answers: 711

  1. Jury
    08.12.2013

    Thanks for the review, it was interesting to know about a slightly more expensive alternative to my tamronchik. If this sigma were available a couple of years ago for the money (from 3700 UAH), then, probably, in due time I would buy it instead of a tamron. However, in addition to the size of the filter and the noise level, as I understand it, you should not expect much difference.

    I hope you will someday be able to get a Tokina 16-50 f / 2.8 for your review - apparently, a very rare lens judging by the lack of offers on flea markets and sporadic reviews.

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      08.12.2013

      It's my pleasure. This Sigma is worth $ 100. more expensive than Tamron with a stub, and I think that it will be better. But Tokin 16-50 is really, very difficult to meet.

      Reply

      • Vladimir
        09.12.2013

        Thanks for the review, it’s just about time, as now I’m facing the choice of a lens. I want Tokin 16-50, but you really can't find her in the afternoon with fire. Maybe really take such a Sigma ...

        Reply

      • Jury
        09.12.2013

        If you need Tokina 16-50 for Canon, then at Russian or Ukrainian auctions it is sometimes found at a price of about $ 400. But Nikon's option is in short supply.

        Reply

    • Artem
      15.03.2017

      there is an even more expensive alternative, but accordingly it will be much better in quality, this is Sigma 18-35 1.8, it is not for nothing that it is recommended - https://buynbest.ru/luchshii-universalnyi-zum-obektiv-canon/
      best aperture, at the level of fixes, where else can you find one? it’s too heavy, but you have to pay for quality. this is not ordinary plastic sigma and falling apart after half a year or a year of average use.

      Reply

      • Jury
        16.03.2017

        At 18-35, problematic autofocus is often noted, which is not always treated with a proprietary docking station. In addition, not everyone is comfortable walking with this hippo.

        Reply

      • Pastor
        16.03.2017

        True point, I also have problems with autofocus. On one carcass all the rules, on the other back, on the third front and so on. If you have one carcass and a kilogram of nerves and patience, then by purchasing a docking station you can configure everything as it should. Well, or choose from several one that will not smear on a particular carcass. And if there are several carcasses, then everything is a disaster. The rest of the lens is gorgeous. Sharpness with open is better (or at least not worse) than that of cheap fixes like 35 1.8 or 50 1.8, blur is pleasant, minimal mdf, gorgeous assembly. And all this at an aperture of 1.8. In fact, a crop with this sigma is an almost equivalent replacement for ff with 24-70 2.8. In any case, making my own comparison, I cannot say that sigma is in some way inferior to 24-70 2.8l from canon. Unless it strains the reluctance of sigma to make their lenses of the art series dust and moisture resistant.

        Reply

      • Catboat
        22.04.2017

        I have a sigma of 17-50 2.8, on an open aperture with a minimum focal length of 17 mm it gives such a horror. and 35mm fix is ​​sharp and does not give such soap. can anyone met such a disaster? all photos from 2.8 to 17mm are

        Reply

      • Artem
        23.04.2017

        Lubrication + defocus. The problem is either in the lens / carcass + hands or only in the hands.

        Reply

      • ValDeMaar
        03.08.2017

        Most likely only in the hands. Here is a photo from Sigma 17-50 2.8 + Nikon D7100, cut to 1500x1000:

        Reply

      • anonym
        23.04.2017

        in the left wing of the door leaves are more or less in focus

        Reply

  2. Fedor
    08.12.2013

    Thanks for the review .. I'm just going to buy to my d7100.

    Reply

  3. Dmitriy
    08.12.2013

    So which lens is still better, this Sigma or similar Tamron?

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      08.12.2013

      I believe that in the general case, Sigma is better, but in reality, everything very much depends on the direct instance.

      Reply

  4. Paul
    08.12.2013

    Arkady, thanks for the review!

    Would you say this particular Sigma Zoom 17-50mm 1: 2.8 EX DC OS HSM instance is good? :)))

    I ask because when shooting remote objects, the picture turns out, it seems to me, to be somewhat friable.

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      08.12.2013

      Yes, good. Visually, the picture becomes not so sharp by pixel, when focusing to infinity - this is typical for all lenses.

      Reply

      • Jury
        09.12.2013

        For this reason, I shoot landscapes on my Tamron only in this way: I close the aperture as far as light allows - up to 16-22, focus on the closest object in the frame, then compose the frame again and click. In this case, I get excellent sharpness over the entire area. If you focus on distant objects, the result is noticeably worse.

        Reply

      • Alexander Malyaev
        28.11.2014

        Can it still focus on hyperfocal more correctly?

        Reply

  5. Sergei
    08.12.2013

    Thank you very much for your review! It has long been waiting for him and waited. I wanted to compare my impressions with the opinion of a professional.
    Distortion on short yes, there is. And unfortunately, if my d5100's native lenses recognize and adjust the barrel on the fly during shooting, then this option in the menu is not active with this lens. Specifically, my copy sometimes (twice) lost connection with the camera. This happened when trying to autofocus to work on a heavy focus point for him. Poeloziv a little, he stopped responding to half-pressing. It was treated by turning the camera off and on, or by detaching and attaching the lens. There are so few autofocus misses that they cannot even be called statistics. A little more expensive than Tamron, but I never regretted that I did not save.

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      08.12.2013

      Thanks for your feedback. I see a lot of non-native lenses falling off, as well as problems in Live View.

      Reply

    • Paul
      08.12.2013

      Sergey, try to gently clean the lens contacts with a school eraser. There is a possibility that this is the oxidation of contacts. This happens when the lens is constantly on the camera.

      Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        08.12.2013

        This is not oxidation of contacts at all, but hackwork of manufacturers.

        Reply

      • The only normal photographer
        08.12.2013

        Arkady, how different is the lens from sigma 24-70? In addition to focal lengths.

        Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        08.12.2013

        I didn’t use it, but given your nickname, I don’t think it’s worth answering this question at all.

        Reply

      • Sergei
        09.12.2013

        Contacts are clean. It looks like the focus control computer goes into a stupor under certain circumstances. And I think it's not even about the electrical circuit, but about the “software”.

        Reply

  6. Paul
    08.12.2013

    It seems to me that they and the tamron have absolutely similar optical circuits and very similar technical solutions except SWM. Well, and what is still not quite familiar is the large tolerances for quality. A very decent copy of both a tamron and a sigma can be caught, or it can be frankly bad, and this is a new lens! I would say that they are analogous to the tamron, with the exception of the ultrasonic AF drive.

    Reply

  7. Mark
    09.12.2013

    Thanks for the review! Very informative.

    Reply

  8. Tandemk
    09.12.2013

    The difference in image quality between Tamron and Sigma counterparts is great.
    The Tamron has a 2.8 aperture with a focal length of 35mm or more - inoperative (maybe such a specimen was caught), there is terrible soap on the contrasting details. The Sigma has its entire focal range at open aperture fully operational.
    Two of the Sigma's weaknesses are the forced A / M focus switching and the “non-switchable” stabilizer. The operation of the latter can be heard (but not seen) even in the off position of the switch, which affects the battery life.
    If someone is facing a choice between Sigma and Tamron, then I recommend Sigma.

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      09.12.2013

      Now it becomes clear why I did not notice the apparent cessation of jerking pictures in the JVI.

      Reply

      • Tandemk
        09.12.2013

        Stabilization is still disabled by the switch, but its drive is not.
        This is audible by a characteristic click in the lens after a certain period of time.

        Reply

    • Vlad
      13.12.2013

      It is recommended to carefully choose a lens when buying. And this Sigma and Tamron vary in quality, everyone knows this, and the author also mentions this point in the review. I do not complain about 2,8 to 35mm on Tamron, there is soap, but no more than other analogs.

      Reply

    • Yaroslav
      07.01.2015

      Sigma has a peculiarity of the stub operation: the stabilizing lens is on a magnetic suspension, it should always be suspended in working condition (it will be difficult to take a picture if it hung like that in the hole), which takes energy, and a small hum is heard. When the stub is on, in addition to the suspension itself, motion compensation is also included, but the lens is ALWAYS suspended, in both positions of the stub switch. It is she who rumbles when shaking, if the device is turned off.

      Reply

  9. Maksim
    09.12.2013

    Arkady, if you suddenly come across, it would be interesting to read a review about Sigma Zoom 17-70mm 1: 2.8-4. they seem to have been two revisions already, but not a single sensible review was. Perhaps it can be a good replacement for the regular 18-55

    Reply

    • Edgar
      09.12.2013

      I had the “pleasure” to contemplate examples from 17-70 sigma in conjunction with canon 60d. The impressions are as follows:
      1. The sharpness is less, not so sharp as 17-40 from the canon, but more interesting than the whale.
      2. Godless chromatism. Of all modern lenses (canon 17-55 f2.8; 17-40 f4, canon / nikon 18-55, canon 24-70 f2.8, canon 70-200 f2.8l, canon 24-105 f4l) that I used, none were so limp as sigma 17-70. If the Canon Canon 17-55 began to limp only with a pronounced side-backlight, then this lens chromates without any bright light sources (at 10 megapixels, which will be 18-20, I do not want to think at all).
      PS I hope that my experience will help you)

      Reply

  10. Exhausted
    09.12.2013

    Sigma 17-50 / 2.8. Excellent zoom. Fast and quiet. Sharp enough at 2.8 on the entire focal range. Max sharpness at aperture of 4-5,6. There are practically no oversights. "Well tailored, tightly stitched."

    Reply

  11. Denis
    09.12.2013

    Why are Nikkors so bad? Why buy a “cheaper” lens? Does Nikon make money for third-party lens riveters? On what system does the photographer shoot if the body is Nikon, and the lens is Sigma, Tamron ...? The picture is formed by the lens, if you change the "brushes", then on Carl Zeiss!

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      09.12.2013

      The picture is taken by the lens, and the photograph is taken by the photographer :).

      Reply

    • Exhausted
      10.12.2013

      And who said that Nikkors are bad? And this is you seriously about “third-party riveters.” I assure you, you will not distinguish Carl Zeiss from this Sigma in the blind. He is praised as a reporter. And Zeiss without autofocus and stabilizer is problematic to shoot a reportage. Both of these lenses are wonderful each for their own purposes. In addition, a lot of beginners often change their "brushes" without learning how to draw)). The plot rules the picture is secondary.

      Reply

    • anonym
      10.12.2013

      Denis, the only Nikkor similar to this Sigma, namely the Nikon 17-55mm f / 2.8G aperture zoom is not bad. In addition to the price. In Russia, it costs between 42000-49000 rubles.

      Reply

    • Jury
      10.12.2013

      Denis, they are bad at their cost. When people don't have the opportunity to spend a lot (for them) of money, they choose cheaper products. You will also say: "Why is the full frame so bad that many of you are sitting on crops?"

      Reply

      • anonym
        13.09.2017

        What is bad about Bentley that they take him so little and ride Logans :)

        Reply

    • Denis
      11.12.2013

      Even from the native lenses, you have to choose by brute force, in order to get at least something compatible with the camera by the focus (or sharpness) shift. The search for “my” camera and selection of “my” lens takes a long period of time. You need to strive for the ideal in order to get something worthwhile. Yes, the subject in the photo is important, but nobody canceled the need to create a high-quality photo. There are millions of soapy, beautifully plotted photos, but you still need to look for technically high-quality and sharp ones ...

      Reply

      • Jury
        12.12.2013

        Technically high-quality and sharp images, which still need to be looked for, can be made both native, and with a compatible lens.

        Reply

      • Hetzer
        01.11.2014

        Your diagnosis is “Photographic adolescence of the 3rd degree, with a penchant for photoanonism according to the original and major technique”. The disease is extremely dangerous, especially in advanced cases!
        Treatment:
        1) Do not use the Internet for a month
        2) Do not go to stores with photographic equipment, so as not to aggravate the disease
        3) The most important thing is to take more pictures and think about HOW TO TAKE the picture, and not BY WHAT MEANS

        The attending physician J.Hetzer.

        Reply

  12. Exhausted
    11.12.2013

    Well, here again this song is about a magic camera and a space lens with the help of which we will get something “worthwhile.” There are a lot of good lenses (you don't need to look for a long time), it's another matter for what purpose each specific one. Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Sony, Fuji are magnificent cameras. I repeat, the main thing is WHAT you shoot. Well, while you are looking for “your” lens, try Sigma 17-50 2.8 and you will get “Technically high-quality and sharp” photos even without editing in the editors.

    Reply

    • Gordey
      07.04.2014

      Stomach, too, the main thing is to be full on time. But, you must admit, eating meat with mashed potatoes and gravy is better than rollington. The analogy is, of course, terrible, but the essence, I think, is clear.

      Reply

  13. Yurok
    11.12.2013

    Thanks for the review, I’m looking at similar staff members.
    PS
    And on the account of Tokina I saw a review on onfoto.ru where she was compared with the likes of Nikor and Tamron.

    Reply

  14. Nikita
    12.12.2013

    I own this glass, I can’t get enough of it. Everything is gorgeous, and, compared with the tamron, the picture is more plastic, somehow. It’s hard to describe. Fortunately, I did not observe any problems.
    Under Nikon.

    Reply

  15. Palych
    13.12.2013

    No one has a problem with Nikon D7100?

    Reply

    • anonym
      17.06.2014

      Yesterday they brought me Sigma 17-50 from Korea, it works better on the Nikon d7100 than the native nikkor 50 f1,8. And the picture is somehow voluminous or something, and it does not smear practically, but in the dark it surprised me with very tenacious autofocus.

      Reply

    • Elena
      09.07.2014

      Two years on the D7000 and 7 months on the D7100 - the flight is excellent! I love this glass, which is worthy in all respects. You can perfectly shoot EVERYTHING (within the limits of your focal points, the only thing (but this is not a minus, but a matter of personal taste) - half-length and face portraits are simpler than on fixes, but no worse in terms of sharpness, which is so popular among the people. , landscape, evening city photography, rallies (with wiring) - everything is buzzing. I have not tried to shoot video.

      Reply

  16. Gene jb
    13.12.2013

    But I’m wondering - what does the focus noise level matter?

    Reply

    • Lynx
      18.12.2013

      Firstly, if you shoot different things, and not just weddings, when you put everyone in the right place and know that they are being filmed now, then the focus noise can distract the subject, make it tense up, or even “disrupt the frame”.
      Secondly, noise is so critical when shooting video, especially if you use the built-in microphones.

      Reply

      • Novel
        12.05.2014

        And from the work of the mirror, such models are not afraid of pants? ;)

        Personally, I hear my tokin only on video, and only if it starts to get lost and “drive” in search of focus, and if it focuses immediately, it is almost not noticeable. In general, it seems to me that when shooting a video, it is easier to focus manually, although you need to see the scene well, otherwise there will be errors.

        Reply

      • Novel
        12.05.2014

        Ai-ya-yay! I meant a tamron!

        Reply

  17. Vasilisa
    19.12.2013

    Selling a new Sigma AF 17-50mm F2.8 EX OS HSM for Nikon preobreten in Japan a month ago for 450 bucks (took for d7000 but in connection with the full transition to ff sell)
    box, docks, handbag - everything is in place!
    Super lens - beautiful bokeh, fast aperture, with excellent multistep stabilizer - complete set - checked for back-front focus, option with d7000 is possible
    lens + UV protector (Japan) - 450 bucks + your shipment

    Reply

    • Alexey
      19.12.2013

      I take

      Reply

  18. Vasilisa
    20.12.2013

    (kazsad2008@yandex.ru)

    Reply

  19. Igor
    23.12.2013

    Damn, I would also take ((

    Reply

    • Valery
      29.10.2016

      450 bucks is a little expensive today.

      Reply

  20. Igor
    23.12.2013

    Arkady, tell me, please. Isn't it better to take an old version of sigma without a stub so that the lens does not eat a lot? 17-50mm is not at all cretical without stabilization. I read your review of similar tamrons, I already started to look closely, and then this article also came across) now, probably, I will take sigma)

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      24.12.2013

      It’s easier to buy a spare battery.

      Reply

  21. Talifa
    28.12.2013

    I also have a new sigma 17-50. We bought two of the same as a gift, now I sell one.
    There is not a big back, but because tried on with 7000, then made an amendment. Eat anyone else you need, write.

    Reply

    • Vyacheslav
      08.01.2014

      How much do you sell a girl lens for? The country?

      Reply

      • Nicholas K
        10.01.2014

        At IBEY, today there are 289 offers of sigma 17-50. A minimum of 350 dolars. Why do not the bourgeois like it?

        Reply

    • Jury
      30.01.2014

      For how much do you sell, warranty or not?

      Reply

  22. Ryzor
    03.01.2014

    Arkady, I have a question, tell me what is better to take Sigma 18-50 mm f2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM (with a stub) or Sigma 18-50 1: 2,8 EX D (without a stub) ??? I have a Nikon B80 (both motor and non-motor). But as I understand it, at 18mm with f2,8 with the stub turned on at the same ISO, the shutter speed for a lens with a stub will be shorter than for a lens without a stub ??? But at 50 mm with f4.5 and the included stub, the shutter speed will be shorter or longer than on a lens with a constant f2.8 at the same 50 mm ??? What to choose prompt ???

    Reply

  23. Sergei 02
    20.01.2014

    Arkady good afternoon, I want to change the kyoto 18-105 to Sigma AF 18-50mm f / 2.8 EX DC MACRO HSM Nikon F (D90 carcass) advise, is it worth it?

    Reply

    • anonym
      20.01.2014

      can someone use this glass in such a bundle?

      Reply

    • Jury
      28.01.2014

      Hello Sergey! I have a similar question. Did you get the answer? If so, share it. Is it worth it? Regards, Yuri.

      Reply

  24. Daria
    22.01.2014

    Thanks for the review))) I already want myself this))))

    Reply

  25. Vasilisa
    20.02.2014

    Hello everyone ! the new Sigma AF 17-50mm F2.8 EX OS HSM for Nikon was purchased in Japan a month ago for 450 bucks (I took it for d7000 but I sell it in connection with the full transition to ff) FOT D7000 sold
    box, docks, handbag - everything is in place!
    Perfectly checked for the absence of - back-front-focus (the Japanese mentality affected - that's why I always buy such things only from Japs)
    Super lens - beautiful bokeh, fast aperture, with excellent multi-stage stub
    SUPER PRICE !!! Lens + UV protector (Japan) - 400 bucks + your shipment

    Reply

Reply

 

 

Top
mobility. computer