Which budget lens ?

Mach1320 · Mar 1, 2016

So I think I've narrowed it down to a couple choices, I'm looking for a 24-70 2.8 lens for my D7100.

Sigma has an offering, part #571306, price is fantastic its actually marked down right now at b&h for $750.

Other choice would be the Tokina ATXAF247FXN for $999. It has far less reviews than the Sigma, and it nearing the top of what I'd like to spend at the moment. Just wondering who has experience with these brands, if it was you would you take one over the other 100% for any particular reason ?

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM Autofocus Lens for Nikon 571306

Tokina AT-X 24-70mm f/2.8 PRO FX Lens for Nikon F ATXAF247FXN

Thanks

Mach1320 · Mar 1, 2016

Also, if you can think so something similar you would recommend over these my ears are open to suggestions. The fixed aperture is a must for me, I'm just looking to step out from my prime into something with some zoom ability that i can use as an all around type of setup for now.

DB_Cro · Mar 1, 2016

Um, yeah, from the reviews and pics I've seen, those 2 are considered to be the worst two 24-70 lenses.
Tamron ranks very high, some like it even better then the non-VR Nikon original, same goes for Canon vs Tamron.

That's basically your only choice at a lower price.
24-70 is a rather uncommon choice for the crop sensor bodies too, I assume you already have something wider?

Mach1320 · Mar 1, 2016

I currently have the kit lens which came with my body, ive used it once playing around, other than that I've shot everything with my 35mm prime thus far and just want something that allows me to reach out a little and allow me to use it basically all the time for what i do.

Now talking with another user who like his Tamron 17-50 and likes it a lot which seems like a very good option as well ??

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical [IF] AF016NII-700

DB_Cro · Mar 1, 2016

That would be my suggestion too, unless you really know you need the 24-70, which you probably don't.
Those are full frame lenses which is why they're that expensive and the 24-70 range makes a lot more
sense on a full frame body. On a crop body that lens turns into a 36 to 105, not wide, not tele, not anything
unless you have something covering the range before 24 and the range after 70 which is what I have right now.

Tamron 17-50 is available with stabilization and without it.
The version without it cheaper and sharper (optically better).

The stabilized version, unlike their 24-70 is a lot worse (that's what I own now).

My 17-50 choice would be the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS which is stabilized, cheaper then the Tamron and IMHO has better image quality.
Top lens in that range is the Nikon Nikkor 17-55 2.8 which might actually also be within your budget.
The quesion is - do you need to spend that much more for little improvement.
Considering the questions you're asking, probably not.

So yeah, Sigma 24-70 - worst choice among 24-70 lenses, and the 17-50 best in my opinion (there's really little between the 17-50 lenses).
Same goes for Tamron only the other way around. 17-50VC is so-so, non-VC is good, 24-70 is amazing.

All of these are A LOT better then the kit lens.

Mach1320 · Mar 1, 2016

I do like how on a full frame say the 24-70 offers somewhat wide shot yet can also close in, though with an FX lens is the event i upgrade to a new body i could carry the lens along, but thats not a real key point for me at the time. Would the 17-50 made for a cropped body be good for that then ? I'm looking for a good all around piece. Generally speaking I shoot anywhere from 3 yards - 50 yards. Not saying i never go outside or that i dont want to but its my most common distance, some examples below from the prime i always shoot with

And when i played with my kit lens once i was trying to nab cars moving down the track, needs lots of practice there

DB_Cro · Mar 1, 2016

Different focal lengths = different look, it's not really much to do with how far stuff is away from you and being able to zoom in to it.
17-50 is as close on crop as you'll get to the 24-70 look on FF.

I'd definately replace the kit lens with a Sigma 17-50 at the very least and then figure out what other range you might need.

For example, I soon added a 55-250mm (replaced by a better 70-200 recently) but 17-50 was never wide enough for me so I added a 11-20 too.
While I could probably get away with 24-70 and 70-200 on FF (2 lenses for 99% of the shots), I really need all 3 on my crop sensor body, which sux.

I have great coverage now from 11 to 200mm, but I wish it was 2, not 3 lenses.
For the price of the 24-70 stuff you were looking at you can probably get both Sigma 10-20 f3.5 and 17-50 f2.8.

Mach1320 · Mar 1, 2016

I'm not a fan of the real wide angle/fisheyeish type of stuff, reminds me too much of a go pro camera some reason. sometimes i like a slight wide look that like mentioned I've seen on the 24-70 of full framed bodies. I think I'll start with a 17-50, see the Tamrons on ebay for awesome prices used and gray market it appears.

General conscientious is to stay away from the VR models then? I've been doing fine without and wouldnt want to sacrifice sharpness if its an issue

robbins.photo · Mar 1, 2016

Mach1320 said:
I'm not a fan of the real wide angle/fisheyeish type of stuff, reminds me too much of a go pro camera some reason. sometimes i like a slight wide look that like mentioned I've seen on the 24-70 of full framed bodies. I think I'll start with a 17-50, see the Tamrons on ebay for awesome prices used and gray market it appears.

General conscientious is to stay away from the VR models then? I've been doing fine without and wouldnt want to sacrifice sharpness if its an issue

From what I've read the older, non-VR models are actually sharper than the newer models with VR, I couldn't tell you how much of a difference there might be since I've never shot the VR model.

Mach1320 · Mar 1, 2016

Guess I'll do some more reading up as DB_Cro mentioned they felt the Sigma had a better imagine quality so I'll look about and probably pull the trigger on one of the two this week. Springs nearly here and i have been itching for a new lens to give me a little more flexibility this season.

goodguy · Mar 1, 2016

If you are short of cash then I would recommend going for a used Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 VR
It is an excellent lens.
If I didnt get an excellent deal on my Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G I would probably be owning this Tamron.

Dao · Mar 1, 2016

Just FYI, Tamron has a rebate for some of the lenses now.

Tamron Rebates

24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD
(model A007)
$200 Mail-in Rebate on the purchase of a Tamron 24-70 Di VC USD for Nikon, Sony and Canon DSLR cameras

6-year limited warranty.
Valid 3/1/16 - 4/30/16

Mach1320 · Mar 1, 2016

Welp lol...... went astray and pulled the trigger on a used Nikon 17-55, with the original box, bag and hood in great shape. Excited to see it.

DB_Cro · Mar 2, 2016

Well, that thing is the best of the bunch so it'll be great.

Mach1320 · Mar 2, 2016

Yea, the more reviews I read it became clear. Also seems to be a strong used market for name brand glass like Nikon and that particular lens seems to be one cropped sensor specific piece a lot of people want so I decided going forward I'll buy for full framed stuff and if I upgrade I'll be able to resell this one without taking a hit like you would buying new