This is the best Nikon lens I've EVER used. I ditched all my Nikon Lenses for Zeiss Classics years ago for their superior quality. After being spoilt with the excellent build of the Zeiss, the only lens I found myself missing is the 17-55. All metal construction, great depth and 3d pop. My Zeiss's for cine work are irreplaceable, but the 17-55 belongs up there. This week I purchased a Hasselblad X2D but for my Nikon and BMPCC4K, guess what, I bought my 4th 17-55 in 2022!
The 17~55 is a true Nikon Pro lens, from an era that Nikon still had their F line of film camera DNA in them. Optically it is superb, along with grade A+ build. I have had one from brand new ( had wait for mine ) since I bought my D200 all those years ago. It now lives on my D7200, which I still use. A delightful combination.
100% 🙌 there is a lot of great glass if only people opened their eyes and learned how to do their own research instead of chasing the latest and greatest
I’m a bit late to the chat, but I am on a budget and been looking at both of these (used) for landscapes and seascapes. I’m edging towards the Nikon for the weather sealing and greater zoom. I would imagine that both are capable of producing lovely images, limited only by the one behind the camera!
Just a cheap ef to nikon adapter. Yeah it covers it an then some, see ef flange is shorter by few mm than nikon f so its easy to adapt nikkor lenses on canon mounts
Sigma 18-35 1.8 is a good lens in my d7000. I have it with its couple of 50-100 1.8. Solid and premium body and its really sharp. The weakness of this lens is that it has too much miss focus on first use. I bought this lens from my friend, who can't tame it. You must calibrate it with sigma dock Ud-01 (not too hard to calibrate, but for an old crop sensor under 16 mp it's slightly difficult at 35 because of the resolution). After calibrated, I just got 1 miss from 10 shots.
Have you seen Viltrox's electronic adapter? It solves the issue with the exif data and makes the autofocus usable besides AFC. Sadly it doesn't have a speed booster incorporated.
I don't use Nikon cameras anymore, but when I did years ago on my d300s it was as fast as I needed it to be. So super-fast action I never relied on AF - I would just set the focus to manual and try and anticipate where action will be (not where it was at the moment). Learning to get by just with manual focus is very empowering :)
The onion bokeh is from the manufacturing process of aspherical lens elements, which leaves concentric microgrooves on the lens surfaces. To get rid of them precision hand polishing of the optics would be needed, increasing the cost. I hate them too. They are quite pronounced with some fast MF Samyang lenses, but those are a lot cheaper than this Nikon.
I have both on Pannies. Yes the Sigma delivers more light and rounder bokeh. But most of the time when I need real follow focus bokeh, it will be on the 85mm tele range. Wich I only get with the Nikon.
@@CINENIMUS usually the prices for the latest gear is same or slightly cheaper than the u.s , like the Tamron 17 70 f2.8 goes for only 680 dollars which is 799 in the u.s . Its those lenses which aren't new or from a not well known maker that goes for a premium usually.
At about the 1:00 mark you say that a crop sensor lens is brighter than a full frame lens because it is concentrating all the light into a smaller circle. This is completely wrong. It doesn't matter how big the image circle is if the aperture is the same size the image on the sensor will be of equal brightness with both lenses. The crop sensor lens just masks off the light that it doesn't need for the smaller frame that it is designed to cover. It doesn't concentrate extraneous light to produce a brighter image.
Watch it again you noob. I say it is brighter compared to full frame lens projecting on a smaller sensor jesus is it so hard to grasp or pay attention? Just git good instead of trolling
@@CINENIMUS thank you for the response 🙏 I was on the fence about these 2 lenses and the price of the nikon new is absurd lol I prefer newer lenses and the sigma is very affordable new.
@@ronniezielinski1070 no problem - I use both. Recently I use Nikon more just because of the wider angle, longer reach and nicer colour. But both are really good
Hey man, I know this comment will probably get lost as this video was uploaded nearly a year ago, but I wanted to pitch in on the idea that a crop sensor lens is different than a full frame lens in terms of the concentration of light on the sensor, and depth of field. As you know, if a lens is designed to cover full frame and it is placed on a crop sensor, the image circle will be projected all around the sensor, effectively cropping in on the lens. However, a lens designed for crop sensors will only project light in the image circle of the smaller sensor that it was designed to cover. Now to the point that I wanted to correct you on: a crop sensor lens will have the same depth of field, and light concentration, at any given focal length and aperture as a full frame lens, as focal length and aperture are NOT tied to the image circle that a lens produces- this is the reason that Sigma made the 18-35 and 50-100 as F1.8. A lens designed to cover full frame at 50mm F1.4 will have a certain depth of field, but a crop sensor lens (35 F1.4, for simplicity) will have shallower depth of field WHEN FRAMING THE SCENE THE SAME. If you simply changed bodies from full frame to crop sensor without moving the camera or subject, and don't change the distance that the lens is focussed at, the depth of field will always remain the same. The image will appear darker, as around half of the light is lost due to the overspill. This is a really long and technical way of saying that a crop sensor lens will never give you the same effect as a full frame lens through a focal reducer onto a crop sensor. Even with a significantly larger aperture, focal length will always change the look of a lens. A 17mm will never look the same as a 24mm, even if the 24mm has gone through focal reduction to be the full frame equivalent of 17mm. Focal length, aperture, image circle, and sensor size are all independent of each other. They may interact with each other, and we may manipulate them to better suit our needs, but they are simply mathematical formulas that do not change. Of course, the formula for F stops is VERY approximate, which is why there are cases of certain lenses being brighter than others at the same aperture. This is the reason that T stops are used in cinematography! - Sincerely a cine lens technician :) PS - Great video!
I think your comment about DX lenses focusing more light onto a smaller sensor is incorrect. You can try it yourself if you try a FF 35mm on an FX and a crop 35mm on a DX with all the same settings. The DX picture will just be a crop of the FX picture. The DoF and the exposure is identical.
Nope. Tried few full frame lenses on DX sensors and crop ones are a tad brighter with same aperture compared to full frame versions of that lens. Just google it man - it’s a well documented phenomenon.
@@CINENIMUS I agree,btw what are your thoughts on using Dx lenses for FX Nikon bodies like for eg.Nikon 35mm 1.8?,i know it may depend upon different lenses,i have a 35mm dx lens and when i shoot in Fx camera,i think vignetting is not too much of problem,just a little crop to both sides and i think it works. Btw i have nikon 55-300 vr zoom and when i use it on full frame camera,i see heavy vignetting from 60mm till around 200 mm,and after that it looks fine and vignetting is not there at 250 or 300mm at the longer focal length. I am a beginner in photography and i find these things exciting and very interesting, Thanks for the vid man
Lots of nonsense, for example, DX vs FX lens comment is utter ignorant and stupidity. 18-35 and 17-55 are two very different lenses for different purposes. 18-35 is for available light photo/video's, while 17-55 is a general purpose lens.
@@CINENIMUS Around 1:00 mark, you described why you like DX lenses. It's totally wrong. The only difference between FX, DX lenses are the size of the light circle. FX needs bigger light circle=>larger glass elements=>larger/heavier lens body. The only reason for DX lenses is for lighter/smaller lens. "more lights focus on small area"? Actually, FX/DX at the same focal length and same aperture will allow exactly the same amount of light to reach DX portion of the sensor. The 17-55 is totally usable as FX lens between 24mm~55mm. With the same design, FX lenses are always better than DX lenses on DX body, except the size and weight. Do some research, read Optics 101, you will know.
EVERY Sigma lens is a piece of crap - And that Nikon 17-55 mm f/2.8 is THE BEST ever DX format lens by Nikon, and is also one of the best Nikon lenses EVER - at least over the last several decades.
