Still quite new to the whole photography scene so please forgive some of my naivity.
I noticed on another post that somebody mentioned the Nikon 24-70mm (assumed f2.8) lens to go with the D300.
Since I'm looking to invest in a D300 as the next step up the ladder (only when the price comes down coz of D700) I was thinking of adding this lens with it..... as I'm currently using my D40 with the twin lens kit.
..... looking around I notice that the Sigma lens is about a quarter of the price of the Nikon. Even I know this is a pretty vast difference considering the main aspects of these lenses are the same.
Does anybody know if the difference really does justify the cost? I also appreciate some people have differing opinions on other makes of lenses.
IMO the Sigma 24-60 is a better lens than the 24-70 and I would actually get a Tamron 28-75 if I couldn't afford the Nikon, despite the loss of 4mm at the wide end. The Tamron is a superb lens for the money. Go to the alternate gear forum for a very recent post on the Tammy vs Sigma. I posted some shots their.
i have owned a fews sigma lenses and for the most part for price they are well worth their price. there is 1 sigma that i find trumps most of the market. the 150mm f2.8 macro. this lens is outstanding.
a personal note on the 24-70 nikon. currently it has no peer on the market. i also have canon gear and have their 24-70/2.8 not even close in my opinion
That 4x price buys you a lot, whether it's worth it to you, is another question entirely.
For the Nikon.
- Faster and more accurate focus - especially in low light. Now if Sigma would just make an HSM version ...
- Unbelievably sharp from 2.8 on up - seriously, I run a "0 sharpening" profile in the camera and almost never have to apply any sharpening. It's just ridiculous.
- Amazing color.
- Lovely bokeh.
- 77mm filter vs 82mm for the Sigma. 82's are harder to find, and often a good bit more expensive.
For the Sigma.
- A bit shorter and lighter. (The Nikkor is long ... )
You might want to expand your search to cover the Tamron 28-75 or 17-50. I've had both, they're nice lenses. As nice as the Nikon, no, but very nice for sub $400 (or whatever inflated amount they bone you poor Brits for).
adamherne wrote:
Still quite new to the whole photography scene so please forgive some of my naivity.
I noticed on another post that somebody mentioned the Nikon 24-70mm (assumed f2.8) lens to go with the D300.
Since I'm looking to invest in a D300 as the next step up the ladder (only when the price comes down coz of D700) I was thinking of adding this lens with it..... as I'm currently using my D40 with the twin lens kit.
..... looking around I notice that the Sigma lens is about a quarter of the price of the Nikon. Even I know this is a pretty vast difference considering the main aspects of these lenses are the same. ...Show more →
According to Photozone tests, the Nikkor is phenomenally sharp whereas the Sigma is merely pretty good.
Those two lenses are in different zip codes of performance. NO HSM motor on the Sigma in the first place. Wide open (especially at the wide end) it is anything by great. Not so of the Nikkor, which wide open is great across its entire range (mine anyway). I tried a Sigma when it came out. It initially had some focus chip issues and they recognized that (much to Sigma's credit) and changed them out. They simply aren't in the same league in any way shape or form. The Tamron at least comes into the same basic ballpark provided you get a stellar copy (which takes evaluation believe me....been there done that). There is no free lunch, but the Tamron is about as close as you get to one.
I would rely on Photo Zone reviews and then get the best lens you can afford. As most have said, the Nikon 24-70 is in a class of its own. I use this lens for probably 70% of my shooting. It is well built, which makes it a bit heavy, but, worth the money.
Good luck, look forward to hearing which lens you ultimately buy.
I use the Nikon 24-70 on the D300 and love it, but most seem to prefer the focal length of the 17-55. In that range, there is the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 which receives excellent reviews around here and can save you a lot of money over the Nikon. If you are not planning on springing for an FX sensor someday (or supporting a film system like I am) then buying DX lenses isn't a bad idea or waste of money.
Don't get me wrong - I don't have any problems with the 24-70, but if you look at my profile you might see why. I have the 12-24 and 17-35 (among others) to cover the wide end. If you don't have something like that (such as Tokina's excellent 12-24 at half the cost of the Nikon and nearly its equivalent - some say it is better) then you might find the 24-70 limiting. On the Nikon side, the 17-55 is significantly cheaper than the 24-70. It is limited to being used with DX sensor cameras if you don't want vignetting at the extreme ends, but if that is the cameras you are using it with then it doesn't matter.
Everyone's shooting style is different, so the 24-70 might fit you better. Keep in mind that the 17-55 on a DX camera gives the same field of view as a 25-82 on an FX camera due to the smaller sensor size effectively croppping every shot. Check them both out and see what meets your needs.
