nikon lenses: 18-105 VR v sigma 17-70

ok i know i should post on nikonions and i will but wondered what people here thought. Got the original 18-55 lense on d40 but already hankering after something else, had been looking at 18-105 vr which ive used in shop and been impressed then someone on here said theyre selling their sigma 17-70 which after having a look seems very nice too-poss better in low light with f2.8 and less barrel distortion but obviously more limited range. opinions and ideas welcome, also if looking at the sigma might be as well looking at the nikon 18-70! anyway

I’ve got the 17-70 sigma lens (in EOS fit). It’s excellent, perfect range for mountain biking I find. Also it is very sharp. And a bargain. What more do you need to know! Focuses quite quickly for a non USM as well.

yeah had a look and it seems really nice, f2.8 would be cool. just need to make sure it auto focuses on a d40…

Apparently so:

http://www.bristolcameras.co.uk/p-sigma-17-70mm-f2-8-4-5-dc-macro-hsm-lens.htm

I’ve ordered from Bristol Cameras before and they were good – they do cheap (ish) sigma UV filters too…

ta, theres someone selling one on this forum too…

not sure how good an upgrade it would be over the kit 18-55 tbh but might have a play in a shop and see. the 18-105 was a nice range but seems like the sigma wins out closer to 18

I’ve got a 20-40 Sigma EX for Canon. It’s not particularly sharp though. After using L glass I wouldn’t bother with Sigma again, though of course I might just have a lousy copy.

I got one to upgrade from the canon 18-55 that came with my 30d. The improvement was ridiculous – that said the Nikon kit lens is meant to be half decent isn’t it, as opposed to the canon kit lens which is widely considered to be sh1t.

Richpips – they vary, I’ve had a few. The 17-70 is within a gnats chuff of being as sharp as my 70-200 F4L (one of the sharper L lenses), whereas the 70-200mm F2.8 Ex I had for a little while (before getting the canon) was very sharp at F4 but very soft at 2.8 (hence I got the canon which weighed half as much). I also had a 28-80 sigma on a film camera, which was somewhere between the two. My mate also has a 17-70 and that’s just as sharp as my one (the reviews on the web also say it’s sharp) – that said, I’d never buy a lense without testing it first…

I got one to upgrade from the canon 18-55 that came with my 30d.

A rubbish lens for sure.

I’d never buy a lense without testing it first…

I’ve rarely tested a lens before I’ve bought one, and in my experience, inside, or just out side a shop isn’t the place to affirm a lens’s extreme qualities.

hmm so where/how do you test a lense before buying? guess that rules out ebay buying