24-70 f2.8?

[DCerezo]

Hey fellas, I'm looking for a Nikkor lens that is on pretty equal par with the new 24-70 2.8... I want to use the lens to shoot events and live performance. Any suggestions besides the 24-85 f/2.8-4? Any help would be great. It's obvious I don't have the budget for a $1,000 lens so let's keep that in mind. I just want best bang for my buck, also I will be doing jobs with this lens so It has to be good. Just wondering if I missed anything in my searches.

 

[Ballistics]

I've been looking myself. I use primes in this range. But from what it looks like, Tamron comes the closest to the Nikon, but it's $1300.
Sigma makes a 24-70mm but the reviews trash it. And there's a Tamron 28-75mm for around $500, but you are essentially getting what you pay for
in build quality. I have no first hand experience with any of these lenses however.

 

[ratssass]

I've been looking myself. I use primes in this range. But from what it looks like, Tamron comes the closest to the Nikon, but it's $1300.
Sigma makes a 24-70mm but the reviews trash it. And there's a Tamron 28-75mm for around $500, but you are essentially getting what you pay for
in build quality. I have no first hand experience with any of these lenses however.

...your last sentence speaks loudest.I own the Sigma 24-70 2.8,and for the $350.00 I have into it (used),I'm not at all disappointed.When I decide it's limiting "my vision",I may step up to a Nikkor,and hopefully recoup the better part of my investment.I'm a bang/buck kind of guy,so I'll really need to see a night/day difference before I shell out 1-2 grand on a lens....

 

[SCraig]

I have the Sigma 17-70, f/2.8 and love it. In my opinion it's an excellent lens.

 

[DCerezo]

I just feel like I can't show up to a shoot without Nikkor glass... If the customer knows just the littlest thing about cameras I'm gonna look like a chump (I feel anyway). Am I wrong about this?

 

[Ballistics]

I've been looking myself. I use primes in this range. But from what it looks like, Tamron comes the closest to the Nikon, but it's $1300.
Sigma makes a 24-70mm but the reviews trash it. And there's a Tamron 28-75mm for around $500, but you are essentially getting what you pay for
in build quality. I have no first hand experience with any of these lenses however.

...your last sentence speaks loudest.I own the Sigma 24-70 2.8,and for the $350.00 I have into it (used),I'm not at all disappointed.When I decide it's limiting "my vision",I may step up to a Nikkor,and hopefully recoup the better part of my investment.I'm a bang/buck kind of guy,so I'll really need to see a night/day difference before I shell out 1-2 grand on a lens....

I'm going off of extensive research. From all of the reviews, the Sigma is the bottom of the barrel with IQ. Good enough for you, may not be good enough for the OP.
It doesn't hurt that you got that lens @ almost half its used market value. You will certainly see a night/day difference if you compare that lens to the Nikkor equivalent.

 

[Ballistics]

I just feel like I can't show up to a shoot without Nikkor glass... If the customer knows just the littlest thing about cameras I'm gonna look like a chump (I feel anyway). Am I wrong about this?

I wouldn't worry about that. At all.

Edit: In fact, I use a Sigma 70-200mm, and other photographers don't know it's a third party lens.

 

[Ballistics]

I have the Sigma 17-70, f/2.8 and love it. In my opinion it's an excellent lens.

Is that a full frame lens? OP is rolling with a D600.

 

[SCraig]

Is that a full frame lens? OP is rolling with a D600.

No idea. I don't shoot full-frame so I don't worry about it. My comment, however, was that I personally like Sigma lenses. I have two of them and if something happened to either I replace it with the same lens.

 

[DCerezo]

I think I'm just gonna cut the horse s@!t and get the 24-85 2.8-4... Cameta has one with a tiny scratch on the far end of the front element for $379... And if it sucks, I can bring it back.

 

[DCerezo]

Is that a full frame lens? OP is rolling with a D600.

No idea. I don't shoot full-frame so I don't worry about it. My comment, however, was that I personally like Sigma lenses. I have two of them and if something happened to either I replace it with the same lens.

That's worth something. I mean, sigma has been in business for like ever... If they really made crap lenses, I'm sure they'd be out of business. Though I'm sure the Nikkor 24-70 is god damn near perfect... I'm also sure there's a little lens snobbery going on there somewhere. What I need is a guru (not ken Rockwell) to tell me everything is gonna be alright lol. I took a lens recommendation from Rockwell and it was bad... I don't trust what that fool says anymore.

 

[Derrel]

Seems like there is a lot of unsubstantiated opinion available. Here's a look at "the three best" current choices in the wide-to-short telephoto zoom category on high-resolution Nikon bodies.

DxOMark - Nikon D800 and standard lens choices

Please note this passage: "Standard Zoom lenses

If you prefer the versatility that a standard zoom lens provides, the labs have tested six different models to choose from.Within those tested, it is clear that the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED is the best choice for image quality. For a zoom lens to score 28 is pretty impressive, especially given the high resolution of the camera, where flaws caused by compromises in optical design are more obvious. At $1800 it is expensive though.​

Below this Nikon lens, there are three models that all score 23. They are the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF), theSigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM Nikon and the Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF. Of these three, the Sigma lens comes out on top in the sharpness test, managing a very respectable 16P-Mpix that even beats the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED mentioned above. Sadly, it is let down by its chromatic aberration, which is a very poor at 26µm. At $899 it is also the most expensive of these three."

So..the current, NEW Sigma 24-70 is actually a very,very good zoom lens. However, there are some earlier variants Sigma made, which were priced very low, which have I think, tarnished their reputation.


​

 

[Ballistics]

I have 2 sigmas as well. I have the 24mm 1.8 and the 70-200mm 2.8 OS and I love those lenses. I use them both a lot.
But the reviews on those lenses led me to buying them, and they haven't failed me yet. If all reviewers are saying that the Sigma 24-70mm is poor,
I can only go by that. The 17-70mm if it's 2.8-4.0 it's DX. I can't find a 17-70mm fixed.

 

[Ballistics]

So..the current, NEW Sigma 24-70 is actually a very,very good zoom lens.

Not wide open it's not.

 

[Ballistics]

Canon vs Tamron VC vs Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 Comparison Review

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SVKcY4IZ5Ag#!