PDA

View Full Version : Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 vs. Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8



Kellie
04-03-2007, 05:00 PM
Does anyone here have experience with either one of these? I rarely use the wide end of my kit lens and plan to purchase the 70-300mm VR eventually. So, I would like to replace the kit lens with something that will be better in low light.

The 28-70mm is about $70 less than the 24-70mm. The only difference I see is that the 28-70 does not have the macro function which is fine with me since my husband will be purchasing a dedicated macro for work.

Does anyone recommend one over the other? I can't afford the Nikon 28-70mm at this time. :p

Rooz
04-03-2007, 06:25 PM
geez, 28mm is starting to push the envelope at the narrow end of your range though don;t you think Kell ? i even think 24mm is stretching it a little which is what makes me hesitate at that one.

Kellie
04-03-2007, 06:28 PM
I looked through all of my photos and not one is in the 18-24mm range. Of course, the weather here still sucks and I haven't had much opportunity to take landscape shots. Although, if I get a low light zoom, I could always add another wide angle like the Sigma 10-20mm later...

ETA: just saw that the 10-20 is about $500, hmm. I wonder how much I'd miss the wide end of the kit lens.

jcon
04-03-2007, 07:00 PM
Kellie, I dont know for sure most of your shooting scenarios but I truly believe you will miss the wide end, especially indoors when photographing your children. Don't forget the crop factor(1.5X). With the 2 lenses you mentioned you will be pushing 40mm on the wide. Just something more to think about.

Kellie
04-03-2007, 07:08 PM
Thanks for the input!

When shooting my children indoors I always use the 50mm f/1.8 (the SB-600 hasn't left the camera bag in weeks :o ). Actually, the 50mm has been on my camera about 99% of the time. However, I might want wide when we actually get a chance to go camping this summer.

I guess it's back to the 85mm f/1.8. LOL I was just hoping to sell the kit lens for the amount of the Sigma and not have to spend any extra money. Or maybe I could go back to considering the 18-50mm f/2.8 Sigma and then still add the 70-300mm VR some day.

Rooz
04-03-2007, 11:06 PM
NB: I just sold my kit lens for $330AUD
out of interest, why aren't you looking at the 17-70mm ?

Kellie
04-03-2007, 11:10 PM
NB: I just sold my kit lens for $330AUD
out of interest, why aren't you looking at the 17-70mm ?

Because I would like to have f/2.8 throughout the zoom range.

Rooz
04-03-2007, 11:44 PM
yeah, i'm hesitating on that lens for the same reason. so many people have it and are happy though...makes me wonder.

rawpaw18
04-04-2007, 04:07 AM
Kellie,
You may want to consider the Tamron, if you are looking at 2.8 in this range. Check out this comparison if you have not already.

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6306

I find myself not using the wide end of my lens much either, the Tamron is what I was going to buy when I first started but I let myself be talked out of it because I would miss the wide end. You already have the wide covered for outside with your 18-135. I would suggest buy the lens for your shooting style.

It was killing me not having a short 2.8 when shooting basketball this winter, you have signed him up for basketball, right?

Stoller
04-04-2007, 06:39 AM
I have a Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 EX ASP DF, it's the lens on my D200 the most. For most shots I find the range ok. For landscapes I switch to one of my wider lens, 17-70 or 10-20.

All these photos were shot with my 28-70 when visiting Japanese garden.
http://www.mikestoller.com/gallery/2612331#137825728

wannabe
04-04-2007, 07:53 AM
I have been looking at the same two Sigma lenses as well as the Tamron mentioned. I currently have the 18-200VR which I really like. I don't want to replace it, but would like a faster zoom for indoor and low light shots. I have small kids as well and find for birthday parties and family events that the 50mm 1.8 is a little too limiting. Can't get wide enough for group shots and sometimes you just can't move a wall to get the kids and Christmas tree in the same shot. I looked at the EXIF data for all my indoor shots over the last several months and found most of them were in the range of 22-80 or so. I think I only had one wide angle shot indoors. I would keep my 18-200 for outdoor use. Hmmm... which one to buy?

Kellie
04-04-2007, 08:42 AM
Kellie,
You may want to consider the Tamron, if you are looking at 2.8 in this range. Check out this comparison if you have not already.

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6306

I find myself not using the wide end of my lens much either, the Tamron is what I was going to buy when I first started but I let myself be talked out of it because I would miss the wide end. You already have the wide covered for outside with your 18-135. I would suggest buy the lens for your shooting style.

It was killing me not having a short 2.8 when shooting basketball this winter, you have signed him up for basketball, right?

LOL, he's tall for 7 months, but appears to be built more like a football player at the moment.

The thing is, I would probably sell the 18-135 if I got a short 2.8. I don't know that a 18-50mm f/2.8 would be a very good portrait lens, though which is why the 24-70 range is appealing. I'll check out that Tamron, too.

Wannabe ~ that is my situation as well. I really love the 50mm f/1.8, but would like something not quite as limiting occasionally.

Kellie
04-04-2007, 08:48 AM
I have a Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 EX ASP DF, it's the lens on my D200 the most. For most shots I find the range ok. For landscapes I switch to one of my wider lens, 17-70 or 10-20.

All these photos were shot with my 28-70 when visiting Japanese garden.
http://www.mikestoller.com/gallery/2612331#137825728

Very nice shots! Did you find yourself switching a lot?

coldrain
04-04-2007, 08:49 AM
As far as I can find, the 24-70 f2.8 from Sigma sort of replaced the older 24-60mm f2.8 and 28-70 f2.8 lenses, giving a bit better results than the 28-70mm f2.8.

Kellie
04-04-2007, 08:58 AM
Just read the thread with the Tamron samples. That looks a lot better than the Sigma! But I wonder how much of that is because the Sigma could have been a bad copy.

coldrain
04-04-2007, 09:05 AM
Just read the thread with the Tamron samples. That looks a lot better than the Sigma! But I wonder how much of that is because the Sigma could have been a bad copy.
If you have a good copy of the Tamron it will always be sharper, BUT the Tamron may be unreliable with AF in low light.

Both are good lenses. The Tamron is more compact, but I think I would choose the Sigma's build quality.

Prospero
04-04-2007, 09:10 AM
If I would have to choose between the 24-70 and 28-70, I would definitly go for the 24-70. The only reason for that is the range.

24mm is approximately 36mm. Though this is not really wide, it is often wide enough when shooting people. It can even be argued that shooting people at a focal length any wider than that should be avoided since the perspective is not really flattering.

I have heard some very positive stories about the 24-70 from members of this forum. In both lenses there's probably some variation from sample to sample, so if you have a good copy, both will be sharp enough.

Stoller
04-04-2007, 09:35 AM
Very nice shots! Did you find yourself switching a lot?

Did not switch at all for those shots. I normally have no problem taking 2 or 3 lenses and switching. I know some people don't like to change that much in the field.

Kellie
04-06-2007, 09:11 PM
Ok, I can get a used Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 (sharp copy) for $250 or the Sigma trash 28-70mm f/2.8 at keh.com for $189 EX+ condition. I'm torn. I saw sample photos from the Tamron and they were great. The samples I've seen here from the the Sigma are also great. Decisions!

I'll be keeping my kit lens for now until I see if I miss the wide end. It's such a sharp lens that I would probably regret getting rid of it.

Stoller
04-06-2007, 09:30 PM
Can't comment on the Tamron, but I paid $220 for my used 28-70mm f/2.8 EX ASP DF so $189 is a good price for trash.;)

Stoller
04-06-2007, 10:08 PM
Here is a few more samples of the trash lens.

http://mlrc.us/mnt/gallery/Scenery and Trip Gallery/Yosemite in Winter/slides/Yosemite (7).jpg

http://mlrc.us/mnt/gallery/Scenery and Trip Gallery/Yosemite in Winter/slides/Yosemite (5).jpg

http://mlrc.us/mnt/gallery/Scenery and Trip Gallery/Yosemite in Winter/slides/Yosemite (13).jpg
I know I posted the last one before, sorry.:rolleyes:

Kellie
04-07-2007, 07:57 AM
Beautiful shots! I'm leaning towards the Tamron only because I have seen samples from that copy and I have no idea about the history of the one at KEH. But I'm definitely thinking I will like the range.

rawpaw18
04-09-2007, 05:20 PM
Did I miss the big announcment? Your sig has been updated, how are
your first impressions. You do do impressions don't you?

Kellie
04-09-2007, 05:26 PM
I bought the used Tamron and it should arrive shortly. I will definitely post first impressions. Thanks RP for your advice! :)