SIGMA 24-70mm f/2.8 DG HSM EX or 24-85 AFS G Nikon

I am looking for a relativly cheap and portable zoom for my D610 to complete my prime and ends up witha having to choose btween those two. I know that the Sigma will be better but I am wondering "how much" and does it worst it.

I like the idea of VR for the 24-85, the range and the portability of the lens. However the sigma 24-70 seems quiet small too and comparable to the nikon which is twice as big and expensive. So it seems to be a good bargain. What do you think?

What do you intend to use it for? For me I mostly shoot with primes but have the 24-85 as a light and compact walk around lens for landscape photography. It is excellent in that role and, especially when stopped down, sharp. What it isn't very good at are things like portraits where the small maximum aperture means that I cannot get much isolation between the subject and the background. For that reason I rarely use it to take pictures of people as I don't like the results I get from it in those settings.

ChapelThrill23 said:

What do you intend to use it for? For me I mostly shoot with primes but have the 24-85 as a light and compact walk around lens for landscape photography. It is excellent in that role and, especially when stopped down, sharp. What it isn't very good at are things like portraits where the small maximum aperture means that I cannot get much isolation between the subject and the background. For that reason I rarely use it to take pictures of people as I don't like the results I get from it in those settings.

Click to expand...

Mainly for holiday when I can switch lens easily and street. So sometime maybe some portrait some time. I guess if I intend to do some portrait the 24-70 is better. What about af speed?

"Mainly for holiday when I can switch lens easily and street. So sometime maybe some portrait some time. I guess if I intend to do some portrait the 24-70 is better. What about af speed?"


I cannot speak for the Sigma 24-70. I have not tried it. The speed on the 24-85VR is acceptable but not fast. I have found it to be accurate.

The Sigma is a dismal performer by modern standards:


Terrible resolution performance and really ugly bokeh. If those are the only two lenses you are considering I would definitely go with the 24-85. Save money by buying a lightly-used one on eBay or similar, as the new price is a little steep.

thelenspainter said:

The Sigma is a dismal performer by modern standards:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/474-sigma_ex_2470_28_hsm_fx?start=1

Terrible resolution performance and really ugly bokeh. If those are the only two lenses you are considering I would definitely go with the 24-85. Save money by buying a lightly-used one on eBay or similar, as the new price is a little steep.

Click to expand...

This is not what the test (or others) says.

Atsyn said:

thelenspainter said:

The Sigma is a dismal performer by modern standards:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/474-sigma_ex_2470_28_hsm_fx?start=1

Terrible resolution performance and really ugly bokeh. If those are the only two lenses you are considering I would definitely go with the 24-85. Save money by buying a lightly-used one on eBay or similar, as the new price is a little steep.

Click to expand...

This is not what the test (or others) says.

Click to expand...

Can you clarify? The test that I've linked to supports precisely what I'm saying about the Sigma lens. Perhaps you are confused?

The Sigma 24-70 takes great photos. Its fast to autofocus, quiet and generally a good performer all around.

thelenspainter said:

Atsyn said:

thelenspainter said:

The Sigma is a dismal performer by modern standards:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/474-sigma_ex_2470_28_hsm_fx?start=1

Terrible resolution performance and really ugly bokeh. If those are the only two lenses you are considering I would definitely go with the 24-85. Save money by buying a lightly-used one on eBay or similar, as the new price is a little steep.

Click to expand...

This is not what the test (or others) says.

Click to expand...

Can you clarify? The test that I've linked to supports precisely what I'm saying about the Sigma lens. Perhaps you are confused?

Click to expand...

The optical quality is 3.5 star, comparable to twice as expensive 24-70 nikon and cheaper but slower 24-85 VR.

If you look at sharpness comparison the sigma is only poorer than nikon below F/4, above it is more or less the same with "good" to "excellent" result for photozone ranking and way better than 24-85.

And at 35 mm for example the sigma perform generaly better than the 35mm AFD and can handle the comparaison with the more recent 35mm F1.8 G when stopped down. It is not so bad for a zoom.

Moreover I have read far better review from the sigma (mauybe they dont have a good copy) for example on most review I read it outperform the tamron which is not the case here.

For photozone the only way to have a "correct" lens is to put 1k$ in a zeiss manual prime.

Two things:

1. Ignore the star ratings, they are bunk and more or less random.

2. It only performs acceptably in the center. The border and edge resolution is hopeless at all focal lengths and apertures. You only need to look at the bokeh samples to see how horrific it is (and in those shots you can also see the really low contrast).

But hey, it's your money. FWIW the 24-85 Nikon is pretty average too. You're not going to get a truly high-performing modern mid zoom for under $1000 MSRP.

Atsyn said:

I am looking for a relativly cheap and portable zoom for my D610 to complete my prime and ends up witha having to choose btween those two. I know that the Sigma will be better but I am wondering "how much" and does it worst it.

I like the idea of VR for the 24-85, the range and the portability of the lens. However the sigma 24-70 seems quiet small too and comparable to the nikon which is twice as big and expensive. So it seems to be a good bargain. What do you think?

Click to expand...

They are only around $300 and most reviews show them to be pretty much just as good as the 24-120 VR except maybe slightly softer in the corners. It even has rear gasket to protect your expensive body. A refub 24-85 VR probably has the best price/performance ratio in the entire Nikkor lens line up. The sigma is way overpriced for it's performance especially at 70mm IMO.

Besides f/2.8 isn't really all that fast anyway compared to most primes so if you already have some fast primes you're used to using and dont' shoot events professionally spending all that money to get the 24-70 f/2.8, especially the Sigma which has mediocre for class performance, doesn't make much sense to me. But if you really want a 24-70 f/2.8 don't buy a Sigma, Get the Much better Tamron sp 24-70 VC. If it's a little too expensive you can get a refurb one for like $900-$1100 usually closer to $900, which isn't much more than the sigma is new. Just look around on Amazon and ebay.

thelenspainter said:

Two things:

1. Ignore the star ratings, they are bunk and more or less random.

2. It only performs acceptably in the center. The border and edge resolution is hopeless at all focal lengths and apertures. You only need to look at the bokeh samples to see how horrific it is (and in those shots you can also see the really low contrast).

But hey, it's your money. FWIW the 24-85 Nikon is pretty average too. You're not going to get a truly high-performing modern mid zoom for under $1000 MSRP.

Click to expand...

As I said I am quiet surprised by those results. Here for example http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews you get pretty good sharpness once stoped down and bokeh semms better than the tamron. Guess will to test these model myself in the shop, thanks for your answer

theraven871 said:

The Sigma 24-70 takes great photos. Its fast to autofocus, quiet and generally a good performer all around.

Click to expand...

What is this picture supposed to prove? That the colors are flat, that sharpness and contrast are lackluster, or did you want to show us the most awful bokeh you could produce with a lens? Well if so, then mission accomplished, I guess.