Sorry for the weak english and sometimes pathetic errors. If you have any question about the two lenses put it in the comment below, I will try to answer it.
I got a used 17-55. I found it soft at 55mm at f/2.8, as suggested by the DxO lab tests. I swapped it for a Sigma 17-50, which I find good, except for vignetting at 17mm at f/2.8. I considered the 16-80 but wanted constant 2.8 for indoor sport with my D500. 16-80 would be more useful range. I have a 16-85, but that doesn't get used much now (slow and soft)
Hi. Yes it´s a bit soft at f/2.8, but I still like the quality. With post processing it´s not a problem at all. I have tried the Sigma 17-50 once, and compared to my 35 mm nikkor, the Sigma was sharper wide open, what has really surprised me, but I didn´t like it´s built quality.
@@slowdownmovies4474 Yes, the Sigma does not feel robust. The zoom ring operates the opposite was to every Nikon lens that I have, which is annoying. I have the 35mm f/1.8 DX also, which I like. Quite a bit of green/purple colour fringing at 1.8 though - fixable in post.
Are you talking about the sigma 17-50 f2.8 EX HSM? I currently have that lens but in my opinion it really isn't that sharp. Plus I've had the zoom ring lock up on me several times and im looking to replace it. Is the sigma actually sharper than the Nikon 17-55? And is it really sharper than an AF-S 35 f1.8G(assuming that's the 35mm nikkor you are referring to)?? If so either I got a bad copy or need to reevaluate my definition of sharpness...
So I have sold the 16-80, but only because I found buyer for that lens first. Right before I was on a holiday and I had it with me on a hike, and absolutely loved it´s lightweight and the zoom range. It was raining for hours, no problem for the gear. Photos here: www.flickr.com/photos/161718235@N07/albums/72177720310042901
I got a used 17-55. I found it soft at 55mm at f/2.8, as suggested by the DxO lab tests. I swapped it for a Sigma 17-50, which I find good, except for vignetting at 17mm at f/2.8. I considered the 16-80 but wanted constant 2.8 for indoor sport with my D500. 16-80 would be more useful range. I have a 16-85, but that doesn't get used much now (slow and soft)
Hi. Yes it´s a bit soft at f/2.8, but I still like the quality. With post processing it´s not a problem at all. I have tried the Sigma 17-50 once, and compared to my 35 mm nikkor, the Sigma was sharper wide open, what has really surprised me, but I didn´t like it´s built quality.
@@slowdownmovies4474 Yes, the Sigma does not feel robust. The zoom ring operates the opposite was to every Nikon lens that I have, which is annoying. I have the 35mm f/1.8 DX also, which I like. Quite a bit of green/purple colour fringing at 1.8 though - fixable in post.
Are you talking about the sigma 17-50 f2.8 EX HSM? I currently have that lens but in my opinion it really isn't that sharp. Plus I've had the zoom ring lock up on me several times and im looking to replace it.
Is the sigma actually sharper than the Nikon 17-55? And is it really sharper than an AF-S 35 f1.8G(assuming that's the 35mm nikkor you are referring to)?? If so either I got a bad copy or need to reevaluate my definition of sharpness...
Planning to buy 17-55mm. Thanks for your video. Already subscribed
So I have sold the 16-80, but only because I found buyer for that lens first. Right before I was on a holiday and I had it with me on a hike, and absolutely loved it´s lightweight and the zoom range. It was raining for hours, no problem for the gear. Photos here: www.flickr.com/photos/161718235@N07/albums/72177720310042901
Love it man! ♥️🫶🏻