Ive been stuck on this for like two weeks now and honestly I keep going back and forth on what makes the most sense for my D5600. Im heading out to Oregon next month for a road trip so I really want something better than the basic 18-55 kit lens but my budget is pretty firm at $250 maybe $300 if I find a good deal on ebay.
So I was thinking about the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G since everyone says its the must-have for DX users. My logic was that it's tiny and great for low light but then I realized it might be too tight for the landscape shots I want to get at the coast. That led me to looking at the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 used. It seems like a beast of a lens and it replaces the kit range but im worried it might be too heavy for hiking all day? Then there is the Nikon 10-20mm AF-P which is super wide and within budget but obviously slower.
Basically I am torn between:
- the 35mm prime for the bokeh and sharpness
- the sigma 17-50 for the versatility of a constant f/2.8
- the wide angle 10-20 for the scenery
I dont know if I should prioritize the low light speed or the wide view. Does anyone still use the Sigma on these older bodies or is it too clunky compared to the newer AF-P glass...
Honestly, I've been super happy with the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM for years. Its heavier than your kit lens, but that constant f/2.8 aperture is a game changer for Oregons moody light. You get landscape versatility at 17mm and nice portraits at 50mm. It usually stays on my camera all day, so the weight is totally worth not having to swap glass constantly.
