Budget Mid range f/2.8

[vandenking]

Another thumbs up for the Tamron, its cheap but works extremely well!

 

[djacobox372]

I'm a big fan of the tamron 28-75mm f2.8, very small and light weight for a full-frame lens; and it's sharper wide open then the more expensive/bulkier sigma 24-70mm f2.8.

 

[Rhodes454]

The old Nikon 35-70 f2.8 is around $400 and just as sharp as the new 24-70 f2.8.

Just be warned: the 35-70mm 2.8 hasn't aged well--about half the examples I've seen have had fogged/hazed up inner elements. If you get a perfect example it's a great lens.

I have a good one, and it is very, very sharp. On DX, it's just a bit too long for a walk-around zoom though (at least for me). I use another blast-from-the-past, a 28-105 f3.5-4.5, for that.

 

[digital flower]

My 35-70/2.8 lens is great. I had never heard of bad ones before. I bought it used from Adorama and it looks and operates like brand new. It didn't look like it had spent a day in the field until I got a hold of it. Seems very rugged.

 

[greybeard]

Looking at what you already have (18-105 and the 70-300) I doubt that any of the 3rd party mid range zooms are going to give you any significant improvement in image quality. True, there are a few that are 1 stop faster but, just how great will they be wide open? To improve on your 18-105 you are going to have to spend some serious money and then the improvement will be marginal in most situations. (jmho)

 

[djacobox372]

My 35-70/2.8 lens is great. I had never heard of bad ones before. I bought it used from Adorama and it looks and operates like brand new. It didn't look like it had spent a day in the field until I got a hold of it. Seems very rugged.

Ive purchased four in the past from estate sales, only one of them had clear inner elements. Maybe i have bad luck, but a quick google search shows im not the only one.

 

[Vtec44]

My 35-70/2.8 lens is great. I had never heard of bad ones before. I bought it used from Adorama and it looks and operates like brand new. It didn't look like it had spent a day in the field until I got a hold of it. Seems very rugged.

Yep, mine looks as if it is a brand new lens.

 

[Balmiesgirl]

I loved my sigma 17-70 2.8 I feel like sigma's build is very nice. If you have a dx camera u will love it. I only replaced it after I moved to a full frame camera.

 

[rgregory1965]

I decided on the Sigma 17-50 OS....great reviews and in my budget......

 

[Infinite_Day]

Let me know how you like it. I'm trying to decide if I want to save some money and get it or if I should spend the additional for the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8. Congrats on the new toy.

 

[DiskoJoe]

I decided on the Sigma 17-50 OS....great reviews and in my budget......

The sigma image quality on that lenses is almost unsurpassed.

 

[PapaMatt]

I have both Tamron 17-50 2.8 and the 28-75 2.8 and both are excellent

 

[Balmiesgirl]

The sigma image quality on that lenses is almost unsurpassed.

The key word is almost
I love sigma and they are great, but I tend to find that Nikon & canon pro glass is hard to surpass for their own cameras....

 

[rgregory1965]

Let me know how you like it. I'm trying to decide if I want to save some money and get it or if I should spend the additional for the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8. Congrats on the new toy.

I have had this lens now for a few days and it is freakin awsome.....great color and sharp from 2.8 to 5.6 and then it just gets even sharper to f11....GREAT deal....I watched a video the says thei lens beat the Cannon 17-50 14 to 12

 

[RoyWilson]

I second the older Nikkor 35-70mm f2.8. The Tokina is very sharp at f4 but below that its pretty soft.