Nikon 24-85 2.8-4 vs Sigma 24-70 2.8

[michael_barnes1]

Greetings all,

 

I have searched the forums until I'm weary-eyed. I can't seem to

find anything on the advantage of the Nikon 24-85 2.8-4D over the

Sigma 24-70 2.8EX DG DF so I now feel I need to ask everyone's

opinion.

I am an advanced amateur photographer, using a Fuji Finepix S-2. I�m

looking for a sharp, full-length portrait lens and figured the 24-85

would be a good choice. My 50mm prime does a great job for head

shots, but I need to back away to about 15 feet to get a full length

portrait and this diminishes the intimate look (in my opinion) that

I find with the same lens mounted on my Nikon N80.

 

So, does anyone believe one of these lenses to be superior?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Michael

[greglyon]

Purely a subjective answer...I have the 24-85 f2.8-4 and it doesn't stand up to Nikon's top of the line lenses, it certainly isn't as good as your 50. I think of it as a party-snapshot lens. It's not just 'primes are better than zooms rhetoric, I'm very happy with other zooms I have (they're pro zooms though). I've heard lots of comments from people who like this lens just fine, but to me it just doesn't have the same quality. From my research I think I'll trade it for the 24-85 af-s, which is supposed to be better for 1) sharpness, 2) focusing, 3)color, but worse with distortion and of course speed.

 

I can't speak to the Sigma.

[mike_zallini]

I have the 24-85 too, and I feel the same way as the previous poster. Let me also add that I often get focus errors with this lens and my F5 (but not w/my F80).

[robert_ardinger]

Perfectly happy with the Nikon 24-80 2.8/4. Have used it extensivley with a D100. Good zoom range, good speed. On the D100 it "acts" like a f/2.8 35mm at the wide (24mm) setting and 35mm on a film camera is my favorite focal length. Perhaps there is some sample variation but my lens is sharp and contrasty. On a film camera I used a fixed 24, 50, 180 and the 35-70 f/2.8 (all nikkors). The 35-70 is a great lens but was not quite wide enough on the D100. The 24-85 fit the bill nicely. It is possible that on a film camera I would notice flaws at the edges I do not see with the D100. If I was limited to one lens that I already own (all listed above) I would keep the 24-85. While looking at stripped down jpegs on a computer monitor is not really a fair way to show off any lens, if desired, you can see images from my 24-85 at www.ardingerphoto.com especially the Ireland and Utah pages (links at the bottom of the home page). Your question was more for more of a comparison of the Nikon and Sigma lenses and I can't help there as I have never used the sigma version.

[kelvinphoto - arlington, t]

I also have a 24-85 2.8-4 nikon and the tamron 28-75 2.8di. the nikon provide better sharpness than tamron at f4, but the focusing speed are lower. I use the nikon in the studio and the tamron on the field. they both serve me good and I prefer Nikon over tamron. tamron for backup.

[abbilder]

Hello!

 

Of course, any 50mm prime will be better than a 3,5Xzoom. I own a 24-85 2,8-4 and till now, I am satiesfied. It seem that there is or that there had been a lot of sample variation. May be, the sample variation is especially true for older lenses. My one is very

 

When I got the 24-85, I needed an midrange zoom for a non G-capable Camera and my alternative was Tokinas 28-80 2.8. Because there had been even more mixed reviews, the greater zoom range and the lighter weigt, I decided for the 24-85.

 

I found a comparison of the Tokina 28-80 and the Sigma 24-70 anywhere in the internet saying (with test-photos) that the Sigma is unsharp compared to the Tokina (while some people say the Nikon is sharper than the Tokina...)

 

If you use filters, the Sigma might be an unlucky choice (82mm) and I don't like Simas AF/MF-switch, because you have to change on both the camera and the lense if you change the focusing-mode. The Sigma is turned in the wrong direction.

 

Your only way: You compare booth lenses.

 

Good Luck,

Axel