-50". Its main weakness is wide open in the corners from 17-35 mm where its horible ! but that may be an acceptable compromise... wont be for landsacpe wide open but who shoots land scape wide open anyway... definitely a lens to keep an eye on.

Hmm... will we see Nikon implementing VR under the pressure from the competitors. It will be interesting to see the game unfold.

NikoDoby said:
Well you did already return it so... :^)

Besides if you want to save money then whats wrong with the Tokina 16-50 f2.8?

It won't AF on my camera or I would probably get it. The Sigma focused pretty quickly and was pretty quiet also. It was noticeably faster focusing then the Tamron.

jonnyapple said:
Oh, so that's what you mean when you say you 'thought about it.' ;-)

Lol nah she was at the shop when I got it, but I can order it from Adorama for $70 less and it comes with a Tiffen UV filter and lens cleaning kit.

tcole1983 said:
...my wife was already going to kill me for buying the 17-50 Sigma lens : ).

Oh, so that's what you mean when you say you 'thought about it.' ;-)

Well you did already return it so... :^)

Besides if you want to save money then whats wrong with the Tokina 16-50 f2.8?

NikoDoby said:
Yes i know i edited my previous post. If 18mm on my lens is soft at f2.8 id be skeptical that 17mm is sharper on the new lens.

Nikkor or nothing!

Lol I looked at the Nikon 17-55 lens, but it costs twice as much and my wife was already going to kill me for buying the 17-50 Sigma lens : ). It looks to be upgraded from the previous models and I didn't think any of the pictures looked too bad with it.

Yes i know i edited my previous post. If 18mm on my lens is soft at f2.8 id be skeptical that 17mm is sharper on the new lens.

Nikkor or nothing!

:) It is a new lens Niko. They also released the new 17-70 f2.8-4, but they also came out with the F2.8 constant aperture. Here is a picture of it.

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/client/images/products/583_17-50mm_f28_EX_DC_OS_HSM.png

No thats the 17-50 f2.8-f4. That lens doesnt have a constant f2.8 aperture. I dont have that lens but i have used the non OS version and didnt like it. I like constant aperture lenses.

Oops it is constant f2.8 Sorry dont know anything about that lens. I guess its replacing the 18-50? Strange that they have four different lenses that cover similar focal range.

No it must be pretty new. It is the 17-50. Info from their page.

17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM

For use with smaller chip APS-c digital cameras only

Offers Sigma’s OS System (Optical Stabilization) allowing handheld photography even in low-light situation

HSM (Hyper-Sonic Motor) ensures a quiet & high-speed auto focus

FLD glass elements with performance equal to fluorite glass for compensate for color aberration

Ultra compact with overall length of just 3.6”

Lens Construction 17 Elements in 13 Groups
Angle of View 72.4-27.9
Number of Diaphragm Blades 7
Mininum Aperture f22
Minimum Focusing Distance 28 cm / 11 in
Filter Size (mm) 77
Maximum Magnifications 1:5
Dimensions
(Diameter x Length) 83.5x91.8 mm/3.3x3.6 in
Weight 565g / 19.9oz.

Do you mean the 18 -50? I have it and its pretty soft at f2.8. Well my copy is anyway. My first copy was very soft and i returned. My currnt copy (2nd) is a lot sharper but still kind of soft. I find the autofocus a bit sluggish when compared to nikkors.

Well I went to the local camera shop and purchased the lens. I was impressed with it over the Tamron 17-50. I however took the lens back after thinking about it and finding it for $70 cheaper online. I am going on vacation, but I am going to order it online when I get back (I would order it now, but I don't want it sitting on my door step if it comes while we are gone).

I haven't been able to find much about the lens though. It also seems like not everyone is carrying it or has it in stock yet. Is that a bad thing?