According provided by lens Sigma Zoom 17-50mm 1: 2.8 EX DC OS HSM (FLD glass, Nikon mount F) huge thanks to Pavel.
Sigma Zoom 17-50mm 1: 2.8 EX DC OS HSM
Sigma Zoom 17-50mm 1: 2.8 EX DC OS HSM is a fast full-time zoom for cropped cameras of various systems. I reviewed the version for Nikon DX cameras, so when buying such a lens, pay attention to which system it is made for. The lens is suitable for all Nikon cameras, even the simplest ones, without a focus motor.
Main technical characteristics of Sigma Zoom 17-50mm 1: 2.8 EX DC OS HSM:
| Review Instance Name | The following inscriptions are on the lens barrel, near the front lens 'Sigma Zoom 17-50mm 1: 2.8 EX DC OS HSM Ø 72 LENS MADE IN JAPAN', on the lens barrel 'Sigma DC 17-50mm 1: 2.8 EX HSM Optical Stabilizer' |
| Basic properties |
|
| Front Filter Diameter | 77 mm |
| Focal length | 17-50 mm EGF for Nikon DX cameras is 25.5-75 mm |
| Zoom ratio | 2.94 X (usually rounded to 3) |
| Designed by | for Nikon DX digital cameras, there are modifications for other systems (Sigma, Canon, Pentax, Sony) |
| Number of aperture blades | 7 petals |
| Tags | focusing distance in meters and feet, focal lengths for 17, 21, 28, 35, 50 mm, mark of bayonet mount and mount / fix hood. |
| Diaphragm | control is via the camera menu (analog Nikon G - lens type) F / 2.8-F / 22 aperture over the entire focal length range |
| MDF | 0.28 m, maximum magnification ratio 1: 5 |
| The weight | 565 g |
| Optical design | 17 elements in 13 groups. The scheme includes:
|
| Lens hood | Bayonet type, plastic, with the possibility of installation in transport mode |
| Manufacturer country | LENS MADE IN JAPAN (Lens made in Japan) |
| Production period | C February 2010. In April 2013 augmented by a lens Sigma DC 18-35mm F1.8 HSM A (ART) |
| Price |
Sigma 17-50 / 2.8 is intended to be a relatively cheap replacement for 'native' lenses - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm 1: 2.8G ED IF SWM DX и Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 17-55mm 1: 2.8 IS USM.
Sigma Zoom 17-50mm 1: 2.8 EX DC OS HSM
The Sigma 17-50 / 2.8 is a good weighty lens with a huge front lens that uses 77mm filters. The lens is made in Japan, the copy from my review does not have any obvious backlash, and the lens trunk does not spontaneously protrude. The lens has a metal mount and a special zoom lock at 17mm - 'Lock'. But from the side of the bayonet in the lens, you can see its entire electronic soul with boards, springs and other insides. I am concerned that access to such lens elements has not been blocked. And three more screws on the inner sections of the lens, which are located behind the front lens, do not look very good.
Sigma Zoom 17-50mm 1: 2.8 EX DC OS HSM
Sigma 17-50 / 2.8 - has fast auto focusalmost the same as the native Nikon 17-55 / 2.8... The high focusing speed is most likely due to the low travel of the focusing ring, which rotates only 45 degrees. I notice that virtually all of these third-party lenses 'save' on either the focus ring or the normal focus motor.
Auto focus is not only fast, but also enough silent. Noise level is several times lower than that of Tamron 17-50 / 2.8 и Tamron 17-50 / 2.8 VC, all thanks to HSM.
Sigma Zoom 17-50mm 1: 2.8 EX DC OS HSM
When focusing and zooming, the front the lens does not rotate, with filters should not be any problems. The focus ring and zoom are rubberized. During zoom, only one lens section extends. The minimum focusing distance is only 28 см, which will allow you to get macro pictures with an increase of 1: 5, which is pretty good for this kind of lens. Sigma 17-50 / 2.8 has a focus distance scale and a zoom position scale.
Bad that the lens does not support continuous manual focus control, but in order to focus manually, you need to switch the lens to the 'M' mode using the 'AF M' switch. Failure to do so could damage the lens motor.
The lens has a 7-blade aperture, which closes to a maximum of F / 22 over the entire range of focal lengths.
Sigma Zoom 17-50mm 1: 2.8 EX DC OS HSM
The lens comes with a wonderful case and lens hood. The hood can be worn back and forth, while maintaining low access to the focus ring, even 17 mm.
The inside of the lens. Several boards in two rows.
Of course, one of the main features of the lens is the image stabilization system, which allows take off at longer values excerpts... There is a special mode switch on the lens barrel - 'OS ON OFF'. I may be nitpicking, but generally stabilized lenses will freeze the jitter a little. JVIthat I did not see with this lens.
The instructions somehow incomprehensibly say that the stabilizer is powered by the camera even in the 'OFF' mode within a minute after turning on the camera or after pressing the focus and / or metering button exposure, or during the time while the metering is working. If you listen closely, you can indeed hear a slight noise in the middle of the lens, even with the stabilizer in the 'OFF' position. When you press the focus button, the noise just increases - apparently the stabilizer starts working at full power. This oddity can seriously affect the lifespan of a camera battery. I think this method of OS implementation is not logical. Stabilizer on the lens SIGMA C 17-70mm 1: 2.8-4 DC OS HSM MACRO works in a similar way.
Important: when the lens is removed from the camera, or when the camera is turned off, if you shake the Sigma 17-50 / 2.8 OS a little, you will clearly hear a noise in the middle, as if something had fallen off there. This is normal lens behavior, and the lens group responsible for stabilization is noisy, in the off state the lenses are not 'suspended' in the magnetic field.
Sigma Zoom 17-50mm 1: 2.8 EX DC OS HSM
The lens was stuffed with 2 FLD glass elements and 2 aspherical elements.
Sigma Zoom 17-50mm 1: 2.8 EX DC OS HSM
In work, Sigma 17-50 / 2.8 proved to be quite good. Focus misses are rare, but still happen. The sharpness in the center of the frame pleasantly surprised me. But on the edges of the frame, everything is not so good, and vignetting in the wide-angle range on open diaphragms. And of course, strong barrel-shaped distortion of 17mm. If you close the aperture below F / 4.0, then it's a sin to complain about the lens.
The parameters shown in the photo gallery:
Everything is filmed on Nikon D80. EGF is 25,5-75 mm. On-camera JPEG L fine without treatment, reduced size to 3 MP. Everything was shot in N (Neutral) Picture Control. The long exposure noise reduction function and high ISO noise reduction function were turned off.
Sigma Zoom 17-50mm 1: 2.8 EX DC OS HSM
I used the lens data for several months on the camera Nikon D90 and left only positive impressions. Below are pictures from real photo tasks:
All fast universal zoom lenses
Below is a list of all such aperture-type universal zoom autofocus lenses for SLR and mirrorless cameras with an APS-C sensor or less.
Tokina (DX, various mounts)
- Tokina AT-X PRO SD 16-50 F2.8 DX Internal Focus, model AT-X 165 PRO DX, for Canon (C/EF version) and Nikon (N/AIS version), from July 2006. Optical design is the same as Pentax SMC DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ED AL (IF) SDM
Tamron (DI II, DI III-A, various mounts)
- Tamron Aspherical LD XR DI II SP AF 17-50 mm 1: 2.8 [IF], model A16 N / E / P / S (under Nikon [N], Canon [E], Pentax [P], Sony / Minolta [S]), since February 2006. Produced in Japan, China and Vietnam
- promaster DIGITAL XR EDO AF Ashperical LD [IF] 17-50 mm 1: 2.8 MACROprevious lens under the brand Promaster
- Tamron Aspherical LD XR DI II SP AF 17-50 mm 1: 2.8 [IF], model A16 NII (only for Nikon cameras), since March 2008
- Tamron Di II SP 17-50 mm F / 2.8 VC B005, model B005 E / NII (for Canon [E] or Nikon [NII]), from September 2009, Japan or China)
- Tamron 17-70 mm F / 2.8 Di III-A VC RXD Model B070, Model B070, Sony E only, from December 2020
Sigma (DC, different mounts)
With constant maximum aperture (DC EX and DC ART series):
- Sigma DC ZOOM 18-50mm 1: 2.8 EX (+ -D), since July 2004, for Sigma SA, Nikon F, Canon EFS, Pentax K. The version for the '4/3' system has been available since February 2006 (not mass-produced). The version for Nikon in its name includes the prefix 'D'.
- Sigma dc 18-50mm 1: 2.8 EX MACRO, since September 2006, for Sigma SA, Nikon F, Canon EFS, Pentax K, 4/3
- Sigma dc 18-50mm 1: 2.8 EX MACRO HSM, since June 2007, for Nikon DX cameras only (Nikon F mount)
- Sigma dc 17-50mm 1: 2.8 ZOOM EXOS HSM, from February 2010, for Sigma SA, Nikon F, Canon EFS, Pentax K, Sony / Minotla A
- Sigma dc 18-35mm F1.8 A [ART, HSM], from April 2013, for Sigma SA, Nikon F, Canon EFS, Pentax K, Sony / Minotla A
- SIGMA DC 18-50 mm 1: 2.8 DN C [Contemporary], since Oct 2021, for Sony E, Leica L
With variable maximum aperture (DC and DC Contemporary series):
- Sigma dc 17-70mm 1:2.8-4.5, February 2006, for Sigma SA, Nikon F, Canon EFS, Pentax K, Sony / Minotla A
- Sigma dc 17-70mm 1:2.8-4.5 MACRO HSM, from July 2007, for Nikon DX cameras only (Nikon F mount)
- Sigma dc 17-70mm 1:2.8-4 MACRO HSM OS, from December 2009, for Sigma SA, Nikon F, Canon EFS, Pentax K, Sony / Minotla A
- Sigma dc 17-70mm 1:2.8-4 C, [MACRO, OS, HSM, Contemporary], from September 2012, for Sigma SA, Nikon F, Canon EFS, Pentax K, Sony / Minotla A
- Sigma dc 18-50mm 1:2.8-4.5 HSM OS ZOOM, from March 2009, for Sigma SA, Nikon F, Canon EFS, Pentax K, Sony / Minotla A
Nikon (DX, F mount)
- Nikon DX VR AF-S Nikkor 16-80mm 1:2.8-4E ED N, Nikon F mount, from July 2015
- Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm 1: 2.8G ED IF SWM, Nikon F mount, from July 2003
Pentax (DA, Q, K and Q mounts)
- Pentax SMC DA * 16-50 mm 1:2.8 ED AL (IF) SDM, Pentax KAF2 mount, since February 2007. Optical design is similar to the lens Tokina AT-X PRO SD 16-50 F2.8 DX Internal Focus (joint development of Tokina and Pentax)
- HD PENTAX-DA * 1: 2.8 16-50 mm ED PLMAW, from July 2021, Pentax KAF4 mount
- HD Pentax-DA 1: 2.8-4 20-40 mm ED Limited DC WR, Pentax KAF3 mount, black or silver body, from November 2013
- SMC Pentax 1: 2.8-4.5 5-15 mm ED AL [IF] [LENS 02], Pentax Q mount (crop factor Kf=5.53X or Kf=4.65X)
Canon (EFS, EF-S mount)
- Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 17-55mm 1: 2.8 IS USM (Image Sabilizer, Ulstrasonic, EFS), Canon EF-S mount, since May 2006
Sony (DT, A and E mounts)
- Sony DT 2.8/16-50 SSM, Sony A mount (Minolta A), since August 2011
- Sony E 2.8/16-55G (Sony SEL1655G), Sony E bayonet mount, from August 2019
Fujifilm(X)
- Fujinon Ashperical Lens Nano-GI XF 16-55mm 1: 2.8 R LM WR, Fujifilm X mount, since January 2015
- Fujinon Ashperical Lens Super EBC XF 18-55mm 1:2.8-4 RLM OIS, Fujifilm X mount, September 2012
Samsung (NX)
- Samsung lens 1: 2-2.8 S 16-50 mm ED OIS i-Function, Samsung NX mount, since January 2014
Olympus/Panasonic/Leica/Yongnuo (4/3, Micro 4/3, Kf=2X)
Mirrored 4/3:
- OLYMPUS ZUIKO Digital 11-22 mm 1:2.8-3.5, from February 2004
- OLYMPUS Digital 14-54 mm 1:2.8-3.5, from June 2003
- OLYMPUS Digital 14-54 mm 1:2.8-3.5 II, from November 2008
- OLYMPUS ZUIKO Digital 14-35 mm 1: 2 ED SWDsince January 2005
- Panasonic Lumix LEICA D VARIO-ELMARIT 1: 2.8-3.5 /14-50 ASPH. MEGA OIS, from July 2006
Mirrorless Micro 4/3:
- OLYMPUS M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 12-40 mm 1:2.8 PRO, since October 2013
- Panasonic Lumix Leica DG Vario-Summilux 10-25 mm f / 1.7 ASPH.since May 2019
- LUMIX G VARIO 1: 2.8 /12-35 ASPH. POWER OIS, since June 2012, in March 2017 an improved sub-version is released (outwardly they do not differ in any way)
- Panasonic Lumix Leica DG Vario-ELMARIT 1: 2.8-4.0 /12-60 ASPH., since March 2017
- Yongnuo 12-35 F2.8-4 STM ASPH, since April 2023
Price
You can see the prices for this lens. on E-Katalog at this link.
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
In general, I liked Sigma Zoom 17-50mm 1: 2.8 much more than its counterparts from Tamron, especially the quiet focus motor and the diameter of the front filter. The diameter of the filter, equal to 77 mm, is considered a professional standard, under which an experienced photographer over time selects a fleet of filters.
Sometimes, when working in the cold, the focus motor starts to buzz / whistle, and the focus itself can take much longer.
Results
If you find a good copy of Sigma Zoom 17-50mm 1: 2.8 EX DC OS HSM, then such a lens will be an excellent staffer for every day and will even cope with more or less difficult tasks. The lens is attracted by a constant aperture value of F / 2.8 across the entire range of focal lengths, an image stabilizer, and fast and quiet auto focus.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
I watched this lens in our stores, everywhere to order, and as a result, you can’t count on the exchange of defective glass. (costs $ 450 at the official). Isn’t it better to take Niccor 16-80 for $ 700 instead of him? I wrote above, I need a travel staffer, mainly landscapes, architecture and a bit of shooting in museums (I think the stub is good for this too). There is also a kit 18-55 af-p and 35mm 1.8 (d560 camera)
* d5600 camera
Sigma 17-70 / 2.8-4 OS C just right, or its previous version
Good day! Help the newbie!
What will be sharper: Nikon 18-70 / 3.5-4.5G or Sigma 17-50 / 2.8?
I will use on D70s or D80.
Another such moment - on Avito quite a lot of 18-70 with dead motors.
Are they not very reliable? Does Sigma 17-50 have a more reliable motor?
3 pieces 18-70 went through my hands, everyone’s motors are alive, the appearance is perfect, but everyone has strong back focus on different carcasses. there were no problems with other lenses
inside there is no protection against dust from the front, even in 18-55 there is some kind of seal there is primitive
I have just one and the other. Sigma is clearly sharper. Nikon is more predictable. True, he had back focus, but when he adjusted it, everything became fine and the sharpness was one hundred percent, but with Sigma it's some kind of lottery, and the lens itself is heavy and fragile, so I often take Nikon on trips ...
Good day. Tell me, the picture quality compared to nikkor 50 f1.8 how will it differ?
Will be. Nikon on f / 2.8 will be better
Probably on f / 1.8? Or do you mean nikon 17-50 f2.8?
Apparently, this meant the Nikon 50 1,8 on the covered up to 2,8.
And what exactly did you mean?
Good afternoon guys!
I am the owner of this lens. In terms of sharpness and focal length, it is simply superb, but there is a back focus (and I like to open the aperture) ... adjustment in the carcass does not help (on different focal points in different ways), what should I do? Is there a chance to adjust normally? Can you advise the master in Kiev?
Looking for another one, or assembling on Nikon 16-80mm F2.8-4.0E ED AF-S DX VR Nikkor?
Search. Even in branded services they collect badly. Maybe there are private traders who do well - I don’t know
“Or collect on Nikon 16-80mm F2.8-4.0E ED AF-S DX VR Nikkor?”
to nikkor. This sigma has insurmountable jambs with focus points to the left of the central one.
I checked different glasses in the store on different carcasses, and on my
Do not know, I did not really like this lens. For video, it’s not good at all. Alasing in the video is focal at all (decreases with increasing focal length, but remains). The stub lens is noisy when working, this is generally something, the microphone stalls. And for this it is necessary to dump 30 rubles.
And with which camera on this lens did you get aliasing？
A thin layer of petroleum jelly on the glass should help against aliasing. And what do you want from a sharp lens and I suppose on a camera without a smoothing filter on the matrix? This is a problem with the camera, not the lens. And at the expense of sound I agree, loudly chatter. But maybe it's worth shooting a video on a camcorder? Or already use manual focus and a remote microphone?
Who shoots video on camcorders in 2019?
Those who shoot the video. Well, or put up with the problems of cameras that are not intended for video. You can choose a device that is more suitable for this. Moreover, in new cameras, when shooting video, they try to read Old from the entire matrix, and not through the lines.
That's for sure. There are good camcorders, but the value is 5 times higher ...
So if there is no such alasing on a 50mm 1.8 fix, and the sharpness is immediately much higher. I think the problem is in the stabilization lens, which, when the stabilization is turned off, has its own progress. I could be wrong. I didn’t have this on a whale with a closed diaphragm up to 5.6 in good sunny weather. And most importantly, the lens on the machine does not miss at all, but if you do not take photographs or tree branches through the grid.
I took this lens for stabilization and versatility. It turned out that only for photos ...
For the video, one stress (((
Gorgeous photo makes, video slag.
Does a video camera shoot, what does the lens have to do with it? What do you blame the lens for otoichnoe sharpness. Which camera is that?
Good day! I use this lens with a nikon d80, I encountered a problem with the shutter speed even 1/4000 slowed down. On nikon 35mm and 50 mm all the rules are smart. Who faced The lens is new
What does "slow" mean?
This is when the diaphragm leash is tight. It does not affect the shutter speed, but the mirror drops more slowly. It happens on devices in which one mechanism is responsible for raising the mirror and controlling the diaphragm.
Hello! Tell me how this lens behaves on the D5300? Will there be problems with him?
Thanks in advance for the answer :)
Late to answer, but maybe someone will come in handy. D5300 with firmware 1.00 - autofocus does not work in LiveView, with firmware 1.03 autofocus does not work at all.
Dd! Tell me, did someone compare the picture quality sigma (17-50mm) at 50mm f2.8 and nikon 50mm (f1.8D) at f2.8 ???
I didn’t compare it directly, but I use sigma, but I don’t have a cheap one. 50mm sigma is its strong point. Indeed, a very high quality picture at 50mm. I think that in terms of sharpness, if it is inferior to the "cheap", it is uncritical, it is unlikely that it will be so noticeable. But in terms of stability in the backlight, sigma should be better than cheap. And one more thing: I did a 50mm angle of view test, comparing it with the Nikkor 50 1.4g at the same aperture and, of course, with the same crop camera. The angle of view of the fix is decently narrower, at least 8%. And in comparison there was a tamron 24-70 g2 at 50mm on the same aperture. Tamron is slightly wider than fix and the widest was sigma. By eye these 3 lenses are 50mm, one is wider by 4%. Tamron in the middle. If he has a real 50mm, then I would estimate the angle of view as follows: sigma - 46mm, tamron 50mm and nikkor - 54mm.
See the 4% difference in viewing angle? Very sharp eye. Or the ability for geometry.
“The eye is a diamond” has nothing to do with it. I took test photos with lenses and settings about which I wrote. Photographed from the same distance a wall on which A4 drawings were hung. The areas of the wall with drawings covered by the viewing angle are very clearly visible. Maybe% and mm I wrote "by eye", but the coverage of the areas was obvious. Here they also measured the viewing angles and also had different results for 3 lenses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYUPdtLA8q4
No wonder. The discrepancy between nominal and real viewing angles on zoom lenses (narrower on wide, shorter on long), especially from third-party manufacturers, is a common thing.
According to my link to the video - there a person tested 3 fixes 50mm and one zoom. They all had different viewing angles, especially the sigma fix (had the widest angle).
Please tell me which lens to buy for nikon d7500? I choose between sigma 17-50, nikkor 35mm and nikkor 50mm. I still can’t decide. For landscapes, architecture and portraits sometimes.
Sigma 17-50 2,8.
Is it really possible to photograph the starry sky with its help?
Is it possible, on this lens, to photograph the starry sky?
You are welcome!)
A frame similar in composition was a prize-winner in the competition of the magazine “Fotomagazin” in the year 98, only shot with Minolta and film.
I wonder what to take as a staffer for 7d. the choice has narrowed to this sigma and fix 1.4 is not an art. In terms of aperture ratio, given the presence of a stabilizer, will these glasses be on par somewhere?
in terms of work with a lack of light - yes
It is somewhat incorrect to compare zoom and fix.
Sigma 50 / 1.4 EX DG is good as a portrait lens - more than once I've heard statements that it is more interesting / artistic than Nikkor 50 / 1.4d or Canon 50 / 1.4.
If you need a staffer for the same trips, it is better to take a zoom with the Sigma 17-50 / 2.8 stub.
Well, comparing may not be correct, but the choice is just between them. Love the picture 30ki. I had a full frame with 50mm. I will not say that I suffered from the lack of a wide angle. There is 18-55 whale on the far end. But still, I rush between the artistry of the fix and the convenience of the zoom.
Well 30 sigma is not very given. What is art, what is not art. Darker native fixes are more interesting in my opinion. Then it's better 17-50
Well, shadow is not my option =) but I noticed the fix because it is sharper, the back front focus is not so scary, you can fix it in the camera, the size is also convenient. it’s a pity there’s no option to screw both of them at least on a camera to understand what’s closer to the soul
I mean 35 2.0 IS, dear, however, infection
He's worth it. After its acquisition, I somehow forgot the Sigma 30 / 1.4.
Yes, I know, a good lens)
The glass is not bad, I use it on D300s for reporting (like 24-70 / 2.8 on FF). Of the advantages - fast AF, a 50 mm stabilizer allows you to take it off hand for 1/2 sec, reliable, looks solid on any camera, 50mm with a hood almost like a full-frame telephoto lens, sharp open, max. sharpness at 5.6-11. Among the minuses - poor stabilization on video, strong vignette at open aperture at all focal lengths, chromatism at open aperture, a very noisy and clicking motor, a vacuum cleaner for the rear lens, a rather weak lens hood (after a year it loosens a lot, does not hold well), rotation of the focusing ring during AF - if you accidentally pinch it while working, it will beep terribly. In the cold, sometimes the focus freezes and squeaks in the same way, probably due to icing. With prolonged use, the trunk begins to move out under its own weight. 8/10, I definitely recommend it, it is 6 times cheaper than the similar new Nikon 17-55 / 2.8, which, moreover, has no stabilizer.
I bought this in the kenon version for my 7th. I bought it together with the Yongnuo YN-600EX-RT II flash. separately, the flash and glass behaved perfectly. but when the flash was mounted on the camera, the autofocus began to smear heavily at the wide end. turning off the af backlight on the flash did not solve the problem. there was a stable flight at a wide angle. went back to the store and tried 3 lenses. all fail steadily with the on-camera flash on. It is also buggy with the native flash from the canon. I tried my own glasses - they work correctly with Chinese puff. I returned it back to the store. salespeople said this was the first of many sigma sold. I met similar complaints on Nikon online. When buying, I recommend that you check the stability of work with a camera flash at different ends. moreover, 10 frames, because the bug is not systematic and occasionally hits the target.
And so I liked the glass structurally and in the picture. I did not like only the work of the stabilizer. The lens constantly feeds the suspension of the stabilizing lens, thereby eating the battery, even when it is off stub. Also, when you turn off the camera or go to the menu or view pictures, you can hear how the power of the suspension is turned off and the lens with a characteristic sound crashes under its own weight. it is felt and tactile. Well, as already written, that same lens rattles fun inside when the power is off.
Yes, Alexey, my Nikon D7200 and Sigma 17-50mm “migrated” from the previous Nikon 5100. There, with the Yongnuo YN-565EX flash, I shot with this sigma because of the problems, sometimes there were overexposures, but here it takes only 1 frame and then if it's worth shooting with confirmation of focus, then everything does not shoot further, i.e. focus cannot be placed and, accordingly, filming becomes impossible. it is treated by turning the camera off and on, but only for one frame, then again "hanging". He shoots perfectly without a flash, in general he turned off this “focus confirmation lock” and began to shoot with the 565th puff perfectly.
Well, for the rest, they correctly write an excellent lens for a photo (I bought matinees in kindergarten from my daughter to shoot eternal darkness there and don't use a flash too much), but for a video, yeah ... the motor buzzes and when refocusing, such clicks go into the microphone ... ! I had to take two remote mono microphones with an adjustable directivity pattern and take them 40 cm away from the device, and adjust the diagram more sharply, the sound became less so, but it's absolutely not worth refocusing at all when shooting video ..
Hello, I have Nikon d7100, after reading the comments, it became known that this sigma 17-50 lens does not fit my camera, it does not work stably on my model. Advise the lens instead of Sigma 17-50, as a staffer? Which will work stably. Maybe someone already has experience with the nikon d7100 camera and lenses for it
By the residual principle - Tamron 17-50, Nikon 17-55
Of the most similar, this is the Nikon 17-55 / 2.8, which is 100% fully compatible with the d7100, as well as the Nikon 16-80mm 1: 2.8-4E.
Of the good alternatives, Tamron 17-50 / 2.8 VC, Sigma 18-35 / 1.8.
And also take very seriously the fact that here in the review all possible alternatives to this lens are indicated (the ALTERNATIVES section, there are all similar lenses in principle), just look at the Nikon F (for Nikon) and try to determine the final option.
I bought all the same Sigma 17-50 on Nikon d7100, it works fine without brakes)
Everything works fine for me d7100.
Hi guys! I have this lens on the d80 camera, I plan to buy a nikon z50 with an adapter for the F mount. So the question is, will this glass work correctly on the z50 with autofocus? If anyone put third-party glass on the z50, share your experience. thanks
It works great on z50. But only for a photo. For video on the Nikon BZ, only Z-series glass. There are no options.
Why isn't it suitable for video? Is the stub making noise? They sell used inexpensively, I think to buy it for my z50. The Z-line is meager and not very democratic in price.
Autofocus does not work well, as they say
It is not suitable for video because of strong chromatic effects, and with stabilization, these variations also float like areolas, this is me on the kenon looking through the majk lantern equal mlv dng. And in action on other devices, it will all turn into terrible aliasing. Which cannot be removed from the h264 codec. If anyone knows how to suppress aliasing in the h264 codec, write I will be very grateful.
What? (S)
I have this lens and it has a pincushion distortion in all focal. Does anyone have the same situation or is it already a marriage?
After reading all the reviews I want to insert my 5 cents. For an amateur and an amateur.
I have been using it for four years. The lens is just good. Sharp, fast. With a hood, it is quite contrasting in contrast. Multiple use: from "landscape" at 17mm to a certain "portrait" at 50mm. For indoor filming veri good. Focuses quickly and accurately. The gimbal works great, even with my nervous tremor. No beks and fronts. Well, maybe a little 50 / 2.8 front, if you shoot from 5 - 10 cm from the front lens.
How does he draw? Yes, on the crop, everyone draws the same way, to be honest ... on the crop it is difficult to see the “branded” bokeh twists. Few people will notice the difference by 50mm / 2.8, which is in the picture taken by this Sigma, that Nikon's fifty-kopeck piece for 2.8, or anything else ... All other things being the same. I tried Nikkor, Yongnuo, Tamron.
And also the price tag of $ 300 for a new one)) And also the inscription “Lens made in Japan” warming the soul))
And another 77mm glass)) and even more half a kilo of weight, it says that glass and a piece of iron are more than plastic) - some pluses))
Therefore - I recommend)
But if money burns your thigh - buy, of course, a native 16-80 - ah, good. Only his price tag is appropriate))
Thanks for the comment.
Surprisingly, now I have a review of 17-70 / 2.8-4 OS HSM (version of 2009), as it turned out, it is slightly heavier than this 17-50 / 2.8 and weighs almost 600 grams, which I was extremely surprised
Thanks for your hard work. So much knowledge, work on one not particularly monetized enthusiasm - sincere respect) Our comments are just a subjective point of view. A simple, "pereichny" lover has little to compare with)) when a person has not tasted anything tastier than a steamed turnip, he argues from this place) Or Vic-oh, Google-oh yes Dxma-rkoy cuts with a swing)) And about 17- 70 / 2.8-4 OS HSM it will be very interesting to know your opinion)) Maybe the amphibian will choke me again for a difference of 20mm)) I already regretted it once, not listening to your opinion about 55-300) and everything seems to be so, yes, something is wrong) until you bought Tamron 70-200 vc))
Good luck)
Overall, 17-50 / 2,8 is definitely better.
20 mm won't save, but the stop of aperture is a useful thing
Thank you))
So having read and made his conclusion.
It turns out if the money allows it is 16 80 and if not then 17 50 will come down?
I also don’t know what to take 16 80 is certainly expensive, but you are afraid to take 17 50 with focus hemorrhaging
Yes, a native 16-80 is preferable. 17-50 are not as scary in terms of focusing issues as the new art / contemporary lenses.
Arkady hello. There is a Nikon 18-140 and there is a Sigma 17-50 OS. Should I change Sigma 17-50 to Sigma 18-35.
If the tasks require it, it's worth it. If everything suits you, you shouldn't. Better 18-140 for 55-200 or add some kind of fix to 17-50.
I’ve been working with Sigma for a year now, the whole report has been 100% to the point, but I have a question about the bokeh pattern. Tell me I can’t achieve a clear center and pattern, if I open the Aperture at 2.8, there are misses in sharpness, if more than 4, (working aperture5.6 .XNUMX) then there is no bokeh
On my sigma on the D3200 there were no such problems with focus.
Example at 50mm f / 2.8. C bokeh is all right and with sharpness too.
50mm sigma is just very good even at f / 2.8.
And one more example.
The best answer to ANY question related to a problem, especially a very private one, is to declare that I DON'T HAVE ANY THING and to get out of hand, be it a knocking engine, arthritis, or cheating husband-wife. We are very happy for you, now Elena can sleep peacefully.
Well, she might miss a little. And at an open aperture, where depth of field is minimal, especially at short focusing distances, there are flower leaves, because of the front-back focus, the center on which you focus is not sharp. At 4 aperture, there is more depth of field and even a miss by that centimeter allows you to capture an object with the front or back of the plane of field.
If the camera allows you to adjust to the lens, try making this correction.
https://prophotos.ru/lessons/17423-dobivaemsya-idealnoy-tochnosti-fokusirovki-proverka-tochnosti-avtofokusa-i-ego-tonkaya-nastroyka - here is a good instruction, in principle, even if you do not have the ability to adjust, you will at least understand if the lens has focusing problems if you print out the target and test everything on a tripod. In parallel, check some other lens, and drive Sigma three times - at 17, 35 and 50 mm, at apertures 2.8, 4 and 5.6 for each focal length. So it will be clear what the problem is.
Elena had a question about the bokeh drawing, I showed her an example of a drawing. I didn’t brag about these photos, moreover, I don’t consider them successful, I took them for a long time, there weren’t any more recent so that the “bokeh pattern” could be seen and so that it could be publicly shown.
Re-read the question again. It is not quite correctly formulated, but the meaning is clear. On an open hole, where there is bokeh, there is no sharpness in the center (most likely, the lens smears). On a covered hole, of course, there is no bokeh.
I have a photo at 50mm + f / 4.5 where bokeh is also there. But probably you should not show, since you react like that :)
And on the whale 18-55 by 55mm at f / 5.6 it’s also quite good bokeh.
Bokeh also depends on the focusing distance and the distance to the background. The closer the subject, the better the bokeh and it can be decent even at 8.0. The farther the subject, the naturally less bokeh and the less the more the aperture is clamped. This is a general rule for any lens. Then we can only talk about the quality of this bokeh. The main problem is, however, autofocus, it is very difficult to work with the best lens if it is blurry.
This is the complete answer for bokeh. And, you must admit, this is not the same as your previous statement “On the covered hole, of course, there is no bokeh.”. For example, I sometimes like to do bokeh on a crop at 10mm focal length, and at f / 4-f / 5.6.
This is already something extremely specific. Few of the widths (and 10 mm is already super wide) has a non-irritating blur pattern without ripples and torn fragments. Something comparable in size to the angle of view washes well. At 10 mm at its unimaginable angle, in order to get into the blur zone, you need to bring the subject to the MDF so that it can be seen, and the blurred one should be carried away, where it becomes small. Small object - small details - ripples, double vision, that's all. This is almost a wide-angle macro. There, on the contrary, they play the other way, so that all the plans are equally sharp, some kind of toad-snake-mushroom close-up, half a frame, with a clearly visible background on a tightly clamped hole.
A 10mm close-up portrait is a wild perspective distortion. Interesting in itself, but even on the hole four, even with a huge nose and a deformed face, the background is washed extremely unconvincingly. It becomes not beautifully blurred, but disgusting unsharp, scaly, achromatic is still climbing, giving additional blurry color halos. Strongly for an amateur. There, only the vignette inherent in the wide-angle width saves, which can be further enhanced to hide blur defects and brighten the subject. If you clamp the super-width, then it is much more profitable to use it for the landscape. where everything is as sharp as possible throughout the field, without vignettes and characteristic flaws.
But all this relates more to the theory of photography than to the problem of blurring in the open.
There is no way without an example (may Arkady forgive me for the off-topic photo). At first I wanted to show a cat, but you started talking about a human portrait :). Here is a photo of my son at 10mm f / 2.8. I used to think that super wide for landscapes, but this is not entirely true. Oversize is needed to contrast the foreground and the background. A landscape at a super-wide without a spectacular foreground will not differ from a landscape at standard focal lengths. Well, maybe the sky can become more interesting.
Exactly. And here is this characteristic scaly ragged blur in the branches of trees, very much for an amateur. It seems that the background is separated, but the ripples are immediately striking for their unnaturalness and do not help to solve the problem. It's easier to hide behind somewhere around 8, not to light up for a couple of stops, and to light the child with a softbox - here are your plans.
And formally, this is no longer a portrait, this is a genre photo. We put up with distortion, if the angle conveys dynamics, we are already used to such frames. The face is close to the center of the frame, the boy is fine. You can't take off Auntie like that.
Take an unbiased look at your photo, follow the direction. The first thing you notice is the tree over the boy's head - there is a lot of it and it ripples. Then the gaze slides to the group of trees on the left along the horizontal bar, diagonally and only in the third turn stops on the child's face. Whereas the face should be seen first.
You can criticize the photo very well, thanks. I would bring some more photos for criticism, but I won’t, because off-topic.
I often get bored with “creamy” bokeh from 80-200 f / 2.8 in full frame, so sometimes my hands itch to diversify family photos. At 50mm f / 1.4, full frame also often produces “scaly” bokeh, and I am told that too. And if they had not said, I would not have known that such a blur is bad, not fashionable, for an amateur. I like different bokeh.
Prompt this is a problem of sigma or individual instances. Tried 2 lenses 17-70 f2,8-4 and 17-50 f2,8 both lenses have problems focusing on a moving subject. A clear frame is obtained from 3-4 frames. The rest are in soap. There are no such problems with Tamron.
Good afternoon. Please tell me if this lens is suitable for starry sky photography (nikon D90). There is a nikkor 50 1.8 lens, but at 17 it seems more interesting to me and 2.8 should be enough.
I am thinking of changing this lens to my native Nikon AF-S DX VR Nikkor 16-80mm f / 2,8-4E ED. Should we expect an increase in picture quality? I have a D7200
Nikkor will probably be a little sharper around the edges of the frame when open. In the center and on the covered ones - identical.
Well, Nikkor has a better stabilizer.
Used 2 years sigma, very controversial lens. It's definitely worth its money, but there are nuances that I could not put up with:
1. Curvature of the focal strip. And this is not a feature of my particular specimen, but apparently concerns the lens-block construct. I watched many photos from the network. It manifests itself not in all plots, but in many. On focal points 17-35, the right edge stretches out as if falling out of a grip, although at the same distance of the focal axis on the left side everything is ok. It is noticeable when there are many small objects (twigs, leaves) in the area of the grip borders on the right. At f / 8, the effect is minimal, but still present. I compared it with Nikkor dx 35mm - everything is perfectly smooth with the same settings. Shtatniki 18-55, 18-105, 18-140 - everything is much better there too, not as perfect as on fixed, but much better than on sigma.
2. Autofocus sometimes specifically smears. Especially on focal lengths less than 35mm.
3. Weak stabilizer compared to nikkors. Fewer steps compensates and more often does not work at all.
4. The spinning focus ring is infuriating.
5mm - dishonest, in fact about 50mm.
What's good about sigma:
1. Sharpness (if the plot does not show the curvature of the focal plane). The appearance of curvature of the focal plane can be slightly reduced by manipulating the focusing distance.
2. f / 2.8 - working, especially at 40-50mm. Large portraits come out well. For growth, the light-gathering power is not enough.
3. Behaves very well in the backlight.
As a result, I came to the conclusion that for the same money, a much more reliable bundle with greater capabilities is a Nikkor 18-105 + 35 / 50mm f / 1.8 fix to taste. The autofocus stabilizer and focal plane flatness of 18-105 is a post-sigma thrill. Well, art with portraits on 35/50 fixes is also not comparable to sigma.
Nikkor 16-80 - I did not use it, but I think it will be the best cropping staff. But how much its price is justified is a question.
Everything is described quite sensibly, I agree with many things.
But the question arises - what are the alternatives?
Two lenses (dark zoom and prime) are never a replacement for one, even if only for convenience.
Tamron 17-50 is structurally worse, although the uniformity of sharpness is higher.
The native 17-55 is good for everyone, excellent sharpness with an open, no curved plane, no backlash, but:
-price
-size (and with this size it probably could have been with an internal zoom, but no)
-lack of stub
16-80 - the one is darker on the long stop, which is kind of critical for the crop.
In general, with a tight budget, it remains only to put up with the change of glasses ((
You pointed out all the alternatives well.
For its part, 3 comments:
1 lenses to replace one for me became an acceptable option, because:
a) I have 2 crop carcasses (fortunately, now the prices for them are already below the baseboard, you can afford it). And there is the D750 with 24-70 / 50 1.4 for those cases where it is difficult to predict shooting conditions. This I mean that everyone determines for himself according to his capabilities and needs sets of tools.
b) Often I go purely for a portrait photo shoot or purely for a landscape / street photo shoot, then one lens is enough. Or, for example, for subject shooting, 18-105 is also more convenient for me than sigma.
2. 16-80 is not quite a stop darker. At 80mm, it is 50mm darker at the stop than sigma (in fact, by 45mm). At the focal point 50mm, the 16-80 will not be f / 4, but f / 3.5. I think that the level of blur at the long end will not be much worse (50mm f / 2.8 vs 80mm f / 4.0). And light compensation for static scenes can be provided by a better stabilizer in 16-80.
3. There is also sigma 18-35 f / 1.8 over the entire range.
Zoom subject? There may be problems with geometry, I would not recommend it if you need high-quality photos.
On the rest of the points, I agree, I am looking at 16-80 as a replacement for 18-105 / 18-140. After 24-120 / 4 on D750 18-140 on D7200 'no cake anymore' - and a wide angle is not enough, and aperture is not enough
Well, first of all, the context of my answer was in the plane of the 17-50 sigma alternative, which is also a zoom. In addition, my proposal to replace sigma with 2 lenses 18-105 + for example 50 f / 1.8 just suggests for perfectionists a choice between zoom and prime for different tasks.
Secondly, personally for my tasks, I will not see the difference if I shoot the subject for zoom and fix. Only a zoom will allow me in a cramped room with an umbrella / software and a small photo background to more comfortably choose the angle and position myself, and sometimes work with perspective (there is also such a need for a change) due to the presence of a more or less wide angle.
There is another option with Tokina:
Tokina AT-X PRO SD 16-50 F2.8 DX
https://radojuva.com/2014/10/tokina-at-x-pro-sd-16-50-2-8-dx/
Here in the review absolutely all light options are indicated in the section "Alternatives"
Yes, just the ones listed above are the most popular with a constant aperture ratio.
From the fickle one - it would be interesting to try the 18-50 2.8-4.5 sigma, the one with the internal zoom. Confused by the presence of a stub, there is no feeling of reliability from its Sigma implementation)
"Native 17-55 is good for everyone,"
In addition, what stands as Nikkor 28-70 / 2.8 and also has an AF motor, as on 28-70 / 2.8 and 80-200 / 2.8.
Those. the motor first beeps, and then dies. It's a matter of time given that the lens has been discontinued.
"Besides what is worth like .."
Well, if 28-70 was a replacement for 17-55, then yes
And by the way, I have not heard about dead autofocus motors in these models, this is, of course, in contrast to the 28-70 and 80-200.
Information that there is the same motor:
https://aliradar.com/item/33008962543-novaya-zamena-obektiva-dlya-kamery-nikon-nikkor-af-s-17-55-17-35-80-200-28-70-focus-motor-unit
On 17-35 / 2.8, 28-70 / 2.8, 80-200 / 2.8, 17-55 / 2.8 it is the same under the link - the motor itself. Similar can be bought on ebee and not only.
And after googling on the blogs of the masters, I came across the same statement that the motor is the same
Pokemon, you are again challenging that statement that was not there. I have never stated that they have different motors.
Again, the point is that I have not yet come across a 17-55 with a dead engine. Unlike you yourself know some models. Perhaps this depends on the design of the lens itself, perhaps on the implementation of the same motor model for the 17-55 - one Nikon knows.
* dispute
“It manifests itself not on all subjects, but on many. On focal points 17-35, the right edge stretches out as if falling out of a grip, although at the same distance of the focal axis on the left side everything is ok. It is noticeable when there are many small objects (twigs, leaves) in the area of the grip borders on the right. "
Is the lens definitely not falling?
M. b. displacement of the lens unit due to impact / fall?
I had a similar one on the Sigma Zoom 15-30mm D 1: 3.5-4.5 DG EX. But there was definitely a blow (the seller cheated).
I bought a new lens, sealed in a box. He did not hit, did not drop, he is very careful with things. I specifically looked on flickr and other resources for frames of plots and with settings, where my copy would show uneven focal plane and on most found the same distortion / artifacts.
I give a vivid example (100% crop of the upper right corner), I specially tested it, there is a photo left. The test was done at different apertures, I show it at medium f / 4 so that the nature of the stretching can be seen. At f / 7.1, this is no longer the case. Also offhand on flickr I found several frames with similar distortions. It is necessary to look and compare approximately equidistant small objects of the upper left and upper right corners.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/winsphotography/50308816807/in/pool-1449225@N25/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/148093685@N03/50817876291/in/pool-1449225@N25/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jesusdtt/50766406877/in/pool-1449225@N25/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/12jason/50673705668/in/pool-1449225@N25/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/xen2014/50407339742/in/pool-1449225@N25/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alohadave/50383680393/in/pool-1449225@N25/
And the chromaticity of the upper right corner is always more pronounced than the upper left one.
Again, this only appears in specific scenes and at certain focal / iris / focusing distance settings. Most people either do not notice this or do not identify patterns, they think that it happened so by chance.
It's a pity that I didn't have a test left on the same sigma and 35mm settings, where it was clearly seen that this was a pattern, and not an error in settings / focusing. I even flipped the camera upside down to make sure distortion / artifacts were attached to a specific side of the lens.
Yes, I see, although not all the pictures.
Have you tried to contact the Sigma service?
If you are in Moscow, there are good masters in Online Trade (they are Sigma officials).
I have the same nonsense, it was also new, in a box, though the lower left corner is narrower.
Apparently, the quality control at the output was like this.
“Nikkor 16-80 - I didn't use it, but I think it will be the best crop kit. But to what extent its price is justified is a question. "
Now everything new is expensive.
Fujai's new XF16-80mm f / 4 R OIS LM WR in the store is also expensive, even more expensive than the Nikkor 16-80. One plus is that it is put in whales for X-T3 and X-T4, and stretching is 20 thousand cheaper on Avito.
The lens is good. And for videos as well. What I want to say ... Sometimes shadows are poorly worked out. And there are few smooth transitions in some cases. Although the bokeh in portraits suits me. A brown tint appears, it happens. And in general, colors in difficult conditions are concentrated, heavy, sometimes lacking in "transparency", lightness and airiness. All this must be taken into account, to understand that with its 17/13 lens scheme it is not easy to achieve light transmission. In contrasting subjects, I didn't like how it works. But, in general, a good budget one. You can shoot a reportage. At hyperfocal, at a wide angle, especially with a flash, you can shoot without autofocus. Yes, he is not needed everywhere.
I liked this lens. I went with him for almost a year and a half (Nikon D5600 carcass) until I switched to full frame. In fact, for an amateur, more is not needed. Its functional stock (together with the carcass indicated just above) will be more than enough for almost all the necessary tasks.
Tell me, I choose between Tamron Di II SP 17-50mm F / 2.8 VC and Sigma AF 17-50mm f / 2.8 EX DC OS HSM Nikon F, which one do you recommend? (there are Tokina 12-24 and Nikkor 35 and 85), but I want something fast at the universal, so as not to constantly flip the lenses. An old screwless camera 5200
Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f / 2.8G IF-ED - expensive, but good lens.
There is also the Tokina AT-X PRO SD 16-50 F2.8 DX, but on it, like on the Sigma, before buying, you need to look at how correctly the AF works.
And with their jambs (I'm talking about Tokinu. Very ambiguous)
And what are the shoals in Tokin?
In the popular Sigma - a stub and a weak body that is afraid of falls (they say a weak mount of the bayonet), in Nikkor 17-55 / 2.8 - a motor.
AF, chromaticity, enlightenment. Tamron looks assembled, it is a pity that the assembly is so-so. I haven't heard about the motor in Nikkor, but everything is possible - the old lenses had jambs with trigger
Dmitry, I'm wondering where the information about the engine at 17-55 comes from? I have not met a single 17-55 with a faulty motor, unlike 28-70 and 17-35. If this is speculation based on the fact that there is “the same motor”, it would not be worth scattering unverified information, the motor fails not because it is “the same”, but because dirt gets into it. Most likely, at 17-55 this problem was solved.
Just saw this the other day.
They occasionally pop up at flea markets.
In general, yes, for 10 pieces of 28-70 / 2.8 with a standing motor, there are 1-2 pieces
17-55.
Lenses are old, nothing is eternal.
Yes, the 28-70 / 17-35 / 80-200 motor does not like dust and dirt, it begins to clog with all this over time.
Nadezhda, I compared sigma with a tampon, tamron is honestly felt in the hands of a cheap rattle, although optically it seems to be not bad. In addition, this model has a known design flaw in the autofocus drive. If sigma is handled normally, nothing will happen.
Greetings to all. I bought this BU lens, but it is in very good condition, it can be seen that it was not used a lot. My carcass is D3300. Having installed the lens on the carcass, it turned out that autofocus does not work at all. In this case, the focus mode stash constantly blinks, changing, auto-manual. The stabilizer does not seem to work either, there is no noise. If you turn on and off the camera several times, sometimes the autofocus began to work, and very well, quickly, accurately and tenaciously. But this is before turning off the device, then all over again. I found information on English-language resources, such a problem occurs with sigma lenses after updating the camera firmware to a newer one, and on different models. Found complaints from owners D5200 D5300 D7000 D3300. And it seems like rolling back the firmware helps. We failed to find the factory firmware V3300 at 1.00, the lens does not work with the rest. I have a Sigma 50mm, no problem with it. Who faced this? Wrote a letter to Sigma, no answer yet.
In the case of the 3300, alas, most likely, nothing will come of it, since the firmware is the basic one on the camera, no one posted them for free access.
Unless you contact Nikon's service center and ask them to roll back the firmware to 1.00, if they have such an opportunity. There is also a possibility that Sigma will move and release a firmware update for its lenses for greater compatibility with Nikon (in this case, contacting Sigma's SC will help).
Well, or changing the camera, as the most radical solution)))
Hello! Tell me how much did you buy? It's just that now there is an opportunity to buy a D5200 with this lens for 27000 rubles. Separately, this lens costs from 14k.