04-11-2014, 08:54 PM
I replaced the 24-85/3.5-4.5 from Nikon with the Sigma. Don't know about the 24-120 Nikon, never tried one. Here it's 25% more expensive - for only 15mm more focal length?
I just wanted a good standard zoom and it is good - better than the Nikkor 24-85. Also heavy. Also zooming "in the wrong direction". Also huge, I don't have M82 filters. I'm biased, I became a Sigma fan since I bought the 35 Art.
Annoying: When adjusting AF, it pretends to be Micro Nikkor 105/2.8 and of course, the AF adjustment value is different. Hope they fix that soon. I'm not fully enthusiastic about the lens but for the purpose I bought it, it's alright and I like it heavy. At 2.5kg with grip and D800 it's heavy enough. Additionally, I compared it with the VR of the 70-200/4 at 105mm which so far was the best VR in my collection and the 105/2.8. For me the Sigma was the best out of this three.
I think I already posted some sample shots here? http://sojujo.smugmug.com/Testshots/Sigm.../i-L8Sw4BS
I just wanted a good standard zoom and it is good - better than the Nikkor 24-85. Also heavy. Also zooming "in the wrong direction". Also huge, I don't have M82 filters. I'm biased, I became a Sigma fan since I bought the 35 Art.
Annoying: When adjusting AF, it pretends to be Micro Nikkor 105/2.8 and of course, the AF adjustment value is different. Hope they fix that soon. I'm not fully enthusiastic about the lens but for the purpose I bought it, it's alright and I like it heavy. At 2.5kg with grip and D800 it's heavy enough. Additionally, I compared it with the VR of the 70-200/4 at 105mm which so far was the best VR in my collection and the 105/2.8. For me the Sigma was the best out of this three.
I think I already posted some sample shots here? http://sojujo.smugmug.com/Testshots/Sigm.../i-L8Sw4BS