Nikon 24-70mm/2.8G Vs Sigma 24-70mm F2.8

DJMorgan

DJMorgan

Messages
1,105
Name
Daniel
Edit My Images
No
I`m debating getting one of these lenses for my portrait shots, but I see two different lenses offering the same type of qualitys.

Has any body else got these lenses and could maybe suggest which id be better off with?

Money is always an issue so thats why I`m debating going for the sigma

thanks :)
 
if you can stretch to it the Nikon far outperforms the sigma. but if you're not planning on upgrading the full frame soon why not go for the 17-55 f/2.8 instead. Second hand its a bit of a bargain
 
See I`m useless with knowing the difference, whats the difference of 17 - 55mm and the 24 - 70 mm? I wish there was some site that showed you the difference :(
 
Is there any reason why you're discounting the Tamron 28-75? Better than the Sigma, and very cheap. Plus you get an extra 5mm at the long end for portraits. OK the build quality is not great, but they haven't cut corners on the glass bits. My advice would be to try this first before spending several times the amount for not much gain in image quality:

http://www.ffordes.co.uk/product/12033010563781

Under £200, if you don't like it sell it on - but I'm sure you will!
 
DJMorgan said:
See I`m useless with knowing the difference, whats the difference of 17 - 55mm and the 24 - 70 mm? I wish there was some site that showed you the difference :(
Click to expand...

the difference is really in the DX usage for the 17-55, it only works with crop sensor bodies.
 
The nikon 24-70 is like a brand new ferrarri.
The sigma 24-70 is like an old BMW M3

Both do the same thing in basic terms, but one does it better.

The 24-70 lenses are designed for full frame cameras, although they work on DX cameras too.
The 17-55 is purposely designed for a DX camera, and as such is cheaper, lighter and although the build quality wont be quite as good, the image quality will be pretty close.

There are many sites that show the differences, but unless you like looking at charts and numbers, they wont help you.
 
Stupid question but is the D7000 a full frame or? I`m sure my friend said it was the D700?

I dont want to be buying lenses if it isnt the right type e.g DX - D7000? :S
 
Well I use the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 and I really like it, good in low light and produces some excellent sharp images on both my D200 and D700, my only complaint about this lens is the 82mm filter thread.
 
D7000 is not full frame, it's a crop sensor. D700 is full frame. You can use full frame (FX) lenses on the D7000 or any DX camera, but the effective focal length will be multiplied by 1.5.
 
Had the Tamron, but the Nikon 24-70 beats it hands down, and is lovely on my D300
 
The 17-55 is a lovely lens but now over £1000 new. It may make little difference to you but branded lenses (Nikon, Canon, etc) always seem to retain more value than aftermarket ones. So a 17-55 Nikon will always be saleable at a good price should you want to go full frame at a later date

Nick Froome
 
TCR4x4 said:
The 24-70 lenses are designed for full frame cameras, although they work on DX cameras too.
The 17-55 is purposely designed for a DX camera, and as such is cheaper, lighter and although the build quality wont be quite as good, the image quality will be pretty close.
Click to expand...

Would agree with most of this except the bit about build quality. I really think the 17-55 is built every bit as well as the 24-70. It actually only weighs about 100g less too. It really is a 24-70 for DX users in every regard. Damn expensive compared to every single other DX lens I can think of though.

Regarding the original question. I looked into this a little while ago when I moved to full frame (went for the Nikon 28-70, soon to be replaced with a 24-70). The Nikon 24-70 is undoubtedly the 'best' in terms of build, AF and IQ. It's drawbacks are cost and weight.

The Sigma 24-70 seems to come in many flavours. I never really got to the bottom of which ones were the ones to have. I know one or two are quite poorly regarded which is probably why you see such a massive variation in used values.

The Tamron 28-75 mentioned above seem to be worth a look as is the Tokina alternative. There is also the Nikon 28-70 and 35-70 to consider.

One last thing, have you thought about a set of primes. The £900 that a 24-70 would cost, could probably buy a 24mm 2.8, a 35mm 1.8, a 50mm 1.8 and an 85mm 1.8...
 
Last edited:
bolide said:
The 17-55 is a lovely lens but now over £1000 new.

Nick Froome
Click to expand...

gad-westy said:
Would agree with most of this except the bit about build quality. I really think the 17-55 is built every bit as well as the 24-70. It actually only weighs about 100g less too. It really is a 24-20 for DX users in every regard. Damn expensive compared to every single other DX lens I can think of though.
Click to expand...

2nd hand the 17-55 always looks a bit of a bargain. They tend to go for between £600-£700
 
For me I prefer using the 24-70 focal range rather than a 17-50 on a Dx body. I just prefer the further reach at 70mm, which is an equivalent of 105 on FF. I'm using a sigma now... Would definitely want to go for a Nikon 24-70 if I can afford it. Or try the new Tamron 24-70 vc which has yet to be available yet :)
 
yslim88 said:
For me I prefer using the 24-70 focal range rather than a 17-50 on a Dx body. I just prefer the further reach at 70mm, which is an equivalent of 105 on FF.
Click to expand...

Totally agree....but then I don't do much landscape photography etc.
 
I have the Sigma, I get some amazingly sharp shots in the studio (or did when I used it, tend to shoot primes now) and could never justify the step up to the Nikon. I suspect it will be better, but I genuinely dont believe it would make a notable difference to my work.

Perhaps better when focusing in dark/low light which I dont often have to do.
 
I have a sigma 24-70 and wish I had bought the Nikon. Simply based on the lens hood :) no, if you can afford the Nikon, get it!!
 
If you go sigma get the new one not the old one like I have . It's not very sharp and is a pain in the ass with glare and flare I'm always having to tape extra card etc to the hood and the 82mm filter thread is a pain too . I'm looking to go to the 17-55 as I can't afford a 24-70 Nikon yet but I did use one in college and it was amazingly sharp bright accurate and distortion free .
 
gad-westy said:
The Tamron 28-75 mentioned above seem to be worth a look as is the Tokina alternative. There is also the Nikon 28-70 and 35-70 to consider.
Click to expand...

what's the old nikon 28-70 like in comparison to the tamron and what are the used cost on each?
 
The 28-70 'the beast' is pretty big and heavy, especially with hood, comopared to the newer Nikon 24-70. However image quality is stunning and almost 3D, something that never seems to be achieved by my Tamron 28-75, even though I consider that a good one. The Tamron though is smaller, lighter and hence more convenient, with less to worry about in terms of value too! I'd definately recommend the Tamron over the old Sigma 24-70 ex dg although tbh most of the difference with them all is at the wider appertures. Get to about f8, and it's not always clear which lens you are on in many situations - the studio being one of them I'd guess from my experience, hmm...maybe...the Nikons are exceptionally sharp. :)
 
I've got The Beast. 28mm for me is plenty wide enough. Yes it's big enough to fight your way out of a bar with.
But it's super sharp, great colour and contrast. Fast to focus, I'll never change it, I'll get another when funds allow in case it breaks beyond repair...yes I love it that much.
If it helps I use it on my D700, never used any other standard zoom.
 
p1tse said:
what's the old nikon 28-70 like in comparison to the tamron and what are the used cost on each?
Click to expand...

Not tried the Tamron I'm afraid. The Nikon 28-70 is a superb lens though. I have the Nikon 24-70 now and I'm struggling to see any improvement to justify the cost difference. They're both big lumps to carry around though!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top