fast f2.8 lens

badboy1984

badboy1984

Messages
2,529
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

I'm looking for a lens to add to use along with my sigma 70-200 f2.8. Currently use Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM II, Nikon 35mm f1.8 prime and 18-70 f3.5-5.6 AF-S lens. My camera is a D7000.

Most likely i will go for used unless their is some very good offer brand new in the shop or on the internet.

I came down to the following:

Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 HSM
Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 EX DG .... (older one)
Sigma 18-50 f2.8
Tamron 18-50 f2.8

I know the nikon 24-70 f2.8 or the 18-55 f2.8 is very good lens but out of my budget. Can pretty much get the above for under £500 used easily.

If i get the 18-50 i will still get that little wide angle but lose out on the extra 20mm but if i get the 24-70 or 28-70 i will lose out on that little wide angle until i get a wide angle lens.

Whats the advice guys?
 
I'm not a nikon user myself, but the older nikkor 28-70 f/2.8 (aka "the beast") seems to have a superb reputation as a cheaper alternative to the current nikkor 24-70.
 
squishy said:
I'm not a nikon user myself, but the older nikkor 28-70 f/2.8 (aka "the beast") seems to have a superb reputation as a cheaper alternative to the current nikkor 24-70.
Click to expand...

Yeah you are right, those older lens are still like a beast. i.e 80-200 f2.8 nikon.

I don't mind putting the extra cost on the older 28-70 f2.8 if i find one used :)

Since i use a D7000 it doesn't matter about AF-S :)
 
Noone can answer the question but you. The questions you should ask yourself are

- What's my primary genre?
- What is my current standard zoom (18-70mm) lacking?
- Do I really require the f2.8 aperture? Why?
- Do I really require the zoom? Why?
- Does vignette/CA matter much?
- How important is AF speed/accuracy?
- Will I need weather seal?
- What's more important - wide or telephoto end?
- Is this going to last me, or a step gap?

Sometimes, you buy cheap, you buy twice. And since you already have 18-70mm for walkabout, is f2.8 really going to benefit you? You don't have a wide angle for landscape. You don't have a good bright portrait lens. You don't have a macro lens. See where I'm going there? What is having f2.8 standard zoom going to enable you to do that you currently can't? Don't buy a lens just because. Work out what you want to shoot, then choose the lens that will enable you to do just that.

HTH
 
No brainer.

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non VC. Now only £260 brand spanking new at Amazon. Has to be the steal of the century and if I had the pennies I be clicking the (very dangerous) one touch buy button!
 
badboy1984 said:
I know the nikon 24-70 f2.8 or the 18-55 f2.8 is very good lens but out of my budget. Can pretty much get the above for under £500 used easily.
Click to expand...

The 17-55 f/2.8 Nikon can be found secondhand for around £500 if you search. Even if you have to pay a bit more, personally I'd rather (as I did) spend the extra on the Nikon over a Sigma lens, the only other lens in that range that I feel holds a candle to it is, as mentioned above, the Tamron 17-50. Build-quality wise the Nikon is streets ahead of the Tamron, but for less than half the price secondhand the Tamron stacks up well in terms of the quality of image it can produce.

Another reason for opting for the Tamron may be the way it balances on the camera, the Nikon 17-55 is heavy old lump, so you might find it a bit nose heavy on a D7000, the Tamron on the other hand weighs about the same as an empty crisp packet....
 
Sigma 18-50 hsm f2.8 cracking lens and very sharp. I got mine as new for £170
 
There's a new Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS out that doesn't get mentioned very often, I have one and am very impressed with it! The reviews put it on par with the Nikon equivalent, even a little sharper on the wide end.

Being new it's a little on the expensive side at just under £500, but worth it in my opinion vs a second hand Nikon which are usually around the £600 - £650 mark as you also get the peace of mind of the Sigma's 3 year warrantee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top