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.
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!
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!
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.
Hey brother, FANTASTIC review. Ironically I use multiples of these Sigmas with our Blackmagic 6k/6k Pro/4k and I own that DX lens for my Sony (was a gift,) but was really struggling to compare them in a professional setting. I always felt more drawn to the Sigma's color, DOF, and clarity and always felt the DX punches above its weight but maybe not as well as the Sigma, and in some ways this video confirmed it. Was wondering if the Nikon is worth replacing and it feels like a yes but a pained and unnecessary yes. There seems to be this ghosting with the Nikon that I swear reduces the dynamic range and makes the image feel pixelly even in downscaled 6k. Very curious to learn more about stabilization not working with the Nikon. I have not been able to pair our 4k with our Sigma and Viltronix adapter to test it, but with the Nikon I've gotten Perspective and Camera Gyro to work well, those two are the trickiest in post. Awesome content, subbed.
Thanks, and yes the zooms without electronic contacts are borderline possible to stabilise in post if you don’t take a note of what mm you shot at the time…
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.
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.
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.
@@CINENIMUS Indeed.
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!
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!
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.
Hey brother, FANTASTIC review. Ironically I use multiples of these Sigmas with our Blackmagic 6k/6k Pro/4k and I own that DX lens for my Sony (was a gift,) but was really struggling to compare them in a professional setting. I always felt more drawn to the Sigma's color, DOF, and clarity and always felt the DX punches above its weight but maybe not as well as the Sigma, and in some ways this video confirmed it. Was wondering if the Nikon is worth replacing and it feels like a yes but a pained and unnecessary yes. There seems to be this ghosting with the Nikon that I swear reduces the dynamic range and makes the image feel pixelly even in downscaled 6k.
Very curious to learn more about stabilization not working with the Nikon. I have not been able to pair our 4k with our Sigma and Viltronix adapter to test it, but with the Nikon I've gotten Perspective and Camera Gyro to work well, those two are the trickiest in post.
Awesome content, subbed.
Thanks, and yes the zooms without electronic contacts are borderline possible to stabilise in post if you don’t take a note of what mm you shot at the time…
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.
Hi! What adapter do you use for the 17-55 Nikon? Does it cover the sensor @ 17mm?
Ef?
amazing review
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 GH4, GH5s & GH6
None of these lenses have VR on them?
nope
i have this lens and wanted to sell it
do it :)
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.
I love nikon skin tones
@@CINENIMUSDo you still recommend this lens? I have a D7500. Thanks