Mid-range zoom dilemma

mikoh4792 · Jan 13, 2015

I'm looking for a mid range zoom for my d7100, but am not sure which one to go with. My budget is under $2k so that pretty much includes most of the mid range zooms available(even the 24-70 for fx cameras).

I'd like a pretty fast lens(preferably a constant 2.8 or a 2.8-4). I will be shooting indoors most of the time, and mostly snakes as the subjects so weather resistant/waterproof/metal construction is not a must. "Wide" angles are also not a must since most of my shots will be portraits/ pictures of enclosures and vivariums. My main concerns are good IQ across the zoom range and fast auto-focus.

So far these are the lenses I've come across:

- Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.0
- Sigma 17-50 2.8
- Tamron 17-50 2.8
- Nikon 24-85 2.8-4.0d
- Nikon 17-55 2.8(for dx)
- Nikon 24-70 2.8(for fx)

Which ones would you say fits the bill for the type of shooting I am looking for? And are the Nikon 17-55 2.8(dx) and 24-70(fx) lenses basically the same quality, with the only difference being they are tailored for different sized sensors? Or does the 24-70 also give better IQ than the 17-55?

JTPhotography · Jan 13, 2015

If you can afford it, go for the 24-70. The crop factor will not hurt you since you are shooting close up subjects and portraits. For landscape, that lens would hurt you on a crop sensor, it likely wouldn't be wide enough to be useful. You will never get rid of that lens, especially if you ever upgrade to full frame. Also, don't discount the Nikon 24-85 VR. The VR will benefit you when shooting indoors. It has superb image quality for those who don't need a 2.8.

jeremycnwy · Jan 13, 2015

The tamron 24-70 has been a dream for me.. on my 7100 it wasn't so hot for getting real wide but it got wide enough to get group shots at normal distance from people. At 70 it is long enough to do well for head an shoulder shots on a crop camera.
Can't go wrong with it. Love it. And now on my d600 is decent wide.. the zoom range feels like that of an 18-55 on a crop sensor.. on full frame I find my self at 70 a lot of the time and wanting more. But on the 7100 it's long enough to do what I like.

mikoh4792 · Jan 16, 2015

JTPhotography said:
If you can afford it, go for the 24-70. The crop factor will not hurt you since you are shooting close up subjects and portraits. For landscape, that lens would hurt you on a crop sensor, it likely wouldn't be wide enough to be useful. You will never get rid of that lens, especially if you ever upgrade to full frame. Also, don't discount the Nikon 24-85 VR. The VR will benefit you when shooting indoors. It has superb image quality for those who don't need a 2.8.

How does the 24-85 compare to the 16-85 dx in terms of image quality?(I know the 24-85 is faster).

SquarePeg · Jan 16, 2015

I have the Sigma 17-70 and love it. Picked up the older version used for under $350 (Adorama I think). It's good in low light and the short focal distance to the subject makes it versatile. Although I feel that Sigma calling it a "macro" is misleading, you can get really close.

Braineack · Jan 16, 2015

I had the 17-70 2.8-4. Really nice walk around lens with a pretty good range on a DX.

the macro on it is 1:2.7 at 70mm. that's not half bad; you can focus REALLY close with it.

I always thought it was pretty sharp wide open, and had pretty decent bokeh.

Flamingo by The Braineack, on Flickr

open this in flickr, go full screen and click "l" to see the detail. this was using a D3100.

my biggest complaint was the weight/size and the reverse zoom ring from nikon.