hi guyz
currently i have the 16-85 i was thinking of replacing it with the sigma 17-50 f2.8 since i read that the sigma is much sharper + its a 2.8. any thoughts
thanx
nikon 16-85 vs sigma 17-50
(5 posts) (3 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
The 16-85 is hardly what I'd call a soft lens, so I doubt that any different in performance will be more than subtle. Still if you need the 2.8 and don't want the Nikon 17-55, then the Sigma is not a bad option. I would say that you should rent the lens first to see if it suits your needs.
Posted 2 years ago # -
i thought the sigma might be sharper
need the 2.8?? i dont really know since i have also the 35 1.8 and sigma 50 1.4, but it might come in handy.
as if i can afford the 17-55 :)thanx jeral
Posted 2 years ago # -
That sigma is super sharp and a great lens. Focus was fast and I thought it felt pretty well built. There is a thread somewhere with a couple pics from someone that has it. It isn't Nikon, but IMO better then the 16-85. I had it for a day before I returned it due to financial reasons, but I still plan to get it again.
Posted 2 years ago # -
THANX tcole
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
