answers: 41

  1. Alexey
    24.02.2018

    For my money, a completely normal lens. Thank you for the review.

    Reply

    • Andrei
      27.02.2018

      I totally agree.

      Reply

  2. Zed
    24.02.2018

    It's just fucking how much Niccor 17-55 / 2.8g costs. It seems that it is made of precious metals by Japanese anime schoolgirls.
    Sigma 17-50 / 2.8 EX is very cheap compared to Nikkor.
    PS Beautiful tummy of the model ~ aww ~ :-)

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      24.02.2018

      The new 16-80 / 2.8-4E is not much cheaper.

      Reply

  3. anonym
    25.02.2018

    Model!…….)

    Reply

  4. Michael
    25.02.2018

    Arkady, this proposal is not clear: "A similar behavior during macro shooting is observed with the Sigma DC 18-50mm 1: 2.8 EX MACRO HSM lens." Maybe there should be a different lens? Are we talking about this?
    Thanks for the review!

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      25.02.2018

      Fixed

      Reply

  5. scif
    26.02.2018

    Well oooooochen, very similar to sigma 24-70 2.8 EX

    Reply

  6. Vadim Berezin
    26.02.2018

    Interesting review. Yuzal several similar lenses, incl. tamron 17-50, nikkor 17-50, sigma 17-50, sigma 18-35. Most of all liked the 18-35 1.8, just an optical masterpiece. But it had an extremely unpleasant feature - it focused where it should be stably only in daylight. Incandescent lamps, fluorescent - anywhere, but not where it should be. Cameras 7000, 7100, 18-35 on d600 and 610 in the range 28-35, the same bullshit. Only the LP helped out.

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      26.02.2018

      The arts of something with the Nikons in terms of focus are not very friendly.

      Reply

      • Michael
        26.02.2018

        With canons, too, problems with focus

        Reply

  7. Nicholas
    26.02.2018

    Thanks for the review, as always on the level.
    Is there a chance to see a review on the Sigma DG 17-35 f2.8-4?

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      26.02.2018

      There is always a chance :) I will try.

      Reply

  8. Michael R
    26.02.2018

    Arkady, thank you so much for the topic!
    I looked very closely at this particular lens - but there were no sensible reviews anywhere
    Don't consider it boring - but I just want to clarify for myself
    You write: "The number of focusing misses is minimal."
    Is this compared to what? After all, everywhere they write that lenses of third-party manufacturers "smear" much more often
    How would you rate the number of misses of this Sigma compared to Tamron and of course Nikon
    similar focal lengths

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      26.02.2018

      In my hands, Tamron 17-50 / 2.8 VC and tamron 17-50 / 2.8 XR with and without a motor do not smear at all, but there the focus speed is not so hot. This sigma with 1000 frames at about 50 frames clearly missed.
      If in general, then there are no problems. Perhaps, different cameras may have their own characteristics, as well as features with one or another mode and focusing method.

      Reply

  9. Vadim Berezin
    27.02.2018

    It seemed to me that sigmo zooms work more stable on older cameras. Starting from 7000 kmk, taking a sigmo zoom is just crazy. Fixes are worth considering, zooms are more reliable in terms of af in tamroeea. But this is only my experience

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      27.02.2018

      That is why I write “Lens from a third party manufacturer. It may happen that it will not work correctly with some Nikon cameras ”

      Reply

  10. Molchanov Yuri
    28.02.2018

    Thanks for the interesting review. Personal opinion on the Sigma velvet finish:
    it seemed to me unnecessary nonsense making it difficult to clean the lens with a simple napkin.
    And now, when Sigma Art tries to slip out of my hands when changing the lens on the street, I warmly recall the old coating. Moreover, it was not so difficult to clean.
    But it seems they will not return to this.

    Reply

  11. Ilya
    03.03.2018

    The review, as always, is excellent. Interesting and useful. Thank you for such a job.
    Dealt with two Sigmas for Nikon: 17-70 f / 2.8-4 and 20mm f / 1.8. Sigma 17-70 is really very similar to the lens from the review. Heavy and very pleasant to the touch. But not as sharp as the Nikkor 17-55, which I bought later (I'm glad so far). And Sigma 20mm really washed on open diaphragms, and after selling it I decided not to mess with sigma (at least for a long time), I have experience of communicating with different Tamrons - so they seemed a bit sharper.

    Reply

  12. Vitaly U.
    03.03.2018

    I'll put in my “five cents”) Yesterday I received a package from “Fotika” with this Sigma (I suspect that the glass is from this review)). I took it as a wagon for the last remaining crop from Nikon: d50 and Fuji C5Pro (F bayonet). On both chambers the glass works very, very well. On Propyatka from 40-50mm frontal, but this is a problem of the camera (“proprietary disease”, not treated in any way), sharp at d50 with 2.8 (in the center) at all focal points. Boke is unpretentious IMHO, in comparison with the same boring half-line G (at 2.8) there is simply nothing. I think the ability to shoot macro is not a bad bonus. There is no “wow” effect from the lens, but it also “won't spoil the furrow”). The construct does not cause concerns, everything is reliable. Here's to fixing the hood in the stowed position, there are questions: it is kept on parole ... not solid) As a staff for a crop that is needed (I consider spending $ 600 for a used Nikkor 17-55 a waste of money). Special thanks to Arkady for the review!

    Reply

  13. seva8698
    28.03.2018

    For three years I used this Sigma on the D300 and D7100. An excellent lens for normal money.
    Optically I liked it more than Sigma 17-50. At 2.8 the edges and corners were full. As a staffer, I recommend it.

    Reply

    • Alex
      23.01.2020

      I did not like the lens, very weak sharpness

      Reply

  14. Vladimir
    14.08.2018

    Thanks to Arkady for the review, everything is extensively and concisely laid out. Recently I got this sigma for myself, and here are the impressions: the Nikon D7000 is flying normally (the focus is clear, rarely refocusing, the picture is decent, the sharpness at 2.8 by 50mm is normal, by 24-35 mm a little better). It’s solid to look at the camera, just the middle ground between huge and very small zooms. The quality of the assembly, while also satisfied. I haven’t been in a serious battle yet, but in a couple of days I’ll shoot him to the maximum, and if the nuances come out I will share it in comments.

    Reply

  15. Roma
    07.09.2018

    I sold Tamron 18-50 vc on the nikon d7000 is pretty solid, I want to take this sigma, what do you say?

    Reply

  16. UstasFritZZZ
    07.11.2018

    Hi fellow hobby / profession! Such a question: will this lens work correctly on the Nikon D7500? There is a good offer, but not sure whether to take it. But I can’t check it live, because they sell glass in another city.

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      07.11.2018

      Yes, the d7500 should work as expected, but better add money and take the version with the stabilizer

      Reply

  17. Alexander
    15.03.2019

    Arkady thank you very much for the review. True, there is a question. What gives one mm 17-50 or 18 = 50 or 17-50 better build quality ????

    Reply

    • Michael
      15.03.2019

      17-50 newer and has a stabilizer

      Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      15.03.2019

      17-50 is a completely different lens, with a different circuit, stabilizer and more. This is not a 1 mm question, but the question is that 17-50 and 18-50 are two different generations of similar lenses from Sigma.

      Reply

  18. Roman
    19.05.2019

    Arkady, thanks for the review. A lot of useful information about an already forgotten lens seems to be.
    This is my dilemma. I own a D5100 with a 35mm fix, I am happy with everything except that you always need to run legs and in this connection there was a desire to purchase Sigma 17-50 f / 2.8.
    Duck, the new lens has somehow sharply risen in price and now costs 28-30 thousand in greedy chain stores.
    I was looking for a used one, but for some reason no one is selling, apparently 17-50 is quite good, since everyone is holding onto it like that. Searches for a long time are not crowned with success, so I decided to look at this miracle.
    Still, your opinion, is it worth overpaying for a 17-50 let used / 18-50 worthy competitor and work exactly like 17-50 for 100%?

    Thank you in advance :)

    Reply

    • Alex
      07.03.2020

      If suddenly it is still relevant - I recently tested 18-50 and 17-50. As a result, I bought myself exactly 18-50 - yes, there is no stub and it is much more difficult to shoot at long exposures, but otherwise I liked 18-50 more. The trunk does not fall out, the sharpness is in order. After the whale, the lens is weighty and solid in appearance, the aperture is much better, autofocus works faster. I am more than satisfied with the purchase, so I recommend it if the question is still relevant.

      Reply

    • Denis
      07.03.2020

      sell used. and more
      on ebay the price of a new 18 tyr. if you wait, you can wait 25% of the discount and take for 16

      Reply

  19. Maria
    25.05.2019

    I want to know if there is an analog of the expected lens for a full frame on Nikon?

    Reply

  20. Nanachi
    26.07.2020

    Can such a lens be mounted on a full-frame nikon d610? What alternative for full frame can you advise?

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      26.07.2020

      Good afternoon, you can, but not desirable. Take a look at Tamron 28-75 / 2.8, there you will find a list of all alternatives.

      Reply

  21. Alexander
    10.03.2021

    I wanted to take a used one at a good price. I twisted it in my hands, liked it in terms of construction, heavy, well assembled. I shot at a target, at 18 more or less, at 50mm, the front focus is very strong, behind the DOF zone. Even in leave viev mode, autofocus does not even try to move. Nikon d5300 carcass. I understand that the camera is conditionally new for this lens. Maybe someone will come in handy infa.

    Reply

  22. Alexey
    15.07.2021

    I bought such a lens today. Still going. Only he is without a hood. I want to buy it. How to identify it? What to ask Google to get the result? Thanks to Arkady for a wonderful review!

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      15.07.2021

      Should fit LH780-03 from 17-70

      Reply

  23. Denis
    26.07.2021

    Perhaps I will repeat myself, but I could not decide. 18-50 or 17-50? Which is better? Carcass 7200.
    The price for a used + is the same. I read the reviews of both lenses and did not dare. I understand that 17-50 is newer + stub, but judging by the comments they write that 18-50 is more reliable and the picture seems to be better. Are there those who compared these glasses with each other? Thanks in advance for your reply. Thanks to the author for the reviews, I read for hours

    Reply

    • Victor
      26.07.2021

      The price for a used one is still not the same)) At 18-50 spins in the region of 8-10 sput, at 17-50 from 15..16. And 18-50 is more reliable, oddly enough due to the absence of the notorious, not the most reliable, stub))

      Reply

Reply

 

 

Top
mobility. computer