Guidenet
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #5 · Sigma vs Tamron (70-200 2.8 and 24/28-70 2.8)... vs nikon 24-120 on FF | |
Things might be changing, but I've often found that Tamron usually doesn't have quite the build quality but is usually optically slightly better. Sigma's new 24-70 f/2.8 HSM might be a big improvement.
You might also look into past Nikkors in that range. I recently purchased a Like New copy of Nikons excellent 35-70 f/2.8 AFD lens for my D700. This lens in AF and AFD was built until 2006 as Nikon's pro-glass lens and still cherished today, being lighter and smaller than the Nikkor 28-70 or 24-70 AFS lenses that replaced it. I can vouch that this lens is incredible with regards to color, contrast and sharpness.
There are two downsides. The 35-70 f/2.8 can flare a bit if aimed at the sun and the price used has steadily been rising with the cost of new pro-glass soaring. Where this lens could be picked up for a song a year or so ago, it is now selling for between $500 and $750 depending on the quality and accessories included. But, even at these higher prices, it is truly a bargain considering the 24-70 f/2.8 at around $1900 street and the 28-70 f/2.8 (The Beast) selling at around $1000-$1300 used lately. I feel that it's equivalent of the latter and close to the former with respect to optics. Some folks have said it can have a slight back or front focus issue with the D700, easily fixed by fine tuning, but mine is dead on.
The 35-70 f/2.8 AFD also has a macro feature that is not really macro but will get you close in a pinch enough for flowers and such. The macro feature is only available at 35mm and is manual focus only, but that's better than no macro feature in that including it doesn't detract from its excellent optics for non-macro use.
You might also consider the wonderful Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AFD lens. It has a great following and would also be considered pro-level glass by any measure. IMO, it might be a better choice than either the Sigma or Tamron and a worthy consideration.
One other real bargain to consider might be the Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6. I know it's slower than the f/2.8 models you're considering, but believe me, this lens really is comparable optic wise and includes VRII and the extra 100mm on the long side. Many claim it competes nearly equal to the 70-200 f/2.8 in the range from 70-200mm. There might be a slight decrease in IQ from 200-300, but I think only in the early samples. Mine is excellent all the way out. This is one lens that really shines on the D700 and one that I'd want over either the Sigma or Tamron. I know you'd be giving up 1-2 stops, but gaining excellent VRII and maybe slightly better IQ. With the D700's superb high ISO performance, those one to two stops might not hamper you. It doesn't me. The $550 price makes it a huge bargain.
I took these yesterday with the D700 and 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 AFS VR at 300mm while taking a break at work. It was overcast and pretty dim light so the ISO is up there a bit. The top on of a co-worker was at only 900 ISO, but the bottom was 3200 ISO. I'm not the best photographer, but just wanted to give you some idea of what that lens is capable of.
|
