Medium range zoom Sigma Vs Nikon dilemma

<p>Here is my situation. I have to sell my Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 to help pay for some unexpected medical bills. I need to find a less expensive alternative. I currently own a Nikon 35-70 f/2.8 macro which I will probably keep regardless of my final decision. I have narrowed my choices down to either buying a Nikon 20-35 f/2.8 at a cost of up to $700.00, or purchasing a new or lightly used Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 DG HSM lens at a new cost of $899.00 or a little less for a good used one.<br>

The lens will be used on a D3. I would be using the lens for weddings and other social functions. I'm not interested in a 28-75 lens because I need the wider end at 24mm. The biggest negative I see in buying the Nikon 20-35 is that I would have to switch lenses from time to time. The biggest negatives with the Sigma is that I understand that, wide open, they can be a little soft at the edges which is not really an issue considering that I am looking for a narrow DOF at that aperture anyway. The other is that I have read that some earlier models have had some back or front focusing issues. Can anyone tell me if those issues have been resolved?<br>

I look forward to any comments or suggestions.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hmm. Would the math work out better for you to keep the good lens, and instead sell the D3, replacing it with a lightly used D700?</p>

<p>I agree with Matt. IMO, you may be pleasantly surprised by a D700. The value of the body will not hold up as well as the lens.<br>

Hope things turn out OK for you.</p>

<p>Bests</p>

<p>Ben</p>

<p>I must admit that I hadn't considered that option. I could probably get around $2,600 for my D3 and pick up a D700 w/o grip for no more than $1,800 which would net me $800 or so. Selling my Nikon 24-70 for around $1,500 and getting a used Sigma for around $700 would net me the same $800 if my match is correct. I do subscribe to the school of thought that believes that good glass is more important than the body, and so this option is definitely worth considering.</p>

<p>a d700 is essentially the same as a d3 with just one memory slot, and a pop-up flash, but without the built-in grip.</p>

<p>this is a good move for a number of reasons...there's no performance hit, but just as importantly, bodies depreciate much faster than lenses. a year from now, a 24-70 will still fetch around $1500, while a used d3 will be under $2k.</p>

 

<p>Sorry to hear about your financial issues. Assuming you getting paid for these "weddings and other social functions", if you cannot book an extra event or two immediately and absolutely must sell something, I would suggest sell the lens (at minimal loss) and use the 35-70mm until you can re-purchase the 24-70mm. I would imagine you could survive an even or two or three with that lens.</p>

<p>If you absolutely need 24mm and are shooting with flash, there are several options: The Nikon 24-120mm is readily available at a very low price (under $150) as is the VR version for about $350. If you must have 24mm @ f2.8, you can also get a Nikon 24mm f2.8 prime lens for under $250.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>"If you must have 24mm @ f2.8, you can also get a Nikon 24mm f2.8 prime lens for under $250."</em></p>

<p>Or look for a Sigma Super Wide II, which is<br>

superior to the Nikon 24/2.8 and<br>

found in the bay for cheap.<br>

Regards<br>

Martin</p>

<p>Hi Graham,<br>

Sorry to hear about your situation. I also consider that the best thing is to replace the body with D700 and to keep the glass. If you need more money, you can also sell the 35-70/2.8 unless you desperately need a backup solution for 24-70.</p>

<p>Graham, to me, getting the $800 from downgrading the body instead of the lens is a no brainer. Thanks to Matt for the excellent suggestion, and apparently Graham has been convinced.</p>

<p>Sorry to hear about your financial situation. Good luck.</p>

<p>I do hope that's the route that you go, Graham. I like and use several Sigma lenses, but if I already had that 24-70/2.8, I'd settle in nicely with the D700 to weather the immediate financial storm. Best of luck!</p>

<p>Thanks for the encouragement Matt. I guess I will start perusing the Classified forums and see if I can find a good buy. There seem to be quite a few D700's for sale right now. I already have an MB-D10 attached to my D300 which I will probably move over to the D700.</p>

<p>Even better! That's one of the joys of the D300/D700 family relationship. Sharing of the batteries, storage, and the grip actually provides for some real economy and flexibility - and they're very similar to shoot with.</p>

<p>Graham, I do have a Nikon D700 + 24-70/2.8 and I'm sure you will not regret keeping this combo.<br /> A D3 will not perform any better than the d700 with this lens and you can always buy a grip latter if it maters to you and you still get a pop up flash for free. :)<br /> That was the best suggestion of all in my opinion.<br>

Besides, what's the use of having a top Nikon camera body like D3 or D700 to use with a third party lens ??</p>

<p>Thanks Sergio, you and the others make excellent points. I have decided that selling the D3 and getting a D700 is a better option than selling my Nikon 24-70mm. I really appreciate the folks here suggesting this option. Sometimes the most obvious ones are staring you in the face and yet I failed to see it.</p>

<p>Now, I will have to start looking for a good used D700.</p>

<p>Why not try offering the D3 for anyone with a D700 wishing the upgrade to the big boy? You might get a better overall deal.<br /> I would guess that there are far more D700 owners lusting after the D3 than the other way round - something that would work in your favour. They have already eyed the low part-ex prices offered by the dealers & might already have their tolerable $$$ hit in their minds.</p>

<p>Good luck and hope your financial health as well as the real health improves soon.</p>

<p>Just seen this thread was 6 months old. How did it go?</p>