Question about Sigma v/s Nikon 24-70 F/2.8

[Foxman]

I have read some reviews on both lenses and the main thing that jumps out to me beside the price difference, is most people who reviewed to the Sigma lens really loved the lens with the exception that at F/2.8 the lens was soft, which sort of defeats part of the purpose of owning this piece.

So, I am curious if anyone has had or shot with both lenses and what your opinion was comparing them?

I am looking to step my glass quality up working towards playing for pay so to speak.

[Ads]

[tirediron]

I've not shot with the Sigma version, but I've been using the Nikon version for several years, and I have at least a passing familiarity with Sigma in general.

A few thoughts: The opitcal quality of the Sigma is by all accounts good except as you mentioned wide open which does sort of defeat the purpose of what you're paying a lot of money for. Don't forget build quality. Pick up the Nikon; you'll know you've got a solid, professional lens. If you're looking toward a paying hobby or career it really makes sense (IMO) to spend the extra $$ for the best quality possible.

[Foxman]

Thanks for the feedback. I was hoping someone like yourself would take a moment and share. I had made my mind up, but the waiting part always leaves questions. Once I grab it and shoot, I'll feel more confident.

I hope to have one by this weekend.

[Foxman]

Just a follow up if anyone was curious. I received my new Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 today and spent about 30 minutes with it at lunch before heading out. Without the benefit of doing much more than shoot some quick flower shots @ 2.8 in direct 1PM sunlight I can honestly say HOLY COW

I had no idea what I was missing. Now I am useless the rest of the day at work, but next week might prove to be a photo heavy week.