stevesayskanpai
Unregistered
I’d love to see a comparison of the Nikon 18-55 VR kit lens with the Sigma 17-50 2.8 VR lens, to see if it’s worth me upgrading. Has anybody seen a post or video that can show the level of improvement I could expect if I upgrade this lens?
stevesayskanpai
Unregistered
Yes, I know that there are two separate reviews of these lenses, I was hoping for some sort of comparison with images shot at different focal lengths with both.
"Level of improvement" is depending very much on what you want to get as pictures.
Why do you want to upgrade, are there things you can't do with the kit lens?
The Sigma has OS (=VR) and is a faster (and heavier) lens than the kit. It's very sharp and I found it very useful. But then, there are primes which are even faster and not that expensive: 50/1.8, 35/1.8
But that all depends on what you want to do or at least which kind of improvement you expect.
stevesayskanpai
Unregistered
Thanks for your reply. Note the kit lens has VR (=OS) too.
Yes I'm hoping to get sharper pictures across the board, but also use the extra aperture to get nicely crisp portraits with good out of focus bokeh. I'm keen to replace the kit lens rather than to supplement it with a fixed focal length prime because I a) already have the 50 1.8 and b) don't find the 35 1.8 to be a nice focal length personally.
So I guess my more specific questions would be:
1. Is general detail resolution substantially better with the Sigma?
2. Does the Sigma function better as a portrait lens vs. the kit lens, and how does it compare to the 50 1.8?
I know the numbers, I was just hoping to see some concrete examples / samples ...
If seeing the type of shots I'd use the lens for helps, please visit www.stevenjamesmartin.com.
If you did all that shots with a 50/1.8 and the kit lens - leave it that way :blink: It's a bit hard to believe, but I will try.
At the size of the pictures the only possible aspect of improvement is a nice prime - or going FX. You could also take a Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 into your circling ideas. Longer FL will also lead to shorter DoF. I'd see it as a pity, because you obviously know how to amaze your models and being close with them makes the atmosphere more dense. If you're able to borrow / rent a Sigma 18-35/1.8, that'd give you as well a nice bokeh (but no OS). If I say nice, I always mean "nice in my eyes". Some of your shots would have been better a bit more wide open, that's obvious to me.
Although I liked the Sigma 17-50 for it's sharpness, I wasn't able to find a picture with a lovely bokeh. Most at f/2.8...f/3.5 were good, but not really satisfying. At the time I was happy with them and over time I got used to FX standard. Most of portrait stuff I do with the big toy, so I'm not the one who can tell a lot about good bokeh for DX.
stevesayskanpai
Unregistered
Thanks. I agree, the best improvement would be to get nice bokeh in some of the portrait shots. I don't have the money to invest in 'serious' glass (for me that means over £400 a lens), nor FX, so I'm looking at the Sigma 17-50.
To people who would say 'why not just use the 50 1.8 for portraits' - well, that's a good point. Despite it being manual focus (I have the older model) I also find it really inconvenient to switch lenses. Lots of my portraits were taken 'in the moment' when I didn't want to lose the moment by taking time to switch lenses. So if I got the 17-50 it would be to give me a pretty good portrait lens / walkaround lens, while I'd use the 50 1.8 when I have enough time to change lenses.
At first: why did you choose a camera with interchangeable lenses if you don't like changing them?
At second: I'd never use a manual focus lens, if I want to portrait with wide open aperture. Using f/2 or f/2.8 doesn't leave a lot of space to miss the focus. Using the "focus aid" light in the finder is distracting, I don't want to look down the left side when I try to find a nice composition and a nice expression. In my experience, manual focusing eats too much of time and is too much of distraction
At third: If it's really for portraits, why not leave the zoom away? "Improvement" doesn't necessarily mean "more convenience". Just try to use your feet instead the zoom ring. Maybe you'll find another kind of freedom by just leaving one variable away. But that's just me. I find it more helpful to move between the shots. Leaving away the zoom ring makes my life easier when portraying. I can pay much more attention to place the focus frame on the eye, leave a bit space around the face and crop afterwards, if necessary. I don't want to bother about the perfect frame - that can be done afterwards (and I'm used to it). But I DO bother on perfect focus, that's nothing I can do in post.
Of course, the Sigma should be the better lens in summary. But for portraits only, I guess you could be happier with a AF-S 50/1.8 G. Now, maybe other voices also drop into this thread and give their opinion.
What kind of portraits are interested in taking ? studio or outdoor portraits ?
IMHO you will see only a small difference between the two lenses in real life, so I don't think you will be satified with the results.
all depends on your priorities and what you intend to do, changing for a better IQ or faster lens isn't usually a solution, I did before several times and I don't want you to do the same
If you are looking for the best bang for buck it's got to be the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8, yes once again if you get a good copy, it's as sharp as they come very usable wide open, stopped down it matches some primes, everywhere it goes it gets good reviews.
Did try a S/H copy of the Sigma 17-50 F.8 HSM but I got a poor copy (forgot to mention it on my misery list) funnily it wasn't especially decentered just wouldn't get sharp at the edges.
