User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  1
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Sigma/Tamron ~24-70 F2.8 vs Nikon 24-70

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    08 May 2010
    Location
    Nanuet, New York
    Posts
    643
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Sigma/Tamron ~24-70 F2.8 vs Nikon 24-70

    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.

    Cheers.
    John
    Nikon D800, D700, Nikkor 14-24 F2.8, 24-70mm F2.8, 50mm F1.8D, 70-200mm F2.8 VRII, Manfrotto 190XB with Q5 PM Head,
    SB-900,600, portable strobist setup & Editing on an Alienware M14x with LR4 and CS5 and a Samsung XL2370 Monitor.

    Stormchasing isn't a hobby...its an obsession.
    For my gallery and photography: www.emanatephotography.com

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    14 Jan 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    148
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    Website - www.dylanbenton.com.au

    Equipment -
    Canon 5dMk2 | Canon 40D | Canon 17-40L f4 | Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG Macro | Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS II USM |

  3. #3
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,128
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    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.
    "It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro

    Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
    Nikon, etc!

    RICK
    My Photography

  4. #4
    Member DJT's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Jul 2009
    Location
    Werrington, NSW
    Posts
    151
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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

  5. #5
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,864
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    Andrew
    Nikon, Fuji, Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and too many other bits and pieces to list.



  6. #6
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    08 May 2010
    Location
    Nanuet, New York
    Posts
    643
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    13 Dec 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,051
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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
    Last edited by bigdazzler; 29-06-2010 at 6:09am.
    Hi Im Darren

    www.darrengrayphotography.com

    SONY A850 (FF)] + GRIP | SONY A350 (APS-C) + GRIP | SONY NEX-5 +16 2.8 + 18-55 E-MOUNT LENSES | CZ 85 1.4 | 50 1.4 | 28-75 2.8 | 70-200 2.8 | 2 x 42AMs | 24" imac | LR | CS4 | + loads of other junk


  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    13 Dec 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,051
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DJT View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    Always learning Ionica's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Mar 2010
    Location
    Blue Mountains
    Posts
    1,785
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    Constructive critique of my photos is welcome and appreciated.


  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    14 Jun 2010
    Location
    Brunswick
    Posts
    230
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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
    Nikon User
    Nikon D300
    Walk-around lens:Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S G VR1; Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 AF-S G
    Macro (the lazy type): Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 (kitlens); reverse ring adaptor
    Strobing: SB900; Flashwave trigger III, generic gorilla pod

    FLICKR http://www.flickr.com/photos/joeyvaldezjr/

  11. #11
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    08 May 2010
    Location
    Nanuet, New York
    Posts
    643
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ended up going for the Nikon 24-70. It was definitely worth saving for.

  12. #12
    Member rick75's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 May 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    08 Jan 2012
    Location
    Mt Morgan
    Posts
    140
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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?

  14. #14
    Who let the rabble in? Lance B's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    7,623
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What about the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 which has VC, Vibration Reduction. From all accounts it's an excellent lens:
    http://www.tamron.com/en/photolens/d...peed/a007.html

    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:
    http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/789-tamron2470f28fx

    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!
    Last edited by Lance B; 05-04-2013 at 1:31pm.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    13 Mar 2012
    Location
    Flinders View
    Posts
    435
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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
    Cheers,
    Ian

    All the 7's: D700, D7000, D70

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    08 Jan 2012
    Location
    Mt Morgan
    Posts
    140
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    13 Mar 2012
    Location
    Flinders View
    Posts
    435
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Might pay for you to give Nikon a look at it. Mine is as sharp as.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    07 Apr 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    316
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Epoc View Post
    Might pay for you to give Nikon a look at it. Mine is as sharp as.
    Likewise.

  19. #19
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    7,701
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Miss Jane View Post
    ...... 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.
    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •