Sigma 17-50 f2.8 vs Nikon 17-55 f2.8 (high-res pics)

[kmaisch]

Thought I'd post these pics up... a pretty crude (real-world) comparison of a Sigma 17-50 f2.8 and a Nikon 17-55 f2.8. These shots were taken at ISO 200, f2.8, 1/8000 second.

These are 100% crops... (D300).

http://www.kmaisch.com/temp/sigma/sigma.jpg

http://www.kmaisch.com/temp/sigma/nikon.jpg

http://www.kmaisch.com/temp/sigma/sigma2.jpg

The last shot is a photoshop edit to try to add some contrast in the Sigma shot. It's still not quite as good as the Nikon, but I think it stacks up reasonably well - the Sigma is certainly not a bad lens for the money.

What do people think?

Kim

[kiwi]

the nikon looks significantly sharper too

[mongo]

If it was only about the contrast, the sigma is probably great value – you can always add the contrast later. However, Mongo agrees with KIWI, in part at least. The Nikon is sharper – just how much is a subjective thing. Additionally. Mongo knows we pay more for fast lenses e.g f2.8 in the case of these lenses but what real percentage of the images taken with them is at f2.8 ??

Mongo’s point is, how sharp are they both as against each other at other apertures which are more likely to be used most of the time e.g. f4 or f5.6 ? Maybe that should be the way to compare them unless you are mostly going to shoot wide open.