Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 EX

[john_sade]

Hi anyone has use the sigma Lens for Nikon D200 one of my friend is selling

this lens what you say how good is this lens compare to OEM lens .

 

John

[hans_janssen]

I used this lens on a D50/70/200 and it gave very good/sharp results, only a little soft at 2.8. Heavy, little bit noisy and not too fast focus, built like a tank and a very expensive on filters(82mm).

[john_sade]

So It mean it a good lens to have its quite affordable almost half the price of Nikonlens 28-70 2.8 .

[frank_bunnik]

almost half the price? Here in the Netherlands it's more like a third to a quarter of the price of the Nikon.

[walterh]

John if you get this lens used at a good price go for it you can always sell it without big loss. The Nikon 28-70 lens is an absolute pro lens but if you do not need the final edge in image quality go for the used Sigma.

 

"... how good is this lens compare to OEM lens ."

I do not know "OEM lenses" for Nikon.

[hans_janssen]

I read on other forums that the Tamron 28-75 2.8 is even sharper than the Sigma, but that is a DX lens.

[eric_arnold]

hi, havent used the sigma 24-70mm, but i own the tamron 28-75. the tamron is not a DX lens, it is a Di lens, which means it can be used on both film and digital bodies. perhaps the previous poster was thinking of the tamron 17-50, with is a Dii (digital-only) lens -- basically the 28-75 in a DX format. the 28-75 is an awesome lens, but then your friend isn't selling that one, right? i suspect the sigma is almost as good--although more people rave about the 18-50--biggest reason i didn't get it myself was the 82mm filters: the tamron uses 67mm, same size as the nikkor 18-70... in any event, while i've been happy with my tamron, the extra 4mm on the wide end would be good to have, i think, and the build quality of the sigma is better than the tamron, even if the performance isn't quite as razor-sharp.

 

compared to nikon, any of the 3rds party manufacturers' top of the line glass (tamron SP, tokina AT-X, sigma EX) merits consideration, although it really depends on the individual lenses you are comparing which is "better" in terms of value/performance. some compete directly with nikon's line at a lower price point; others fill in gaps nikon and/or canon doesn't cover (ie., sigma 50-150 f/2.8)

[spodzone]

Ah yes. I've got this very same lens. I spent a while researching before buying the D200, and am very happy with it. It comes down to a combination of factors:<br />

a) effective focal-lengths; obviously it becomes the equivalent of 35-125mm when you take the FoV crop-factor into account. For me, this is ideal. I like to split at 70mm and I don't really shoot wider than 24*1.5mm.<br />

b) rivals; sigma do a *17*-70 "digital" lens but I believe the MTF graphs are slightly better for the 24-70, and most importantly it ceases to be f/2.8 very quickly - best regarded as f/4 from about 30mm onwards, I think.<br />

c) image quality is fine. My first series out with the thing was around <a href="http://pig.sty.nu/Pictures/pigpix.q?dir=rannoch_d200">Rannoch in Perthshire</a>. Check out #10 in particular.<br />

d) having a constant f/2.8 is absolutely wonderful; I could not have shot vital indoor portraits at 70mm in a badly lit church without it. <br />

e) cost; obviously this is up to you but I believe this lens hits a sweet-spot where you're paying a bit (say $40-50) more for a significantly better lens.

 

<p>There is one downside: sigma lens-caps don't fit inside a cokin P ring, whereas nikon equivalents do. So you'll have to un/screw the ring every time rather than leaving it attached. Big deal, really!</p>

 

<p>Personally I find a kit with the sigma 24-70 and nikon 70-300 VR lenses covers everything I need, very nicely indeed, for decent money. A heartily recommended combination.</p>

[eric_arnold]

#10 is sweet. looks plenty sharp. guess that settles it.

[john_sade]

Thank you , i have got the lens for almost 240$, and will take some pictures in this coming week end.