buying a 24-70mm or 24- xx mm f2.8 for Nikon

[elrafo]

Hi there,


I own a 17-70mm Sigma f2.8-4.5. I am not a big Fan of wide angle shooting, usually, I even zoom into landscapes because I find this more interesting in terms of image composition.
the sigma is great for Macro and is quite good overall but it is not as good as the usual constant f2.8 Nikon lenses.

I tried the new 24-70 Nikon F2.8 N and was totally amazed by the sharpness and the brightness of this lens, my only concern is price!

is there an alternative solution for this amazing lens ? an older 24-70 ? A tamron or a Sigma that would be as Sharp and bright ? I'm sure there is, I just don't know which one to choose!
The Canon is really less expensive... Nikon should reduce the price of this lens

 

[Mike_E]

Good morning.

I was looking at this range myself and found a 28-80 Tokina AT-X Pro (280) f/2.8. It got some rave reviews and a few said that it wouldn't focus (the DOF is really shallow on this lens @ f/2.8- the design maybe?) and had C/A issues (not bad at all and easily fixed in PP when it occurs). My copy is great and I also use it to hammer nails.

A 280 AT-X for a Nikon is a little hard to find and pricey when you do but I feel it's well worth it. You might also look at some of the other Tokina models in this range.

My next choice would have been the Tamron due to the price of even a used Nikon. There have been several threads stating that you should only get the OEM lenses but I still say that if you can't tell the difference on a normal sized print you should go ahead and pay your house note! (BTW, none of the OEM crowd ever offered to buy me the 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikon so maybe it's not really that important after all. )

 

[Trenton Romulox]

There's a Tamron that is 28-75mm f/2.8, and I'm sure it's pretty good. But, at the same time, it's only $375, so, the quality surely isn't up to par with the Nikon. But, maybe the Tamrom would be worth considering?

 

[keith204]

There's a Tamron that is 28-75mm f/2.8, and I'm sure it's pretty good. But, at the same time, it's only $375, so, the quality surely isn't up to par with the Nikon. But, maybe the Tamrom would be worth considering?

I just got the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and LOVE it. My only complaint is AF speed, but I am used to USM. IQ is VERY good. Build feels pretty good, but not as good as some L series glass or the Nikon equiv. Anyway, look into the Tamron and I think it's worth the money saved.

 

[Garbz]

Don't be afraid to search the second hand markets. It may be a lens few want to part with, but people do lose interest, businesses do fold, and other unfortunate events may put excellent bargains within reach.

 

[elrafo]

thanks a lot, I was thinking maybe of an older Nikon lens ? but seems like there is only the 1 700 USD model on the market ...

 

[ScottS]

I have the Sigma 24-70 2.8. Its nice and sharp, clearly not as good as the Nikon, but its pretty darn close! I paid $450 for it BTW.

 

[latvianbilly]

sigma has huge filtre size doesent it?

I have tamron and its great optically! sharp and actually AF isnt so slooow..