Upgrading my 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Nikkor to Sigma 17-50 f/2.8

(Fernando De León) #1

Hi. I have my kit lense which is the Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 that came with my Nikon D3300. Also I have another kit lense that came with it, a Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6.

I want to upgrade to my 18-55. I was thinking in Sigma 17-50 f/2.8, which can go a little more wide with the 17mm and a constant aperture of 2.8, so i shoot better Bokeh and background blur. This Sigma lense cost $369. I’m thinking to sell my kit lense (18-55)

Should I do the upgrade? It is really an upgrade? will be worth it? is there a better choice over my 18-55? I want it to be wide for landscape, but with a low aperture for portraits.


(Shreedhar Inamdar) #2

My two bit:

  1. If you shoot in Manual mode, then having constant aperture is of great use. (Otherwise, you have to constantly remember to change the settings as you zoom in /out to get a better composition. )
  2. Getting 25.5 mm lens instead of 27mm may not make that much of a difference (I am taking into account the crop factor of your camera).


I am using this lens on a Canon, besides the kit 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 that I have bought with my previous camera. “A little more wide” is nice, but not substantial. The lens also seems to be a little sharper, but, again, not really substantially.

As expected, being faster is the main advantage of this tool, especially in low light, indoors etc. I find it a nice all-around relatively cheap lens, using it more than the Canon’s kit one. The decision could be tricky, but I think that the price is quite compelling, unless you choose something considerably better and more expensive.

I must add that I am not a photographer and my opinion is completely arbitrary. Be well!

(David Wilson) #4

I have also bought this Sigma lens to replace to kit lens. I am very pleased with it. It is the lens I use most and leave on the camera. I also use a good prime lens for portraits. I have collected a couple of performance charts for the lens from dxomark.com and the user guide in this pdf.

(Flössie) #5

It’s a no-brainer: Buy it, you won’t regret. That’s what I experienced when switching from the kit lens to a Tamron 17-50 2.8 (today, I’d also take the Sigma due to some flaws in the Tamron). What really makes the difference is the wider aperture. Nowadays, I often prefer the manual Samyang 35 1.4 over the Tamron because of its stunning results, but it’s not so flexible, of course.

(John) #6

I mostly shoot Oly M 4/3 these days and sometimes a Canon crop. When I used the Nikon D7000 I bought the twin lens kit but sold the 18-55 and replaced it with the 18-105mm - a much better gp lens that’s ideal for walk about etc. Some people refer to lenses like that as a body cap as it spends a long time on the camera. The 18-55 sold easily as unused. At the time if I remember correctly the 18-105 was the kit lens when the kit just came with one.


(Gord) #7

Yep, my D7000 came with the 18-105 mm as the kit lens.


Had a similar question a few years ago (Canon 18-55), and went for a Sigma 17-70 2.8/4. Not as much bokeh but a bit more reach. in any case, yes, this is usually a noticeable improvement over the kit lens.

You will make very little money with your kit lens. Keep it until you change the camera body (then sell old camera with its kit lens), of for these occasions where you don’t want to risk your more expensive lens.