Tokina 28-70 AT X pro f/2.8, Sigma 24(or 28)-70 f/2.8 EX, Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, or Nikon 35-70 f/2.8

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by david_le|1, Feb 14, 2006.

  1. I have been debating between the Tokina 28-70 AT-X Pro f/2.8, the
    Sigma 28-70 or 24-70 (both EX)EX, the tamron 28-75 f/2.8, and the
    nikon 35-70. These are all alternatives from the nikon 28-70 f/2.8
    since the price of that lens is so high. Pretty much, i'm asking
    "Which one of these lenses are closest to the Nikon 28-70 f/2.8?" I am
    a portrait/wedding photographer, as well as nature. So I aquire a
    sharp lens. Any picture comparisons would help tremendlously.
  2. Until last Saturday I was the proud (or not so proud) owner of a Sigma 28 - 70 EX. I've used this lens on a D-100 off and on for about 2 years. Results with this lens were unpredictable and generally disappointing. Lens focus was soft and it seemed to have a very short depth of field (shorter than would be expected) at a wide aperture. I shoot a lot of low light work and need a lens that can perform at open apertures. I replaced the lens with the 35 - 70 2.8 Nikkor. I'll let you know how the results are after this weekend. Reviews though, all seem favorable. Another thing about this lens; I emailed Sigma a week ago regarding the report that some Sigma lens will not work properly with the D-200. This lens is on the list to be recalled. If you mail them the lens they will fix it for free. The only problem is they don't currently have the parts. I would stay away from this lens if I were you. As far as the 24 - 70 2.8 Sigma. This lens, as I'm told is the replacement for the 28 - 70 and is suppose to be much improved. This is just hear - say though.
  3. I have the Tokina 28-70mm f2.6 ATX Pro II and love it. I've had it for several years and it has never let me down. The lens is very well made and just heavy enough to absorb jitters. MF is well dampened and precise. It has almost no distortion. Is sharp wide open and stopped down it is fantastic. Flare is excellently controlled. The only issue I have ever had is a little of chromatic aberration in the corners with strongly backlit subjects when used on my D70. When shooting film I have never seen chromatic aberration. You can browse by gallery and see lots of images take with this lens.
  4. sm


    I have the 24 - 70 2.8 Sigma on both my D70 and Nikon FM2n. I dont have any expeiriance with the Nikon 2.8 so cant compare. The sigma has good built (better than my 18 - 70 or 18 - 200). The lens is sharp but contrast wise the other Nikons are sightly better.

    Wide open the lens is sharp as well. The filter size is 82mm so its big and flare can be an issue.

    Due to the design of the lens and wieght the zoom will creap when in vertical position.

    The foucus is fast and smooth.

    I will try to psot some photos later on.

  5. I had the Tamron 28-70 2.8 before I got the Nikon 35-70 2.8. If I were, I would grab the Nikon lens before Nikon stop making this. Tamron was a good lens, but this Nikon lens is fabulous. Great contrast, sharpness. . .It's a bit more expensive than the rest, but it's worth it.
  6. oh yes, isn't it also true that the tokina's focus ring stops at .7? That seems a bit too small. I like doing nature shots and stuff as well.
  7. I have been very happy with the Tokina AT X pro lens for some years now. But I am taking a very hard look at Nikons new 18-200 ED VR lens which might be a option for you as well. I do a lot of my shooting from a small boat in the summer here in Alaska and most of my shots in my portfilo were shot with the Tokina, well maybe half. My favortie is the 80-400 Nikon VR. But its tough shooting Eagles with. because of all the hunting it does. Id get the new Nikon if you can find one.
  8. I have the Tokina 28-70 ATX Pro 2.8 and have to say that I am really pleased with the results. There is some softness wide open but every lens I have ever owned (Minolta, Canon, Hasselblad whatever) was softer wide open than a stop or two down. The results I am getting are comparable to what I am getting out of my Nikon 70-210 f4 (I really like this lens) and when stopped down or when using studio strobes it makes for grand prints. I have used the lens on both a D70 and a D1H with the same outcome. I am of no use concerning the other lenses that you wish to compare. I bought mine from KEH for $190......that is PRETTY hard to beat!
  9. I use a Tokina 28-70mm f2.6-2.8 ATX Pro-II - it is a super lens with no bad habits/attributes - on my F4 it is a killer combination (weight-wise) but there's little camera shake: it feels unbalanced on a F80(N80) however. The images are invariably very good, but are best at f5.6 - f11 as usual. Build quality is great. I tested it against a Pro I which showed undesirable distortions at 28mm in comparison.

    The follwing website has a nice database of USERS feedback on many lenses:
  10. The 35-70/2.8D AF Nikkor may not be the most versatile zoom around but it more than makes up for the limited focal range with overall excellence. I had no idea a zoom could be this good. It's as sharp as my 50/1.8D AF Nikkor, which is no slouch.

    If you don't absolutely need the extra width of a midrange zoom that starts at 28mm I doubt you could do any better for the money than the 35-70/2.8.
  11. The best choice is the Nikkor AF D 35-70 mm f/ 2,8. If you want a 28 mm chance, buy Tokina.

    Best Regards

    Vincenzo Maielli Bari Italy
  12. Can anyone point to a review of the Tokina and the Tamron and Sigma?

    If 28mm is not needed, the Nikon 35-70 would be an easy choice. However, it would be nice to have 28mm, and the 28-70 Nikon is too much lens for me.

Share This Page