Nikon 17-35mm versus Sigma 15-30 (with Fuji S2)

I have them both and love them both. However, after 2 days of serious testing on a Fuji S2 Pro  I have arrived at the following conclusions - from a sampling of only one lens each. All test shots were on a tripod, shot at 12 meg raw, and converted with EX. All shots were taken at the same time of day, and in sunlight, by simply switching lenses. Focal lengths were matched perfectly by matching area covered. Because of this, 15mm on the Sigma and 35mm on the Nikon could not be compared. However, sharpness of the Sigma at 15mm was outstanding, especially at f11. The sharpness of the Nikon at 35mm was also outstanding, with f8 being the sharpest.

SHARPNESS: This is going to be hard to take for some. At 17mm the Nikon was sharper from f2.8 through f8. However, the Sigma was shaper at f11 and f16 with f22 being a draw. We are talking small differences here. At 30mm the lenses were pretty much identical from f8 to f22, with Nikon again getting the edge from f2.8 to f5.6. Hmmmm. The stories were true! Sigma has one heck of a lens!
COLOR: The Nikon was more natural with better saturation. The Sigma had a strong warm tone (read yellow).
CONTRAST: The Nikon had considerably more contrast.
VIGNETTING: Nikon had less. Enough to see. Sigma was a little hotter in the center.
FLARE: Whoops. The Nikon was far superior. When any sunlight hits the protruding front element of the Sigma, flare becomes ugly! On the other hand, I was able to include the sun with the Nikon with only two visible and small sun flares.
BOKEH: Nikon was smooth and natural while Sigma was a little stretched.
ASTIGMATISM: Both lenses showed almost none!
DISTORTION: About equal. Amazing. The Sigma favored 17mm while the Nikon slightly favored 30mm.
BUILD: Of course the Nikon wins here. Although physically smaller than the Sigma it weighs more. Probably due to the glass.
PRICE: $560 verses $1,360 roughly.

Recommendations: For the average shooter, the Sigma will probably be an excellent choice (just don't shoot into the sun)! The Nikon, on the other hand, certainly is a pro lens in ALL respects. As it has legendary sharpness it is amazing to see the Sigma do so well. I did make a 24" x 36" print from the Sigma at 15mm at f11. Stunning sharpness. However, the Nikon STAYS on my camera as my first choice! The 15-30 will be used for its extremely sharp 15mm focal length.

Remember, the Fuji S2 has a cropping ratio of 1.5 so only the center 2/3 of both lenses were used. If full frame were used I am sure the Sigma would not have fared as well. In any case, the Sigma makes a good choice for DSLR photographers who can't afford the big bucks for the Nikon.

Sure hope this helps a few folks. It was a good 16 hours work total. I would love to hear from anyone else that has actually done a side by side CRITICAL comparison. Lenses vary within models.

Here is a sample using the 17-35 hand held at 17mm with ISO 200. I have included a blown up small section to show detail and minimal color fringing. The small section is equivalent to a 5 foot wide mural!

Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro

Although versions of this legendary lens have been around for over 15 years, the lens performance is still as good as anything out there. Strong words, I know. Having owned the Nikon 60mm f2.8 and 105mm f2.8 I see very little difference. At one time Camera 35, now defunct, claimed it was the highest resolving lens they had ever tested.  I am not sure I would go that far, but it is an awesome lens for the money. Here is an example of the resolution at 10' and f11. The first shot is full frame, the second is a 100% at 72 dpi which is equal to a 48" high print. Shot taken in studio with Fuji S2, ISO 200. 

This sort of resolution pretty much carries from f4 to f16. There is some corner and edge softness at f2.8 and a little less resolution at f22 and f32 (yes, it goes to f32 but bumps into some diffraction limiting on resolution).

Full frame

100% crop at 72 dpi 

Tamron f2.8 28-75mm

Here is a sample taken with the Tamron f2.8 28-75 taken at ISO 100 using the Nikon D200.  (75mm at f11 and 1/60 second with fill flash) Click on for a 100% version.The Tamron 28-75 has proven to ne an outstanding performer. At f2.8 it is a little soft, especially in the corners, but by f4 things greatly improve and by f5.6 the lens is very, very sharp, rivaling the sharpness of the outstanding Nikon f2.8 24-70. This version of the lens used the D200 in-camera focusing motor so focusing was only a little slower than my Nikon f2.8 24-70.

An interesting side note is that at f11 (the aperture for this photo) the lens is actually experiencing some diffraction limiting on the smaller pixels of the D200. And yet, it is almost impossible to detect.

Conclusion:

PRO - Excellent sharpness from f5.6 to f11. Very good at f4 and acceptable at f2.8. Light weight and small. Very good flare control. Great value!

CON - Not as solid as the f2.8 Nikon 24-70. Some air pumping on zooming which might limit its use in an unfriendly environment (dust, rain). Not as sharp as the Nikon f2.8 at f2.8 and f4. Focuses a little slower than the Nikon f2.8 24-70.

Nikon F2.8 105mm

This portrait was taken with the Nikon f2.8 105mm VR at ISO 100 with the Nikon D200.  (105mm at f11 and 1/60 second with fill flash). This lens was tested on the Nikon D200 body so it's cropped field of view would be equal to a 158mm lens.  I found this lens to be exceptionally sharp and very well built. The VR is very helpful when used with a DX body (like the Nikon D200 or D300). I found that instead of having to hand hold at 1/160 of a second I was able to easily use 1/40 with consistently good results. Heck, I was even getting a 50% success rate with 1/20. The bad part about this VR is that it loses effectiveness as you move into the macro or micro mode. In fact at 1:1 magnification it is totally useless.

PRO -  The newest Nikon f2.8 105mm is all it claims to be. Excellent resolution from f2.8 to f16 (although when used with the DX Nikon bodies there is some diffraction limiting starting at f11 - although it would be hard to detect in this photo.) It is solidly built and focuses rapidly for a macro 105. It does have an option to limit the focus range to prevent excessive focusing time.

CON - This is a heavy lens! Solid, but heavy. The VR becomes less and less effective the closer you get. That's too bad, because hand held macro photography is almost impossible anyway.

Nikon f4 16-35mm

(coming 1st week in March 2010)

Well, this is a preliminary report as I think I might have a bad copy. This wall is one continuous color but is rendered in a very weird way by this lens. I just finished testing this lens and generally agree that it is very sharp - up to a point (more on that later). However, my sample had a serious problem. Shooting a medium tan/brown building side in direct sun I was amazed at the corner color shift at f4 on 35mm and less so on 16mm. Using the Info tool in PS CS4 I went from 194-192-188 at f11 to 184-194-205 at f4 (same identical area). That's a very noticeable color shift!!! This was on the left side mostly, but also on the right side. Then testing 16mm I got the same weird results. There was some vignetting, as would be expected, but not this color shift! I will call Nikon and then try another sample.

35mm at f4                                         35mm at f8                                        16mm at f4                                      16mm at f16

The second sample pretty much had the identical problems, except slightly less so.  Frustrated, I opted for the Nikon 14-24. What a huge difference.