Some of you will get a good laugh seeing that I have sold my Nikon 16-85 and look for the best price/quality combination 24-70 f2.8 for a D700, but such is life <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' /> . Looking at the various tests, it is not obvious that the Nikon is so much better that it deserves almost double the price of the new Sigma and 4 times the price of the Tamron. Yes, the tests show vignetting and piqué problems at high aperture settings, but what does it mean in everyday life of the lens and what should a fast learning amateur who spends all his free time with the camera buy? I would appreciate your various comments from your various points of view and thank you in advance for the time you are prepared to spend on gathering some thoughts on the subject. Kindly Vieux loup!
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
12-08-2010, 04:22 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-08-2010, 04:45 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1291825068' post='4871']
Some of you will get a good laugh seeing that I have sold my Nikon 16-85 and look for the best price/quality combination 24-70 f2.8 for a D700, but such is life <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> . Looking at the various tests, it is not obvious that the Nikon is so much better that it deserves almost double the price of the new Sigma and 4 times the price of the Tamron. Yes, the tests show vignetting and piqué problems at high aperture settings, but what does it mean in everyday life of the lens and what should a fast learning amateur who spends all his free time with the camera buy? I would appreciate your various comments from your various points of view and thank you in advance for the time you are prepared to spend on gathering some thoughts on the subject. Kindly Vieux loup!
[/quote]
I would go for the Sigma, it is really quite a good lens for a standard zoom. It certainly beats the 16-85 in the equivalent focal range in photo attractiveness (and possibilities, being f2.8 and full frame).
The Tamron is the cheap and cheerful choice.
The "old" Nikon 28-70mm f2.8 is also very good, but I doubt you will be able to find it easily for a low price.
Since I know your chinese is decent, here a real world comparison between the Sigma HSM and the Nikon: http://qicai.fengniao.com/124/1249443.html
I'm currently using those two (D700 and Nikkor 24-70) and I can only compare to the previous 28-70 Nikkor, no idea about Sigma or Tamron performance on the D700. However, two different salesman I deal with locally told me to stay away from Sigma due quality issues, they said risk of a bad copy is just too high. Since I could afford the Nikkor at the time I did plunge for it, and now I'm quite happy, in fact it's the lens that I use most often.
My 24-70 copy seems to be quite sharp right from f 2.8 with good corner performance and it's quite contrasty as well. I'd say great lens for travel and landscapes ..and BTW excellent AF.
The previous Nikkor 28-70 was less contrasty and it's resolution in the corners seemed lower, but on the other hand it had a more pleasing skin rendition, so it was more suitable for portraiture work. In my opinion it's still worth looking for on the 2nd hand market..
If you have a chance to borrow or rent those lenses, for a couple of days, you could get your own take on the differences, or maybe change the idea of a preferred lens setup ? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
[quote name='wojtt' timestamp='1291827499' post='4873']
I'm currently using those two (D700 and Nikkor 24-70) and I can only compare to the previous 28-70 Nikkor, no idea about Sigma or Tamron performance on the D700. However, two different salesman I deal with locally told me to stay away from Sigma due quality issues, they said risk of a bad copy is just too high. Since I could afford the Nikkor at the time I did plunge for it, and now I'm quite happy, in fact it's the lens that I use most often.
My 24-70 copy seems to be quite sharp right from f 2.8 with good corner performance and it's quite contrasty as well. I'd say great lens for travel and landscapes ..and BTW excellent AF.
The previous Nikkor 28-70 was less contrasty and it's resolution in the corners seemed lower, but on the other hand it had a more pleasing skin rendition, so it was more suitable for portraiture work. In my opinion it's still worth looking for on the 2nd hand market..
If you have a chance to borrow or rent those lenses, for a couple of days, you could get your own take on the differences, or maybe change the idea of a preferred lens setup ? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
[/quote]
Your Nikon is twice the price. There are quite a few users of the Sigma who are very happy with it.
About quality issues... have you gotten your Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 fixed by Nikon concerning the light leak issue around 55mm?
http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikkor_24_7...291649689/
Do that, before it is out of warranty... of course, as it is a production fault, it should be covered outside the warranty period too, but you know how difficult it is to fight bureaucratic "service" organizations!
genotypewriter
Unregistered
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1291825068' post='4871']
Looking at the various tests, it is not obvious that the Nikon is so much better that it deserves almost double the price of the new Sigma and 4 times the price of the Tamron.
[/quote]
The only thing common in life and linearity is a LI!
GTW
@Brightcolours : Agreed, there are certainly happy Sigma campers out there, same goes for Tamron and Tokina; I wasn't so lucky or satisfied when I tried out a Tammy 28-75 2.8 and a Tokina 12-24 in the time I had a D200.. maybe a just got lemons, but since then I sticked with Nikkors and only had one sample in my hands that apparently was sub-standart (a 70-300 VR).. As to my 24-70 sample I've used it both in daylight and studio environment and had no issues with light-streaks, so I guess it doesn't require any fixing.. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
Indeed there is a premium to be paid for high end Nikon (or Canon) glass, when you look at it as a longer term investment, it hurts less <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> and well, it's always a personal choice as to whether an additional performance upgrade (in IQ / AF / sturdiness) is worth the outlay or not. Too bad it's so far from linear <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
Did you consider Nikon 24-85mm? It has a barrel distortion at wide end (which can be corrected in PP) but I love it's warm color reproduction (and price). If lightning fast AF is not your choice, I'd say give it a try...
Serkan
Thank you all for your input, which undoubtedly will lead me to some moree or less ill considered purchase. I have asked the same question in 3 different forums and the synthesis seems to be the Nikon or the new Sigma. Not so surprising! I think I will add the Nikon 50mm 1.4. Kindly VL
Sorry for this late contribution.
After a year with the N 24-70 I can only say that I love the results. This is on D200, not FX, (yet) so not a direct comparison for you. Also I'm not familiar with the other two lenses.
Where cost is an issue (of course it always is) - the poorest value is to buy the cheaper optic, regret it, and spend money again later. With FX the 24-70 is likely to be your 'go to' lens, the one which spends most time on the camera. If you really do care about the results, and you are like me, then if you go for a cheaper (and lesser) lens, then you will dwell on the obvious drawbacks of that lens versus what you may have had with the 'best' lens.
If you do get the 'best' lens then you can forget it, and get on with taking the pics.
It's highly personal. But I think that if you are concerned enough to use this forum, and others, to seek opinions then you will understand what I say.
(For further proof that I put my money where my mouth is, I'm collecting a 70-200 VR2 tomorrow. I'll let you know...)
Jim
Jim,
you'll be delighted with the 70-200 VR II <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' /> this lens doesn't disappoint.. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> and I agree totally with the approach towards lenses, after learning it the hard way (as it so often happens) <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
|
