http://www.nikonchat.com/17-70mm-nikkor/
Which is better? 17-55mm f / 2.8 or 24-70mm f / 2.8?
I'm quite intrigued, what are the pros and cons of these two? I have a 18-200mm f / 3.5 for the standard wide-angle photography, but the 17-55mm makes no noticeable difference? I'm considering getting a Sigma lens for Nikon D200, Nikkor is out of the budget. Thanks!
I used a Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 throughout the year for a job, and it was great, even wide open. Probably the most Acute normal zoom I used for digital cameras. The other two sigmas I had were bad – the 10-20mm and 200 mm lenses 70. I heard that the Tamron 17-50mm is even better. It is assumed that both offer 90% of the quality of the Nikkor to 1 / 3 the price. You have to be aware of the change in the sample however, because the quality control both companies is not very good. One of my coworkers used the Sigma 24-70mm lens throughout the year and hated it. Maybe she had a bad copy. Was much larger than 18-50mm, although the design. EDIT: In response to Mike – Nothing is more curvature of a lens of f / 2.8 focal slow a lens of the same length y. I do not know where you get the idea that it produces more of a "fisheye" effect, especially in various openings. If there was barrel distortion different in different apertures, would all sorts of problems with the lens sharpness. The 17-55mm Nikkor is characterized by its plain barrel distortion at 17mm, but no worse than the slower 18-70mm. The difference between Sigma / Tamron and Nikon may be impressive, with some goals, but certainly not most of the lenses 17/18-50mm:. respected photographer Thom Hogan has this to say on the Tamron "Overall, I put this goal in the same category as the Nikkor sharpness, but I felt that the Nikkor was a bit more contrast, especially at the wide end. "Here is a direct comparison between the two, with photos: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&message=18754749&changemode=1 From my personal experience, the Sigma performs similarly to the Tamron. That certainly does not see the performance and $ 850 more than the Nikkor, right? I'd rather spend the money saved into another object, even different Nikkor.
9-5
Nikon News