View Full Version : Sigma/Tamron ~24-70 F2.8 vs Nikon 24-70

28-06-2010, 11:32am
Hi Guys,
I am weighing up my options as I feel I want a mid zoom with a bit of speed, mainly for portrait/candid/wedding..without having to switch as much. Currently have a 50/1.8, 10-20 and a 70-300 on my D300, (in the future I am looking to go for a F2.8 in the 70-200 range) and ideally would like something so I am flexible when shooting relatively close to my subject and as a bit of a walk around (though I do love my nifty). I really like shooting with the 50...but sometimes the situation doesnt allow you to take that few steps forward or back...and sometimes means you miss getting the moment you are after.

Hence I am considering the Sigma 24-70, the Tamron 28-75 or the Nikon 24-70 F2.8. Having read a number of reviews I am still not sure and was hoping that people might be able to offer their personal opinion and experience on any of these lenses and whether they have compared them. Ideally I will be trying each of them but it would make it easier if I had some sort of idea about what to look for in that testing process.


28-06-2010, 12:32pm
ive got the sigma 24-70 (cannon mount) and its a really good bit of bit. to be honest I cant compare with the nikkon lens, but i can vouch for the sigma being good value for money.

the majority of the photos here http://www.flickr.com/photos/44408747@N05/sets/ are snapped with the sigma 24-70.

28-06-2010, 12:51pm
I have the sigma 24-70 and it is the sharpest lens I own. Haven't used the Nikon one so can't compare, but if my copy of the siggy is anything to go by, you can't go wrong with one.

28-06-2010, 1:08pm
I often considered 24-70 & still do. I once owned a Tamron 28-75 (nice lens) but quite often found it not wide enough, so sold it. After a bit of thought I decided on the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.
I guess if I had a wide angle it may be a different thought process.
Have heard lots of good things about the Sigma

I @ M
28-06-2010, 1:41pm
I haven't heard a lot about the current version of the Sigma (HSM focus) but having owned the "old" model for a while on both DX and FX bodies it works very well especially in the lack of CA it exhibits.

The Nikon 24-70 has established itself as a superb lens wherever it has been reviewed --- but at a price premium.

A quick look at a well known Melbourne retailer whose prices are consistently on the highish side shows that they have the "old" Sigma at around $720.00, the new HSM Sigma at around $1200.00 and then another $1,000.00 again for the Nikon.

If money were no object to me I would go straight for the Nikon but I am in no way unhappy with the Sigma we have.

28-06-2010, 1:42pm
Thanks guys...that sharpness was my primary concern with the sigma...I have heard good and bad things...but I absolutely love my 10-20mm. Hence was kinda interested to hear about the comparison to the Nikon (hopefully someone will have used both...big price difference but I find sometimes that means little...I mean the 50mm F1.8 is the best lens I have ever bought...and only costs about $130) The only downside I think might be the 82mm filter size...thats one thing the Nikon is better with conforming to the 77mm standard in most upper range zoom lenses. However the price difference is also a big factor to me...we are talking a $1700 (from where I usuall buy) lens as opposed to around $750 for the sigma....realistically its probably more like $2100 vs $1000 or something like that....and that kind of offsets having to buy more expensive filters.

Look forward to hearing from more people, thanks for the input so far.

29-06-2010, 6:00am
I have the other one you mention, the Tamron 28-75. I use it on FF and 28-75 I find it a really handy focal range for my stuff. I use it in the studio for portraits (sometimes) and it was bolted to the camera the entire time during my recent trip to Thailand, so I find it pretty versatile. On your D300, maybe not quite wide enough ?? Thats up to you I suppose. The long end would be perfect for portraiture, provided youve got a little bit of space to work in.

The lens itself great value for money though. Really nice colour and contrast, super sharp from f4, and more than OK wide open. It is prone to a touch of CA at times though at 2.8. A bit cheaper than the others too.

Ill eventually replace it with the CZ 24-70 but .. with a wedding coming up ... well you know ;)

29-06-2010, 6:11am
After a bit of thought I decided on the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.

I used to have this one too. Fantastic lens. Massive bargain I reckon, just a matter of whether the focal length is suitable.

29-06-2010, 8:01am
I purchased the Sigma lens in early June, so only have limited experience with it, but have had good results so far. Photos 2 and 3 on my post (land and sea scapes - Coxs River morning, 27/6/10) were details taken from the first photo. Hope this is of assistance.

17-08-2010, 12:12am
I've owned the tamron 28-75 and its one of the best bang for your bucks lens but the wide end isn't wide enough for me. Depends on the use of course. But if budget is not a problem, I'd go for the nikon 24-70. I'd say its the best out there at this range. I now use this lens as my main walk around lens

17-08-2010, 12:50pm
Ended up going for the Nikon 24-70. It was definitely worth saving for.

17-08-2010, 8:19pm
I have the sigma, great lens but they do seem to be hit and miss, you either get a good or bad one. I could not justify the cost of the Nikkor lens, enjoy your new toy.

Miss Jane
05-04-2013, 11:31am
I know this is an old thread but I now have the same dilemma, sigma 24-70 or nikon 24-70. I simply can't afford the nikon but unsure if i should go with the sigma or nothing?
I need a full frame lens so I am pretty sure the tamron 17-50 is out as it is a DX lens. Is this right?

Lance B
05-04-2013, 1:26pm
What about the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 which has VC, Vibration Reduction. From all accounts it's an excellent lens:

If I were looking for a lens other than the Nikon version, I would give this serious consideration.

It also gets a good write up on Photozone:

There are 3 pages to peruse through, "Introduction" - "Analysis" - "Samples Images & Verdict"

Get's a very credible 3.5 stars from 5, which is excellent for this class of zoom and the same as what the Nikon gets! It is also a much better score than the Sigma which only gets 2.5 stars but doesn't have VR!

05-04-2013, 3:14pm
How about the new Nikon 24-85 VR? It's not a 2.8 lens, but the VR can make up for that if your shooting a static subject. Great value at $450 grey. I really like mine :)

Miss Jane
05-04-2013, 3:38pm
Epoc, I have the 24-85 and don't like it at all, never got a real nice sharp picture out of it.
Rick, i did see the new tamron and it looks pretty good but still too much for me. There is a second hand sigma for sale for about $500. Probably my only chance at a 24-70 2.8.
Problem is I need/want a couple of lenses can't figure out which one I want the most.

05-04-2013, 8:34pm
Might pay for you to give Nikon a look at it. Mine is as sharp as.

08-04-2013, 4:12pm
Might pay for you to give Nikon a look at it. Mine is as sharp as.


08-04-2013, 5:39pm
...... There is a second hand sigma for sale for about $500. Probably my only chance at a 24-70 2.8.
Problem is I need/want a couple of lenses can't figure out which one I want the most.

Another option for this focal length range is the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.

Whilst it is longer at 28mm vs 24mm, it's not a huge difference in focal length.

This lens can be sharp if used correctly, and brand spanking new is the cheapest of the lot in this lens genre ... usually in the $400 price bracket.

It's small light and a good performer. It has it's quirks, but on an Fx camera it works quite well.