Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 versus Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8

<p>I’m not a professional photographer, but I am an enthusiastic hobbiest. I’d like to purchase a fast, good, all-around, standard zoom lens for my camera, a Nikon D300. I think I’ve narrowed it down to a 24-70mm f/2.8 (but am open to any other suggestions). I currently own these lenses:</p>

<ul>

<li>Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G EDII - my least favorite</li>

<li>Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor - great for most everything else</li>

<li>Nikkor AF 85mm 1:1.8 D - great for portraits good for indoor sports too </li>

<li>Nikkor AF 80-200mm f/2.8 ED - great for high school football </li>

<li>Nikkor AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 G IF ED - great for high school baseball </li>

</ul>

<p>I've looked and priced:</p>

<ul>

<li>Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM (Approx. $900)</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3362&navigator=2">http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3362&navigator=2</a></li>

<li>AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED (Approx. $1,700) </li>

<li><a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2164/AF-S-NIKKOR-24-70mm-f%252F2.8G-ED.html">http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2164/AF-S-NIKKOR-24-70mm-f%252F2.8G-ED.html</a></li>

</ul>

<p>As you can see, there is a BIG price difference. I don’t want to waste $900 for something I’m not going to be happy with; but also I don’t want to spend twice as much for lens that is comparable to the less expensive one.<br>

I sure would appreciate your opinions.</p>

<p>Nothing beats personal experience - rent both and try them out. 24mm is too long for me on a DX body for all around use - but your needs may differ.</p>

<p>Most of us prefer a 17-55mm type DX lens (instead of 24-70mm) as a general-purpose lens on DX-format bodies such as the D300, although some people prefer 24-70. As Dieter points out, it is a good idea to try both first before you buy.</p>

<p>Just because most people prefer something does not necessarily mean you will also. You could be exceptional. :-)</p>

<p>The new Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 Macro OS HSM seems a very attractive package - haven't seen any reviews yet though.</p>

<p>I really liked the Nikon 17-55 when I had DX; I have not experienced the Sigma, but between the two mentioned, if you use your equipment a lot, or wish it to last a long time with constant or heavy use, usually the equivalent Nikon product is mechanically better built and more durable than the less expensive after-market brand. Some may disagree, and there may be actual exceptions to the 'rule'.</p>

<p>I agree with Shun and Keith regarding Nikon 17-55mm/f2.8. It is the most apropriate range for a crop camera and particularly this is one of the best ever zooms produced by Nikon. </p>

<p>Nikon 24-70mm/f2.8 could be a good option only if you are planning to migrate soon to FX.</p>

<p>If you want to save money, there is another option: Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC. I mention that not everyone is happy with this lens but most people that are using it are very happy. It is small, fast, good for low light, very sharp at f8 for architecture and landscape and with an unbelievable good VC (like VR for Nikon) that gives an advantage of 4 stops when shooting handheld. Some recent threads shows opinions regarding this lens: <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VeMa">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VeMa</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VepV">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VepV</a></p>

<p>I've had the Sigma 24-70 2.8 and was not very impressed. It was slow to focus, VERY soft wide open, and did not have great build quality. In comparison, I now have the Nikon 17-55 2.8 and it blows the Sigma away in every category so far. It's build quality is exceptional, it takes great shots wide open, and it is quick and quiet to focus. For everyday photography the Sigma isn't a bad lens (I used it and now the 17-55 for Weddings, that's why I'm particular.) I would recommend it over the Nikon 24-70 just because of how much less $$ it is, and unless you have the $$ to throw away, or unless you're looking at going pro with a FX body, I feel like the Nikon is a waste at this point. I would, however recommend the Nikon 17-55 over the Sigma in a heartbeat. They aren't that much more, and you can find them used from reputable dealers (KEH.com and Usedcameras.com) in the $950 range.</p>

<p>Laura: have you got a typical kit lens or something similar that can help you to visualize the focal lengths involved, here? 24mm just doesn't feel very wide in practice, and if you're looking to get groups of people when you don't have a lot of room to work, the 17-55/2.8 would be a much better bet.<br /><br />I know you like to shoot sports, and assume that you're likely to stay with the D300 for while (perhaps?). If so, the 17-55/2.8 is the lens for you on the shorter side of things ... and if you go FX, you can get most of what you paid for it (if you keep it in good shape) when you sell it used.</p>

<p>hi, this is a simple problem, quality of sigma is better than the past, it won't be easy to lose skin, but focus losing problem is still exist.....pls consider to choose nikon.because a clear and sharp picture is more imporntant than the price. if you will upgrade your camera in not very long furture, pls choose nikon 2470, not 1755. btw, there is a very intersting problem is sigma 2470 is a little bit wide than nikon 2470, you can have a small test in the shop, until now no one knows the reason why the diffence exsit.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone. Again, I learned something from PN members ... I didn't know there were DX and FX cameras ... I have the Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G EDII ... it's my least favorite lens. Perhaps I'd like the length with a f/2.8 ... I just don't know. </p>

<p>Since I'm working on a daily photo project for 2010, I needed an old knock-around camera to keep in my car or carry to work, so I pulled out my old Nikon D50 and an even older Quantaray 28-80mm D f/3.5-6 Aspherical lens (originally purchased with my Nikon N65). Surprisingly, I really like the flexibility of this lens ... 28mm is perfect for so many pictures and the distortion isn't too bad ... I only wish it were faster. Hence the reason why I was looking at the 24-70mm f/2.8 for my D300.</p>

<p>It looks like I'm going to have to give it a lot more consideration. Thanks for your input.</p>

<p>Stay with a dx "wide to normal" zoom, (17-55/2.8) for the D300. The 24-70 is very expensive and heavy overkill, as you will be spending big $ for a 36-105 zoom. You will be wasting the technology that this lens was designed to reproduce at its price point: the missing outer 35% of the FX field that the DX will crop. It is designed for FX and that's where it belongs. Buy the highest quality Nikon DX that you can afford. It will always have resale value, when you do move to FX and the 24-70.</p>

<p>One of the things to keep in mind is whether or not you see yourself going to an FX. Camera bodies change and lose their value, but good glass tends to be more of long term investment (and $$$commitment). I have the Tamron 17-50 for a D-90 and found it to be a great all around lens and the price was good. I have since added a D700 with the 24-70 2.8 and it is an amazing lens. The autofocus and sharpness are really impressive. As I've gotten more and more into photography, I've realized how much money I wasted at the front end on "good values." I would recommend the Tamron if you are looking for good performance and value. The Nikor 17-55 is going to focus faster and give better sharpness throughout the zoom range and generally be a more "desirable" lens than the Tamron. But, if you see yourself getting more and more into photography, eventually going to FX, then you can't go wrong with the Nikor 24-70, but I think that it's not the most practical range on a DX, especially for the cost. </p>

<p>Just an observation... and this is one of those issues where there is obviously no right and wrong... but I'm always fascinated at the view that 17-55 is a much better focal length range for DX than 24-70.</p>

<p>I really admire the work that some good exponents of wide-angle do, but my own needs (on DX) would be far better suited by the 24-70. Indeed over 80% of what I shoot is in the 24 to 85 range on my humble D80.</p>

<p>I wondered whether to mention this at all but though it may be relevant as the only lens that Laura has which is 'wide' is the 18-55, and it is her least favourite. Also the subject types which she specifies (though I understand she probably shoots other things too) are portraits and sports - where being a bit longer is far more useful than being a bit wider.</p>

<p>Anyway not a criticism but just a thought.</p>

<p>It's basically been said already, but I figure it won't hurt to choose sides at this point. The 17-55 2.8 is a great lens. Arguably one of Nikon's sharpest. If you're going to stick with your D300 this is the perfect choice. Built really solid and a pleasure to use. I've actually used it on my FX cameras and I also own a Nikon 24-70. The sigma is a different lens. You'd be really happy regardless of what choice you make if you'd <em><strong>try them all out. </strong>As much input as we all have an experience. You may not like the weight of these things or the feel. You might feel like the price tag isn't worth while for your needs. I do think that if I had the choice to tell you what to get, I'd force you to go with the Nikon 17-55. Hope you get a chance to try them all first though!</em></p>

<p><em>Dave</em></p>

<p>Aside from improved build quality, reliability, usability, warranty and image quality, Nikon lenses retain much more of their value over time, so while you may pay more for a Nikon brand lens up front, over the long term it is typically a better investment and will cost less.</p>

<p>The tokina 16-50 f2.8 has a good build, very good reliability and fast focus. feels much better on hands than tamron. perhaps worth take a look.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

Thanks for posting all the info around your buying decision. I am a prosumer level shooter and I have the following:</p>

<ul>

<li>Nikon D300</li>

<li>Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR (original kit lens)</li>

<li>Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D AF</li>

<li>Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM</li>

</ul>

<p>I've only has the Sigma for a couple months but it is already my favorite lens. I have not tried the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 but I can't imagine it is worth the addt'l cost. I'm extremely satisfied with the Sigma, it is sharp (sharpest of my 3 lenses in widest range of situations), quick to focus, has rock solid build quality and feels good in hand.<br>

I will say that wide open at f/2.8 it is not good for distant objects as they don't come out sharp but for less ambitious shots and shooting indoors it is great. One other strange thing is that the zoom ring works in the opposite direction to the zoom ring on my Nikkor 18-200mm. Not sure which is more traditional but when switching btw the 2, it can be annoying.<br>

I am not as experienced as some of the other responders but I am rather happy with the 24-70mm range even on my DX sensor camera. It's just wide enough to be useful in close quarters (shooting my sister's wedding in a medium sized venue) but the long end of the zoom is just enough for my outdoor shooting style (used recently on a trip to Hawaii). I think I would feel constrained by the 55mm top end some are recommending.<br>

I do have to mention that the bokeh is a little bit strange to me but not necessarily unpleasant but since I don't have any frame of reference for comparison, I don't know how similar lenses would perform. When shooting with a wide aperture and a background with many individual objects (think leaves on a tree), the individual items form lots of little circles in the bokeh. I wish I could describe that better. I'll post a sample shot to my gallery if I can find one.<br>

In any case, good luck. I hope you find something you enjoy!</p><div></div>