So I was stupid enough to sell my 24-70 last summer. I also sold 14-24 and replaced them both with Nikon 17-35. After shooting 2 weddings I realized that was a mistake, but somehow I got trough the season. Now I was thinking of getting 24-70 back, but Nikon comes out with the new 24...
Question: Any of you shot with both Nikon and Sigma 24-70? I'm hoping if there's no BIG difference, get a SIGMA 24-70 and Nikon 24 f/1.4... I shoot weddings 99%.
Unless you want to start from scratch, you might consider the very excellent campanion to the 17-35, the venerable 35-70 f2.8. This lens was introduced with the 17-35 f2.8 as part of the professional series a generation back. This was my "go to" lens before I replaced it with the Nikon 24-70 f2.8. I don't think you would be giving up much with the 35-70 f2.8. Get a good used one for about $450 and have room to spare for a nice used prime.
I've shot with several copies of each. At f4 I really don't see any difference, but found the Sigma softer at f2.8, which I'd assume might be critical for your work.
I shot them both. I found the Nikon sharper wide open by a decent margin. I'm not a sharpness hound, but it was enough to go to the Nikon.
I wanted to like the Sigma better, I like the way it handled better, being fatter, but shorter at wide angle. But in the end, it's the performance that counted for me and the Nikon is awesome.
The problem with Sigma is that there is such copy variation with the 24-70mm. I have a stellar copy, but when I hear the complaints it's clear others do not. I've not seen a head to head with the Nikon, but I would expect superior IQ with the Nikon for the price differential. My copy is sharp wide open, but it took more than one try to get it...
I really like my 35-70 .. It was the first lens I bought new. It is unforgivingly tack sharp. It's a terrific lens that I use as a back up to my 17-55mm or my D300s if I ever have to send either in, as it is beautiful on a D700 also.
The Sigma I shot was sharp at F2.8 but the build quality, and AF speed is inferior to the Nikkor. The Nikkor 24-70 F2.8 even looked sharper thru the viewfinder. With the introduction of the 16-35 F40 VR I'm not really sure what Nikkon is doing. Why didn't they put the VR in the 24-70 where we needed it 18-24 months ago?
Since the 24-70 is so new I would assume Nikon would only add a F4 24-70 VR to their line. It you are serious shooter you will be delighted with the Nikkor 24-70 which will be durable and preserve your resale. If and when Nikon introduces a F2.8 24-70 it will cost a LOT more.
I tried out two different Sigma 24-70 HSM's before finally settling on the Nikon 24-70 f2.8. The quality difference between the two is more than the price would suggest. The sigmas I had couldn't even focus properly - and I don't mean front/rear focus issues, which each of them had, I mean, it couldn't determine focus accurately for any given object - the lens would hunt for as long as you held down the AF button. Once the Nikon finds focus, it stops.
At half the asking price I would pick up he Sigma for use as a MF lens. It has great optics and a nice feel to it, but the electronics are flaky. If you do buy it, make sure it's from a place with a generous return/exchange police. It might take you a few tries to get a good sample.
I have the Sigma 24-70 HSM and it's tack sharp and focus is excellent after it was sent to Sigma to have it's AF dialed-in. I have never tried the Nikon version but for double the price I don't anticipate I'll ever be interested in forking over the money.
My copy is sharp wide open, but it took more than one try to get it...