New Sigma 17-70mm F/2.8-4 vs Nikon 18-105mm F/3.5-5.6

voodooz0r

Hey Guys!

I'm about to get a Nikon D7100, I just sold my Nikon D5100 with the 18-55mm kit lens and kept my 35mm f/1.8. I have a $1800 budget for the D7100 witch is currently selling @ $1200 that means that I have $600 for a good walk around lens. I'm looking at the new Sigma 17-70mm F/2.8-4 ($500) it looks like a nice improvement over the previous version that is currently selling at $350. The other choice I'm thinking of is buying the D7100 with the kit 18-105mm F/3.5-5.6. Sigma is faster and Nikon has more reach... what would you guys buy?

Thanks!

Dan.

JJ_SO

After my experience with an "older" Sigma 17-50/2.8 which was great and the new 35/1.4 which is stunning, I'd give Sigma a go - just out of curiosity and after what I've seen at Photozone.de as preview. I guess - but am not sure - the missing 35mm can be cropped if necessary. Especially with the sensor of the D7100 shouldn't be a problem - but of course this goes as well for the Nikon.

Edit: On the other side - the Sigma is quite a new thing. It could be, you need to check AF carefully. At least the 35 needs finetuning on 3 bodies.

spraynpray

Leaving aside the possible quality issues of buying a Sigma because I have no direct knowledge, if I were choosing a new walk around zoom, I would probably not choose either. I have the 18-105 and it is great - BUT - there are times when I want just a little wider so I think a 16-85 would be perfect. The speed of the lens is less important in a walk around lens IMHO and so could be compromised on.

17mm isn't enough wider than 18mm, 16mm is enough wider not to need to change it out for wider angles normally (I have the 11-16 Tokina).

Fast (and good) = expensive. If you can't afford the 16-85, you have a tough choice but I would get the 18-105 over the Sigma.

JJ_SO

If it comes to quality issues, Nikon is not flawless, I'd say. But as I don't know any of the lenses in question - I just bought the 16-85 and it's nice, but the 17-50/2.8 from Sigma was better in my eyes and sometimes a wider aperture does matter - but that's one of the endless discussions. Let's not debate over 1mm missing focal length without knowing the real focal lengths, as the 16-85 needs to be stopped down to gain good sharpness in the corners.

But what would make a decision for the Nikon clearer - an I know you can answer that, spnp: Is the focus ring of the 18-105 revolving during AF? The one of the Sigma will be and if one is used to non-revolving rings, it's quite annoying. That was the reason to sell the otherwise excellent 17-50/2.8

Msmoto

I have only one Sigma lens, but would certainly suggest that they knew what they were doing when they built the 35mm f/1.4. I think one can go online and read as many reviews as possible and get an idea on the performance of any of the new lenses.

The 18-105 Nikkor is an excellent lens by my experience.

However, the new Sigma 17-70 has the advantage of optical stabilization, plus the latest technology in the glass. I would lean toward the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4. If you want more reach, get another long lens next year.

spraynpray

@JJ_SO: No revolving rings on the 18-105 VR.

As usual, the op hasn't said what his favourite subjects are so it is tough to say for sure what may suit him best. Walk around to me means land/sea/cityscape plus some street and portrait so I can't see speed being critical often there JJ.

Golf007sd

Not sure what the performance of the Sigma would be like, but one thing for sure: I would always go with a 2.8 vs one that has a variable aperture. I also like the focal length it has to offer...much like the 24-70 2.8's out there.

JJ_SO

@spraynpray: Thanks for information. Now, to me that's a big "little detail" as I was always confused when a part of the lens began to rotate while focussing. Although I still guess, the Sigma is the better choice.

@Golf007sd: Not sure what you mean. A guess again: You try to say you prefer a f/2.8 lens?

Golf007sd

@JJ_SO: Yes that is what I meant to say...corrected my type-o :P