Sigma 24-70 vs Nikon 24-70

L

Lukeeee1990

Messages
821
Name
Luke
Edit My Images
Yes
To be more specific,

Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR IF...blah blah blah

vs.

Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM (the better one)

Now aside from the sigma missing it's very good OS system, what are the other major differences in these 2 lens's? Except the price?

I know the OS does make the price of lens's jump up but rightly so I really rate it

I've recently bought the 70-200 2.8 OS and I personally can't see how the nikon can be 900 quid better, except that I hear it performs better with TC's

Very interested in this debate, I would like the nikon as it has the VR...currently have 16-85 VR holding this space in my cam bag at the moment...I need the 2.8 since having used the 70-200

Cheers

Luke
 
The Nikon model does not have VR either.
 
It's all about the image quality, Luke. I've got the Siggy 24-70 and love it, it's hardly ever off my D90. Having used and seen the images from the Nikon though, they are worlds apart.

The Nikon version is the one lens I would absolutely love but is way out of my price range.
 
I've got the Sigma version and really rate it, I've no experience of the Nikon so can't really comment

The Nikon one ought to be better being as its twice as much, whether its twice as good i'm not sure
 
I've had the Tamron 28-75, which was very good - until I was blown away by the Nikon 24-70. There's no contest, and certainly no going back.
I did have the 28-70 nikon, which is also superb, but the 24-70 has a useful extra bit of width.
 
I have both and the difference is significant and noticable. First of all, bulid and weight, the nikon just feels indestructable. Image quality is noticably better and the only place where the Sigma wins is focusing distance, my version is much better at close up stuff because it does have some macro functionality, so on that basis alone, I will be keeping it along side the Nikon.
 
Yv said:
I have both and the difference is significant and noticable. First of all, bulid and weight, the nikon just feels indestructable. Image quality is noticably better and the only place where the Sigma wins is focusing distance, my version is much better at close up stuff because it does have some macro functionality, so on that basis alone, I will be keeping it along side the Nikon.
Click to expand...

Now that's just showing off :lol:
 
Why not try and find a copy of The Beast. Nikkor 28-70 2.8. Discontinued but still an outstanding lens. If you can live with 28mm at the wide end. They come up around £6-700.
 
I have a sigma and really want a nikon. I've noticed in the time that I've had the sigma you can see the wear, where as a friends nikon which is twice as old and has had similar useage looks like new.

The main reason I want the nikon version is the lens hood... It looks cooler!! And I hate using lenses that extend when zooming in/out (yes I know the nikon does extend, but its inside the lens hood)

The sigma will do for the time being, until I can raise the cash for the nikon :)

(Waits for a bashing)
 
The IQ of the Nikon is far far better than the Sigma but if that's worth the extra is only a decision you can make.

As the saying goes, a luxury once sampled becomes a necessity...
 
I would like the nikon out of the 2 to be honest, as it really does sound like it's IQ is something else...however the 16-85 that it was going to replace has saved it self by today giving quite a performance!

Here's the pics for those interested:

5967314981_0f2646eb3f_z.jpg


5967778500_63d8b3f2bb_z.jpg


The optics are astounding! And this was without the use of a CPL - check those skies!

Minimal editing...just some cloning and a little extra contrast

thanks for those who contributed to this thread but I think i'll hold out...as this lens also offers almost wide angle facilities as it goes to 16mm...which is surprisingly wide even on a crop sensor like mine
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top