24-70 f2.8?

[Derrel]

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

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

Yeah...some newbish guy with no testing equipment and no reputation....uh-huh...until people start quoting "Dave", whose first d-slr was a Rebel...I think I'll stick to sites that have rigorous,scientific,methodical,verifiable results...sites like DxO Mark for example. Not one-man YouTube video dudes and bloggers...

About Dave

"This site is about me learning as I go, and sharing my mistakes and my successes with everyone else. I’m somewhat of an advanced amateur learning how to shoot video with a DSLR (there’s a steep learning curve)."

Riiiight.....he's quite an authority.

 

[SCraig]

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.​

​

Good point, Derrel. As I recall Sigma has always been that way. They tend to go through a spell when their lenses are junk, then they will dig themselves out, build up their reputation, and throw it away again. I remember hack in the late 60's they were going through one of their junk phases when their lenses weren't worth using for paperweights. Now they are making very good lenses again, and I personally have no reservations whatsoever in considering them when I buy a lens.

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.

Reviews are only as good as the person writing them. They can always be biased by the writer's own preferences unless they are completely honest, knowledgeable, and experienced. That's not to say that it always happens, but it certainly does from time to time.

My Sigma is the 2.8-4 so it must be a DX lens.

 

[Ballistics]

I didn't know you needed to be a scientist to show someone that wide open the lens was soft lol. It's empirical evidence.

 

[Ballistics]

Reviews are only as good as the person writing them. They can always be biased by the writer's own preferences unless they are completely honest, knowledgeable, and experienced. That's not to say that it always happens, but it certainly does from time to time.

My Sigma is the 2.8-4 so it must be a DX lens.

Sure, but the video clearly shows the sigma is bad wide open. Stopped down it becomes sharp, but then why buy 2.8 to stop down?
I seem to be the only unbiased party here lol.

 

[SCraig]

Sure, but the video clearly shows the sigma is bad wide open. Stopped down it becomes sharp, but then why buy 2.8 to stop down?
I seem to be the only unbiased party here lol.

It would provide a bit more light for the autofocus assembly. Personally, I bought it because it was 17-70mm and I was looking for something in that range.

 

[Ballistics]

Sure, but the video clearly shows the sigma is bad wide open. Stopped down it becomes sharp, but then why buy 2.8 to stop down?
I seem to be the only unbiased party here lol.

It would provide a bit more light for the autofocus assembly. Personally, I bought it because it was 17-70mm and I was looking for something in that range.

I'm talking about the 24-70mm in the video, not the 17-70mm.

 

[Ballistics]

Sigma Lens: Zooms - Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM (Tested) - SLRgear.com!

If you are looking for a lens that is corner-to-corner sharp when used wide open at ƒ/2.8, this is not the lens.

 

[480sparky]

.....but then why buy 2.8 to stop down?......

Viewfinder brightness, for one.

 

[Ballistics]

.....but then why buy 2.8 to stop down?......

Viewfinder brightness, for one.

I guess that's something to consider.

 

[TMC]

I have the sigma 85 1.4, and as mentioned earlier about the other sigmas, it has bad chromatic aberrations. Quick question... With being able to easily correct the CA in PhotoShop is it really a reason to fault the lens in your buyers comparison. Obviously it is in terms of lens testing and comparisons but for me as a end user of the product it is just a minute if that to remove it. I am guessing if you didn't have PS or shot JPEG than it would be a bigger issue. Please let me know your thoughts on this matter and if I am totally missing the big picture here. thanks

Also would like to add that while the Sigma is a great lens, and I have never shot with the Nikon 85 1.4 I still wish I would have just went that route because I see myself doing it eventually anyway.

 

[480sparky]

I guess that's something to consider.

AF will work in lower light when a faster lens is used.

 

[Ballistics]

I guess that's something to consider.

AF will work in lower light when a faster lens is used.

Still not worth it to buy a 2.8 lens to never use it @ 2.8.

 

[Derrel]

A few options seem to exist. I'll quickly run through some.
1. Primes. 24,28,35,50 primes.
2: Older lenses: 24-85 2.8~4 AF_D, or 24-85mm f/3.3~4.5 AF-S. Also, the 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S Nikkor is widely available around $950.
3: New lens, 24-85 VR Nikkor, LOADS available that have been parted out of D600 kits...low prices due to super-abundance.
4: Reassessing the actual NEED for a 24-70. What I mean is this: these things are soooooo damned big and heavy, that frankly, I do not even want to have a zoom, when I have better,smaller,lighter primes with significantly better optical quality. Secondarily, I find the 24-70 and 28-70 Nikkors to be very threatening to "real people"...most people do not appreciate or enjoy a big-a$$, 48-ounce lens pointed at them especially at social photography distances. Results you get are, in my experience, more natural and less-forced with SMALL lenses. The 24/2.8 or 35/2 or 50/1.8 or 85/1.8 are much smaller, and lower-profile than the monster 28-70 or 24-70 Nikkors.
5: Older AF-D model,specifically the 35-70 f/2.8 AF-D for $350. GOOD quality and construction, wide availability. Supplement it with a 24mm/28 AF-D or 28/2.8 AF-D, or go for the future-proof 28/1.8 AF-S, one of the better new wide-angles.
6: 24/50/85.
7: TAMRON 28-75/2.8 + 24/2.8 AF-D NIKKOR.

I dunno...to me the most-critical thing is having the correct focal length(s) for the conditions/subject matter/environment/location. There are a lot of ways to accomplish that. The sheer size and weight of the 24-70 Nikkor means that a kit of the 24,35,50,and 85 probably weighs in at less than that one,single monster zoom, and it is possible with the 4-prime lens setup to LEAVE BEHIND ones not needed. Also, this 4-lens kit can be bought one or two lenses at a time, or in any combination; start wide and move up (ie 24 and 35mm) or start wide and fill in the long end (24 and 85), or go 24 and 50, then add the low-cost 35mm f/2 AF-D later, etc.

Last thought: the 24-70 AF-S is quite possibly going to be replaced by an updated lens, sooner rather than later...I have heard that, and I think that's true. So...keep the future in mind.

Buying already-used lenses means there is seldom any loss in value....you can sell a Nikkor for what you payed for it, or if you keep it for 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 years, it will often go up in resale value over time.

 

[Spesh]

The Nikkor 24-120 F4 can be had secondhand for a reasonable price. The optics are generally decent, it has a good focal range and VR. Probably worth considering if it's within budget.

 

[DCerezo]

A few options seem to exist. I'll quickly run through some.
1. Primes. 24,28,35,50 primes.
2: Older lenses: 24-85 2.8~4 AF_D, or 24-85mm f/3.3~4.5 AF-S. Also, the 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S Nikkor is widely available around $950.
3: New lens, 24-85 VR Nikkor, LOADS available that have been parted out of D600 kits...low prices due to super-abundance.
4: Reassessing the actual NEED for a 24-70. What I mean is this: these things are soooooo damned big and heavy, that frankly, I do not even want to have a zoom, when I have better,smaller,lighter primes with significantly better optical quality. Secondarily, I find the 24-70 and 28-70 Nikkors to be very threatening to "real people"...most people do not appreciate or enjoy a big-a$$, 48-ounce lens pointed at them especially at social photography distances. Results you get are, in my experience, more natural and less-forced with SMALL lenses. The 24/2.8 or 35/2 or 50/1.8 or 85/1.8 are much smaller, and lower-profile than the monster 28-70 or 24-70 Nikkors.
5: Older AF-D model,specifically the 35-70 f/2.8 AF-D for $350. GOOD quality and construction, wide availability. Supplement it with a 24mm/28 AF-D or 28/2.8 AF-D, or go for the future-proof 28/1.8 AF-S, one of the better new wide-angles.
6: 24/50/85.
7: TAMRON 28-75/2.8 + 24/2.8 AF-D NIKKOR.

I dunno...to me the most-critical thing is having the correct focal length(s) for the conditions/subject matter/environment/location. There are a lot of ways to accomplish that. The sheer size and weight of the 24-70 Nikkor means that a kit of the 24,35,50,and 85 probably weighs in at less than that one,single monster zoom, and it is possible with the 4-prime lens setup to LEAVE BEHIND ones not needed. Also, this 4-lens kit can be bought one or two lenses at a time, or in any combination; start wide and move up (ie 24 and 35mm) or start wide and fill in the long end (24 and 85), or go 24 and 50, then add the low-cost 35mm f/2 AF-D later, etc.

Last thought: the 24-70 AF-S is quite possibly going to be replaced by an updated lens, sooner rather than later...I have heard that, and I think that's true. So...keep the future in mind.

Buying already-used lenses means there is seldom any loss in value....you can sell a Nikkor for what you payed for it, or if you keep it for 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 years, it will often go up in resale value over time.

Use primes? Have you ever shot an event and had to change lenses only to miss the shot? I'm not a noob, brother. I'm aware that primes for te most part are optically superior. But when you need to shoot fast in low light, switching primes is for the birds. I was just wondering if there really was a good alternative to the Nikon 24-70 2.8. That's all. I want it all in one lens and I think the 24-85 2.8-4 will be the winner of this contest. Though the new 24-85 is a nicer sharper lens, it's not fast enough for events and live performance.