Sigma.EX. 24-70mm 2.8.DG VS Nikon 24-70mm 2.8

Hi All,

What is the differernce between Sigma.EX. 24-70mm 2.8.DG VS Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 why Sigmas are very cheap compair to nikon?

I am a wedding photographer and was going to invest in 28-70mm 2.8 Nikon but thought i might get 24-70mm to go with my new awaiting D3

Thanks,

--
2 x D200
1 x 17-55mm 2.8
1 x 18-200mm VR
1 x 50mm 1.4
1 x SB 800

I have only used the 24-70 on a Pentax and had horrible results. Build quality is good and at times, it was sharp but I had to send the lens in 3 times before I got a good sample which still was nothing stellar. I think the Nikon will be a great lens but will the cost be worth it?

You are spending alot of money on a very professional camera. Why are you trying to save a few bob on the lens? Read this review and forget about the Sigma (f.y.i. I like some Sigma lenses. I just wouldn't use them if I could afford a D3!).
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_02.html#AFS24-70FX

I have the sigma and think it's a great lens. However i've not used in a wedding enviroment so can't comment on it's suitability for your needs. Also haven't tried the nikkor so can't compare the two. I just know i'm happy with the lens i have.

--
D200
D70
Sigma 24-70 2.8
Nikkor 18-200 VR
etc

I think it is a pretty sharp lens...big though.
Boris
No usm applied at 24mm at f2.8 (color balance is my fault not the lens)





64mm at f8 usm applied





--
Stubborn and ardent clinging to one's opinion is the best proof of stupidity.
Michel de Montaigne

http://public.fotki.com/borysd/
http://www.pbase.com/borysd

it was ok for weddings, but I prefered the nikkor 24-85d, then I preffered the tamron 28-75 which is heaps better IMO.

I think the difference between the sigma and nikon 24-70 will be a LOT more than the difference between the nikkor 17-55 and the tamron 17-50. That is I think there will be a better value case for getting the nikkor in this instance.
Its all speculation though till they start hitting the streets.

Hi Andrew..

I've been toying with the idea of the few lens you have mentioned here for the past couple weeks, trying to decide which one to purchase...

You said that you prefered the nikkor 24-85d,
But that you also likedthe tamron 28-75
And that the sigma wasnt something you were found of.

I think it's interesting...while doing my research only one other person had mentioned the tamron, i looked into it, and it has peeked my interest as well. So your 'review' has caught my attention.

In your opioion is the price difference between the nikkor 24-85 vs the tamron 28-75 a good one?

would it be (in quality) similar to compairing the nikkor 17-55 and the tamron
17-50.

How do you find the tamrom 28-75 holds up
Lights, Camera, Action
http://flickr.com/photos/tinakerry/

Never could afford the Nikkor 28-70/2.8 but I did at once have the Sigma 24-70/2.8. The Sigma is terribly badly proportioned; it is very heavy in the front. The colors and tones are very poor (I do a lot of street shooting). Sharpness wise, as others have said, nothing stellar. I think I can get the same if not better sharpness with the 18-200VR than I did with the EX Sigma (provided it is the same focal length and f no.). I don't think Sigma makes good glass. I've had a number of Sigma lenses over the years and have kept not one; they were all ultra disappointing. Now I'm all Nikkor.

If you want to spend relatively few resources on pro glass, get the 35-70/2.8 Nikkor. It is absolutely stellar for the price you can get one today, if you can live with the range.

--
http://www.flickrleech.net/user/zygh
http://zygh.deviantart.com/gallery/

If you want to go for the Tamron 28-75/2.8 you should test the lens extensively before you commit to buying it. I had one and it was so soft I had to get rid of it. The thing is that this lens is quite good if you come upon a good copy; if not, it is nothing short of sub-mediocre.

--
http://www.flickrleech.net/user/zygh
http://zygh.deviantart.com/gallery/

I have the 28-75 Tamron, it's good copy & I use it extensively for several wedding. Somehow I not fully satisfied with the lens. If you need a lens for
professional needs, i suggest you to wait until nikon release the 24-70.
--
'See with your eyes - Shoot with your heart..'

"I don't think Sigma makes good glass. I've had a number of Sigma lenses over the years and have kept not one; they were all ultra disappointing. Now I'm all Nikkor."

Sigma AF 50f2.8 macro is just as sharp as the Nikkor AF 60f2.8 (have both)
Sigma AF 24f2.8 is sharper than the Nikkor AF 24f2.8 (have both)
And all these Sigma's are not good glass?
Sigma 100-300f4
Sigma 120-300f2.8
Sigma 30f1.4
105/150 macro
70mm F2.8 EX DG has some of the highest MFT numbers
Boris
--
Stubborn and ardent clinging to one's opinion is the best proof of stupidity.
Michel de Montaigne

http://public.fotki.com/borysd/
http://www.pbase.com/borysd

Boris said:

"I don't think Sigma makes good glass. I've had a number of Sigma
lenses over the years and have kept not one; they were all ultra
disappointing. Now I'm all Nikkor."

Sigma AF 50f2.8 macro is just as sharp as the Nikkor AF 60f2.8 (have
both)
Sigma AF 24f2.8 is sharper than the Nikkor AF 24f2.8 (have both)
And all these Sigma's are not good glass?
Sigma 100-300f4
Sigma 120-300f2.8
Sigma 30f1.4
105/150 macro
70mm F2.8 EX DG has some of the highest MFT numbers

Click to expand...

It's not all about sharpness, you know. The thing that makes Nikkor glass so enticing is its neutrality. Now, without a doubt, there is subject matter that is handled very well with Sigma glass, but, as far as my experience goes, I will stay away from a Sigma because of the fact that Sigma glass is very yellow-greenish inclined, not to mention a certain distasteful manner in which it handles tone and, to some extent, bokeh. So, even if there are some fine examples (like the 70/2.8) within the Sigma line-up , overall, based on my own experience, I would never ever consider a Sigma, no matter the cost compared to its Nikkor counterpart. Infact, I'd rather pay for a slightly underspec'd Nikkor than for a Sigma. I don't want to trash anyone's parade here, but that is how things look from where I'm sitting. You know how opinions are, everyone's got one... and I'm no different

--
http://www.flickrleech.net/user/zygh
http://zygh.deviantart.com/gallery/

I'm a professional wedding and portrait photographer and I own both the Tamron 28-75 and the Tamron 17-50. I have compared these lenses with the Nikon counterparts, owned by a colleague of mine and I cannot see a significant difference making the investment worth the extra money.
--
Leen Koper
http://www.fotografieleenkoper.nl

Thanks everyone for your input on the selected lenses...There definitely some interesting points of view on the different brands. These comments are on par with my decision to omit the Sigma... The feature I liked with the Sigma was the Marco ability…however research didn’t prove this lens to be a strong option in my own personal opinion. (from research not personal usage)

My decision still has not been made...though it is still pointing towards the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR ... I like that it is a faster aperture lens..... and the focal length fits into the category I’m looking for.

Surprisingly, a lens that keeps popping up in my research is one that has the perfect focal length (in my opinion) which is the Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G AF-S...if this lens would be a fixed 2.8 …I would choose it hands down...however, the f-stop concerns me... I'm surprised at the reviews that this lens gets...seems to be well respected and chosen by shooters such as Thom Hogan and Ken Rockwell...They choose this lens over the nikor 35-70..The thing is besides having a slow aperture, reviews seems to say that dust gets inside the lens easily…I do realize that there is nikkor 24-85 that has an f-stop that starts at 2.8…but the reviews are horrible with that lens stopped down as well…..

Have any of you guys used the Nikkor 24-85 f/3.5-4.5g….

--
Lights, Camera, Action
http://flickr.com/photos/tinakerry/

I had that one too, I hated it. May have been a dud copy. The 24-85d was nice, but I got a lot of soft photos if the subject was not within 3m. Dead sharp for closeups though. Once I had used my wife's tamron 28-75 I made the descision to sell the 24-85d. In some cases the 24-85 is a little nicer, but for general purpose work I find the tamron is sharper and holds up better to backlight, which will cause the 24-85 to go soft.

I never had a 17-55 nikkor, but the 17-50 tamron is so good I just dont care to get one so much. I am sure the nikkor is better, I just dont care while my tamron works so well for so little money.

Exactly! They all talk about how sharp Sigma XX lenses are. I have now tried three different Sigma lenses, and sorry to say but it's muddy yellow color cast all the time most especially when you shoot indoors. I end up having to Photoshop and color correct the images.

Seenu Subbu said:

Exactly! They all talk about how sharp Sigma XX lenses are. I have now tried three different Sigma lenses, and sorry to say but it's muddy yellow color cast all the time most especially when you shoot indoors. I end up having to Photoshop and color correct the images.

Click to expand...

I always wonder why people respond to a post that is years old. Not my experience. Maybe you have not had good copies, Sigma's QC is pretty inconsistent with particular lenses in their roster.

--
Lora

I've been on Dpreview since June 2006. Unfortunately, some posting history has been lost along the way...