F/2.8: igma 24-70, 28-70 or Tamron 28-75?

[tim11]

Sigma <<<---- Jeff.... we need to be able to edit the thread title too.. :D
Another lens needed. What's new? :o
Most of my shooting is done from about 24 to about 90 mm. My 18-50 mm comes most useful but it leaves me short, so the 3 selecte lenses are the candidates.
I am aware of Nikkor 24-70 but because of its size and prize (yeah you get what you pay for - literally!), and recent comment from Nikon forum about it doesn't help.
Back to the lenses above, does anyone have good/bad experience with them?
I heard that the Sigma is soft, is that true? Does HSM version any difference to the non-HSM apart from the built in motor?
And what about the Tamron? It looks like the ugly duckling but optically is it better than its Sigma counterpart?
Thanks.

PS: I just saw Nikkor 24-85. F/2.8-4.0... longer reach and F/4.0 isn't too bad. Anyone has it?

[DonSchap]

Well, 'Rooz' is a big TAMRON fan. I cannot get him to stop going on about them, in the SONY forum. Why not have a "shoot out" and see which one cuts the mustard? The local camera shop probably would be delighted to sell anything at this point and might be a little more cooperative with you looking them over.

[tim11]

Thank you Don... Maybe I should go straight to Nikon Forum and hopefully get more responses there.

[DonSchap]

Can you get your hands on ALL three lenses for a side-by-side? That would be the best idea ... and just see for yourself.

[Rhys]

I have the Canon mount Tamron 28-75. It's not a bad lens but it's nowhere near as good as a genuine Canon lens. My 17-85 IS outperforms my Tamron 28-75 in terms of focussing accuracy and speed. Resolutionwise, no difference. The sole difference is the Canon is darker. Sure - some might comment about minor distortion at 17mm but over the range 28-75, the 17-85 IS is optically very similar - just darker and with IS.

My recommendation is to go for a Nikon lens and to go for IS if it's available. Don't scrimp and buy a crappier lens because you can't afford a more expensive lens. Just save a bit longer and buy the lens you really want. You know you need the best!

[tim11]

I picked up a 28-100 F/3.5-5.6G AF from ebay. Along with a Nikon carry bag, Nikon strap and a film F80 body with motor drive. All for $151 AUD. The lens is very fast. So fast, point to something, press the shutter button and it snaps instantly. I heard the 28-105 is better... but right now this one will do me. Thanks for your advice people.

[D70FAN]

Just my $.02 worth: I have been shooting with the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 for a few years and it works very well on my D70, D80 and tried on a freinds D700.

Not quite as contrasty as the Nikkor 28-70 f/2.8 but for the $1200 difference... it's close enough. NX or PS takes care of the contrast difference when needed... which is actually rarely.:)

If you have a Canon... YMMV.

[tim11]

Just my $.02 worth: I have been shooting with the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 for a few years and it works very well on my D70, D80 and tried on a freinds D700. .....

I heard the Siggie 24-70 is soft at 2.8? What's your observation? Is it compatible on the FX D700?

[TheObiJuan]

Which one of the many versions of Sigma 24-70 f/2.8?

[cdifoto]

Well, 'Rooz' is a big TAMRON fan.
Rooz is a big Tamron fan? You saying that is like Eric Schmidt saying Richard Templeton is the CEO of a big company. :rolleyes:

[D70FAN]

I heard the Siggie 24-70 is soft at 2.8? What's your observation? Is it compatible on the FX D700?

Yes f/3.5 is a lot sharper... as is f/4...

... about what you can expect from most f/2.8's... since it is a full frame AF lens it should work fine on an FX sensor. Shooting at f/2.8 can get a little tricky, especially on closeups as there is a very small focus zone, this is generally mistaken for soft focus.


Anyway for $400 it works for me.:)

[michaelb]

You also might want to consider the Sigma 24-60 f/2.8.
Many claim its a sharper lens than the 24-70, its cheaper, plus it doesn't have the so-silly 82mm filter size of the 24-70.

[D70FAN]

^ agreed on the 82mm filter... on the other hand reducers are cheap, and I rarely use filters.;)

[tim11]

Which one of the many versions of Sigma 24-70 f/2.8?
I'm not sure which version now... I think it's the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO I was looking at at the time. So at F/2.8 it's soft and better at 3.5 and up?
Does anyone know the difference between the above Sigma and the new Sigma AF 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM? Apart from HSM? Optically is the new one much better to justify the price? Thanks.

[tim11]

I realised that even 85 mm is a tad too short for my liking. I hope someone will come up with brighter and longer lens; meanwhile I will use my ebayed 28-100 to fill the gap.

[TheObiJuan]

Apart from HSM? Optically is the new one much better to justify the price? Thanks.



According the the release info: "thanks to a brand new optical design which features 14 elements in 12 groups, including three aspherical, one ELD and two SLD elements"

The difference is: 1 ELD (Extraordinary Low Dispersion) glass, and rounded aperture blades.
They dropped the MACRO, too. It went from 1:3.8 to 1:5.3.

[TheObiJuan]

The new Sigma 24-70EX was compared to the Canon 24-70L and the 24-105L.
I dunno about the procedure, but the results look clear to me.

The Sigma consistently looks sharper and has better flare performance in the latter photos. The Sigma has the usual Sigma yellow cast. I prefer the cast.
I can't wait for an American test over at photozone or dpreview.

Note: Sigma= 适马24-70
Canon= 佳能24-70

http://review.fengniao.com/123/1231810.html

Translated: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Freview.fengniao.com%2F123 %2F1231810.html&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[tim11]

UPDATE: I have decided on a Nikkor 24-85 F2.8 - 4.0. It's not easy to find a copy as it's been discontinued. Anyway, it has a macro mode (1:2) and I'm happy with it IQ. It will double up as a portrait lens for me too.
Thanks for all the help.

[Rooz]

tim, i have noticed a few of these at ECS lately, (used). they dont have any at the moment but it may be worthwhile checking their 2nd hand stock every now and then.

[tim11]

Yeah Rooz.... my recent experience on ebay leaves a bad taste with used lens. I have a 28-105 F/3.5-4.5 that shoot great but it 'thinks' itself a prime lens and electronically set itself at 75 mm no matter what focal lengths I set it too. See a couple of images from this soon to be returned 28-105 lens at Nikon picture of the day thread. The seller agrees to have it sent back but next time I might not be so lucky. Let's hope my 24-85 can match it in term of IQ, AF is great.
I have a few bookings in the coming months and I can't fool around anymore with unreliable lenses.

[D70FAN]

Can't you guys in Australia rent lenses?

For $35 a weekend I can rent a Nikkor 28-70 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/2.8. There are rare times when the Sigma (24-70) is just not enough lens (mainly color and contrast).

[Rooz]

Can't you guys in Australia rent lenses?

For $35 a weekend I can rent a Nikkor 28-70 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/2.8. There are rare times when the Sigma (24-70) is just not enough lens (mainly color and contrast).

we can but the cost is about 5-10x that amount.

[D70FAN]

Well that certainly explains it.:eek:

[tim11]

Yeah... I wish I can hire a Nikkor 28-70 F/2.8 for $35 for the weekend.

[tim11]

The Nikkor 24-85, F/2.8-4.0 Macro costs me $975 but I couldn't get a clear focus of anything from F/2.8-5.6, with the exception of macro. :mad: I thought it was the size and weight of the lens that I can't hold it steady enough. Finally, I put the camera on a tripod and the result is confirmed: sharpness becomes acceptable only at F/4.0 and lower. It's a crappy Nikkor lens. I should have believed Ken Rockwell on this one.

They let me test a similar lens in the shop and the result is much different to mine - softness only evident at F/2.8 but even then it's much better than my copy. However, I have second thought over this lens. It's bulky and clumsy. Now it's going back to Nikon and I got shop credit; lucky they didn't ask for restocking fee. I think I would have to agree to that.

I just auctioned another 28-105 macro lens from ebay which is mainly the reason why I don't want the other 24-85. Hopefully I have better luck this time. This thread now becomes a diary for my lens search... :o

[michaelsteinbach]

Sigma <<<---- Jeff.... we need to be able to edit the thread title too.. :D

You can. Go to edit, then click the Advanced button.

~Mike

[tim11]

Mike,
I can only change the title in the post heading but the title as it appears on each forum remains.

[michaelsteinbach]

Maybe it locks it after awhile. I was able to change the thread title of an earlier post but it was only a minute or so after I had posted it.
~Mike

edit: You're sure you hit the "Go Advanced" button?
edit2: You're right. I can no longer change the title of mine.