Sigma 20/1.8 or Nikkor 17-35/2.8

[stubbsy]

Damn I hate my indecisiveness (I think)

In my current kit I have Nikkor 10.5/ 2.8 fisheye, 12-24/F4, 28-70/2.8 The bulk of my work is landscapes and I have a fondness for church interiors too. These lenses serve me wonderfully on all but the interior shots. Church interiors tend to be quite dark and I find that the 12-24 is lacking in the low light stakes (even bumping ISO to 800 which is the highest I'd go for reasons of noise on my D2x) and the 28-70 is a little lacking in the wide stakes. What I'd really like is a wide 1.4 lens and I'm not buying a nokt so I have to settle for the next best thing. I also have a 50/1.4 but it's not wide enough - for similar reasons I've discarded the Sigma 30/1.4 which while offering low light is no wider in practical terms than my 28-70.

I've done lots of reading and now have a short list of two lenses. I'd be interested in comments by anyone who has experience with either of these - the Sigma 20/1.8 EX DG the Nikkor 17-35/2.8 AF-S. Now I know these have a huge price difference circa $450 vs circa $1500 but I'm trying to set that aside for now.

And as an aside here's where Canon shooters are lucky - there is a Canon 24/1.4 (not cheap tho $1800 ish)

[jamesw]

I myself have been interested in the same line of lenses (the sigmas)...

I have been told that they are particularly large and bulky, which may or may not be an issue for you. It's not an issue for me.

My main concern with these lenses is that it has been said that they are not critically sharp at wide open and do not sharpen up as much as you'd expect as you stop down. I think that comment was particularly in regards to the 24mm fast sigma... I'm sorry I cannot recall.

If anyone on the forums has heard anything that contrasts against what I've heard (or even better has used these lenses) i'd be veryyy interested to hear.

[jamesw]

I've discarded the Sigma 30/1.4

OT but are you interested in selling this? or have you already sold it?

[Alpha_7]

James he never owned it, he discarded the thought of buying it as it isn't wide enough.

[jamesw]

i wasn't sure, he mentioned it in the same sentance as his 50 1.4

ah well.

is the 20mm 1.8 a HSM?

[Reschsmooth]

Peter, I have the 17-35 and, apart from a focusing issue, is fantastic. Compared to the 20 2.8 I occasionally use, I believe it has less distortion at 20mm. I haven't done any close inspection on sharpness, but I think it is an awesome landscape lens with great practicality too.

[stubbsy]

:( i wasn't sure, he mentioned it in the same sentance as his 50 1.4

ah well.

is the 20mm 1.8 a HSM?

Craig is correct. While I own the 50 I don't own the 30 but rather discarded the concept of purchasing it.

The 20/1.8 (like the other wide 1.8's from Sigma) is NOT HSM whereas the 30/1.4 is. Link is HERE

[methd]

As an aside and for wide landscapes, I'd love to get my hands on the 14mm 2.8

[Gordon]

I use the 20mm f/1.8 Sigma and think its a great lens. It is certainly similar, if not slightly sharper wide open, than my Nikon 24mm f/2.8, and its over a stop faster.
Distortion isn't too bad, as I am able to make good stitched panoramas with it.
I have used it with excellent results for astrophotography of Comet McNaught earlier this year http://www.ozemail.com.au/~loomberah/mcnaught.htm - a critical test of lens sharpness. Yes there is a bit of astigmatism visible around the edges, - out of round stars, but this is a more severe test than landscape/indoor photography.

Gordon

[jamesw]

As an aside and for wide landscapes, I'd love to get my hands on the 14mm 2.8

he says, $1500 later...

[radar]

Peter,

I don't have the Sigma but I have the Nikkor 20mm f2.8. I also have a loan of the Nikkor 17-35. As Patrick says, both are great lenses but for doing architecture, I would probably go with the 17-35. It is extremely sharp, can focus very close, not an issue when in a church. The 17-35 is Chi's and it is the one that has the broken AF-S but even with manual focus, it is very easy to focus. Sometimes that 3mm can make a big difference.

A big reason to keep the 20mm for me is that it is great to have when bush walking as it is a great little lens, very light.

As for low light, have you tried/thought of using a gorillapod?

You are welcome to try both in the Christ Church Cathedral if you want.

Cheers,

André

[stubbsy]

As an aside and for wide landscapes, I'd love to get my hands on the 14mm 2.8

yep I considered this too, but at the same price as the 17-35 and both f2.8 (and 3mm difference which is bugger all) the 17-35 eats it for breakfast in the reviews (eg read Bjorn Rorslett 14/2.8 vs 17-35/2.8)

[Glen]

Stubbsy, buy both Onyx has a S/H 17-35 with broken AFS motor for sale, perfect for landscapes. Unfortunately I can offer no practical experience with either lens (but would love to hear your opinions of the 20/1. . Thanks Gordon for your thoughts too.

[wendellt]

for interior shots there were times where i could of used a 20mm 1.8
consider the crop factor on a dslr

but practically the 17-35 is wider and more versatile than a fixed 20mm f1.8

and outof all the lenses i have used the 17-35 is my favourite

[radar]

Stubbsy, buy both Onyx has a S/H 17-35 with broken AFS motor for sale, perfect for landscapes.

Hey, watch out, that's the one I'm trying right now

André

[casnell]

I'll buy your 12-24

[gooseberry]

The 17-35 is superb and I use it a lot.

I've only ever tried one sample of the Sigma 20/1.8. It could just be a bad sample, but I found the Sigma 20/1.8 to be quite soft. I believe the Sigma 30/1.4 is much sharper - but alas, not as wide.

[Gordon]

Gooseberry wrote:
>... but I found the Sigma 20/1.8 to be quite soft...

Are you certain you were getting a good focus? The only time I found it to be soft was due to wide aperture and poor focus. Infinity is not where its marked on the lens, nor is it for the 30mm f/1.4.. or the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 for that matter.

[gooseberry]

Gooseberry wrote:
>... but I found the Sigma 20/1.8 to be quite soft...

Are you certain you were getting a good focus? The only time I found it to be soft was due to wide aperture and poor focus. Infinity is not where its marked on the lens, nor is it for the 30mm f/1.4.. or the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 for that matter.

Yeah, I'm fairly certain - was doing tests comparing it to a Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 with the Sigma stopped down to 2.8 - the Nikkor was still sharper wide open at 2.8. There may be a possibility I didn't get good focus, but I'm pretty certain I did as I tried several shots both AF and manual focus and compared the sharpest between the two. Again, it could just be the sample I tried.

The Sigma 30/1.4 however I've found to be very sharp, even wide open at 1.4.

[marcotrov]

I can only say one thing as I haven't owned the Sigma so I say BUY the 17-35 you won't be disappointed. It's bloody brilliant and with the arsenal you already have it would fit in perfectly.
cheers
marco

[stubbsy]

Damn you all. Decision made. Just ordered a 17-35 from Poon. Could have bought a D200 for the same money

[daniel_r]

Good choice. I think it'll make an ideal companion for the 28-70.

The 17-35 has all of the features that make the 28-70 great, but gives you that missing piece in the way of 2.8 glass.

Worst case scenario - you've just bought yourself the best wide landscape lens Nikon makes


I know the 17-35 is on my wish list...

[radar]

Great choice Peter,

now you have a great Nikkor wide angle lens if/when Nikon ever decide to make a FF camera.

You won't regret it. I am now very jealous

André

[glamy]

Damn you all. Decision made. Just ordered a 17-35 from Poon. Could have bought a D200 for the same money

That is a decision I never regretted, the same with the 28-70

[Oz_Beachside]

Damn you all. Decision made. Just ordered a 17-35 from Poon. Could have bought a D200 for the same money

Dan (cre8tive pixels) has 17-35 for sale, think its only a few months old...

[Steffen]

Are you certain you were getting a good focus?

You need *a lot* of DOF to get both a comet and the stars in focus...

Cheers
Steffen.

[Steffen]

Could have bought a D200 for the same money

What would you have done with the D200, anyway? Hand it to people to photograph you using the D2Xs?


Cheers
Steffen.

[fozzie]

Stubbsy - that is a decisive decision AFAIK, post put up on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 12:35pm and ordered from Poon on Fri Aug 17, 2007 7:15 pm. I am sure that you will enjoy the Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8.

fozzie

[stubbsy]

Stubbsy - that is a decisive decision AFAIK, post put up on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 12:35pm and ordered from Poon on Fri Aug 17, 2007 7:15 pm. I am sure that you will enjoy the Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8.

fozzie

I don't dilly dally. I'd already done a lot of research on both lenses and had previously had a tiny play with a 17-35 (some years ago) so the praises of the 17-35 swayed me to empty my bank account quick smart I am now looking forward to putting it through its paces.