where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
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
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
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.
You must log in to post.
