PDA

View Full Version : Nikon 18-70 f/3.5-4 or Sigma 24-70 f/2.8



jlupo
07-05-2007, 01:23 PM
I'm considering trading my Nikon 18-70 in on a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8. What are your thought on this move? I also have a Nikon 50mm f/1.8, I just thing a faster zoom would be helpful.

Thanks

tcadwall
07-05-2007, 01:32 PM
What camera do you have, and what do you shoot primarily?

thebac
07-05-2007, 02:39 PM
Why do you want to go for the 24-70?

I have the 18-70, and I wouldn't trade it in for the 24-70.

Advantages of the 18-70:
- longer range--those 6mm at the wide end are substantial
- light and comparatively small
- AF-S
- very sharp even wide open

Advantages of the 24-70:
- constant 2.8 throughout the range
- good build quality

Obviously, the Sigma gains you more than a stop at the tele end, but if I need a low-light lens, I find that a) 2.8 isn't really that bright and b) the Nikon is plenty sharp wide open, so you might have to stop down the Sigma somewhat first before getting the same quality as the Nikon which defeats the purpose of owning a faster lens.

jlupo
07-05-2007, 04:55 PM
Thanks for the replys. The camera is a D70s. I like the 18-70 very much, whis is why I asked the question. To see if there was enough benifit to switch to a 2.8 constant aperture. As I said, I also have a 50mm 1.8 which works great in low light. The only issue there is sometims I cant get far enough away from my subject. At this moment, I'm thinking of staying with what I have. More thoughts are always welcome.

Thanks

tcadwall
07-05-2007, 11:34 PM
Have you considered looking for a used Nikkor 80mm-200mm f/2.8? Its on my wishlist. The 70mm-200mm f/2.8 VR is on the "dream"-list

thebac
07-06-2007, 07:04 AM
When you say that you can't get far enough away from your subject, do you mean that even at the 18mm wide setting you're always trying to back up to get "more" into your picture?

If so, definitely do not go for the 24-70--at 24mm you have to back up even more than at 18mm.

jlupo
07-06-2007, 07:18 AM
Sorry if I was not clear. I can't get far enough away with the 50mm 1.7. The zoom range of the 18-70 is great for inside, I just wish it were a little faster.

Rooz
07-06-2007, 07:21 AM
Thanks for the replys. The camera is a D70s. I like the 18-70 very much, whis is why I asked the question. To see if there was enough benifit to switch to a 2.8 constant aperture. As I said, I also have a 50mm 1.8 which works great in low light. The only issue there is sometims I cant get far enough away from my subject. At this moment, I'm thinking of staying with what I have. More thoughts are always welcome.

Thanks

why not the sigma 18-50mm f2.8 ? you lose a little on the tele end but unless i'm thinking of a totally differnt lens than the 24-70 you mention, with the 18-50mm you get a more compact, lighter, sharper lens which will retain the wide angle you need and has close focussing "macro" to boot.

if your question is "is the sigma a better lens ?" then absoluetly it is. if your question is "will f2.8 help in low light ?" absoluetly it will.

the only question you need to answer that none of us can help you with is "do i have the money ?" :)