Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 or another brand?

[CaptainNapalm]

I decided to invest in some good, fast glass in hopes of improving my low light performance shooting with my D7000. With the exception of my 35mm, all my lenses are relatively slow. All but my 70-300 are strictly DX lenses. So the goal of my next lens purchase will be to get a fast FX lens in the mid-range zoom focal length which I think will offer me most versatility and allow me to get rid of my 18-200 to help fund this purchase. I want this to be an investment I can carry over with me if I ever decide to move to full frame.

After spending this afternoon researching online, I concluded that the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 will be my best option. The price tag of $1,600 is a little off putting but I am definitely willing to cough up the dough if it translates to better IQ for many years to come. I did notice however that there are other brand options for this same focal length/aperture offered by both sigma and tamron. Tamron offers this lens at $1,200 and Sigma at $600. Both got good reviews online and are tempting me to consider these brands in hopes of saving some money. I know generally it's best to get Nikon but I'm wondering if any of you had any experience with either the Sigma or the Tamron 24-70 to help me decide which route to go. Would you guys recommend I stick to Nikon in this case? From what I read, the Nikon version got phenomenal reviews and Nikon considers this their flagship mid-zoom lens. Thoughts?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Derrel]

Another option is to buy three truly FAST lenses. Lenses which will let in twice as much light, or more, and which will be smaller, lighter, sharper, and in fact, 'better', optically. Basically ANY AF Nikkor 50mm, and any 85/1.8 Nikkor, and the 28/1.8 AF-S G--all are going to be better, smaller, lighter, and faster.

GO here, and look at the overall scores, and the "Megapixel rating" that DxO Mark has established, then see just how far down the 24-70 AF-S falls.

Besides...according to Thom Hogan, he thinks the 24-70 is in line for a refresh, making buying a brand-new one not such a good long-term investment. With the lead that Canon has in the 24-70 arena, I too expect Nikon to update their 24-70.

 

[Tailgunner]

Don't forget about the Nikon 28-70 2.8. This is a solid professional work lens that will probably out live us and only runs about $800-900 used. I also second Derrel on the 50mm and 85mm 1.8. The 50mm is unbelievably fast. I don't have an 85mm yet but people rave about them all the time.

 

[CaptainNapalm]

Another option is to buy three truly FAST lenses. Lenses which will let in twice as much light, or more, and which will be smaller, lighter, sharper, and in fact, 'better', optically. Basically ANY AF Nikkor 50mm, and any 85/1.8 Nikkor, and the 28/1.8 AF-S G--all are going to be better, smaller, lighter, and faster.

GO here, and look at the overall scores, and the "Megapixel rating" that DxO Mark has established, then see just how far down the 24-70 AF-S falls.

Besides...according to Thom Hogan, he thinks the 24-70 is in line for a refresh, making buying a brand-new one not such a good long-term investment. With the lead that Canon has in the 24-70 arena, I too expect Nikon to update their 24-70.

Derrel, I picked up a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 today, got to shoot with it during the day and night, and couldn't be happier. Thanks for the suggestion, I think the 85mm will be next. They really are great lenses at a fraction of the cost of the expensive mid-range zooms.

 

[Derrel]

Derrel, I picked up a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 today, got to shoot with it during the day and night, and couldn't be happier. Thanks for the suggestion, I think the 85mm will be next. They really are great lenses at a fraction of the cost of the expensive mid-range zooms.

Wait until you get your hands on the new 85/1.8 G-series...it is an amazing lens for the money. DxO Mark tests show it as the #1 or #2 lens out of 72 different lenses on the D3x, D600, and D800. It's got high sharpness even at the wider apertures, and not just in the center but across basically the entire FX frame. Cameralabs has a fantastic test on the 85/1.8 G.

 

[clarnibass]

The 28mm, 50mm and 85mm lenses Derrel suggested are my most used lenses. In some situations a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens would probably be better, but I don't shoot in those situations.

 

[goodguy]

I am very interested in this thread, I am at the exact same crossroad as you are.
My D7000 was giving me pictures I was not 100% happy with due to soft pictures.
Now after I serviced it and fine tuned it I am much happier.
I find the results I am getting with my nifty fifty and 70-300mm VR are very good but with the other 2 lenses I have especially the 24-85mm VR are very good but not as good as the other two and so I am debating if I should step up the game and go with a pro min range zoom.
I read amazing reviews on both the Nikon 24-70 2.8 and the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC and all declared the Tamron to be the better lens.
Going for the Nikon is a natural thing but its so darn expensive.
I am not sure what to do yet, the Sigma 24-70 2.8 got less impressive reviews but I heard they came out with a new version which is better, dont know if that is correct and I need to investigate further into this as it is cheapper then the other 2.

Going to a bunch of primes is a good idea for some but not for me, I find I try not to change lenses when I am outside the house, a mid range to company my 70-300mm VR and give even better results then the 24-85mm VR is a must.
When I am outside replacing lenses is a pain in the A_S for me.
I need to juggle having the camera in one hand, the camera bag in the other and still dismount the lens, replace it and mount the other one.

 

[CaptainNapalm]

I am very interested in this thread, I am at the exact same crossroad as you are.
My D7000 was giving me pictures I was not 100% happy with due to soft pictures.
Now after I serviced it and fine tuned it I am much happier.
I find the results I am getting with my nifty fifty and 70-300mm VR are very good but with the other 2 lenses I have especially the 24-85mm VR are very good but not as good as the other two and so I am debating if I should step up the game and go with a pro min range zoom.
I read amazing reviews on both the Nikon 24-70 2.8 and the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC and all declared the Tamron to be the better lens.
Going for the Nikon is a natural thing but its so darn expensive.
I am not sure what to do yet, the Sigma 24-70 2.8 got less impressive reviews but I heard they came out with a new version which is better, dont know if that is correct and I need to investigate further into this as it is cheapper then the other 2.

Going to a bunch of primes is a good idea for some but not for me, I find I try not to change lenses when I am outside the house, a mid range to company my 70-300mm VR and give even better results then the 24-85mm VR is a must.
When I am outside replacing lenses is a pain in the A_S for me.
I need to juggle having the camera in one hand, the camera bag in the other and still dismount the lens, replace it and mount the other one.

I know what you mean about changing lenses being a hassle when you're out and about but as Derrel stated, you can get three fast primes for half the cost of a mid-range zoom, and in addition to saving money you'll also gain better IQ and better low light performance, only downside is having to change lenses. After seeing what the 50mm can do, I'll likely learn to quickly swap lenses and get comfortable with it, in exchange for better optics. I'm not sure if getting a fast (f/2.8) mid-range zoom lens is going to solve your "softness" problems goodguy, but you'll for sure get better low light performance and better looking pics.

 

[sandollars]

The 24-70 is my all time favorite lens. It is on my camera 75% of the time. You won't regret buying it.

 

[goodguy]

I am very interested in this thread, I am at the exact same crossroad as you are.
My D7000 was giving me pictures I was not 100% happy with due to soft pictures.
Now after I serviced it and fine tuned it I am much happier.
I find the results I am getting with my nifty fifty and 70-300mm VR are very good but with the other 2 lenses I have especially the 24-85mm VR are very good but not as good as the other two and so I am debating if I should step up the game and go with a pro min range zoom.
I read amazing reviews on both the Nikon 24-70 2.8 and the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC and all declared the Tamron to be the better lens.
Going for the Nikon is a natural thing but its so darn expensive.
I am not sure what to do yet, the Sigma 24-70 2.8 got less impressive reviews but I heard they came out with a new version which is better, dont know if that is correct and I need to investigate further into this as it is cheapper then the other 2.

Going to a bunch of primes is a good idea for some but not for me, I find I try not to change lenses when I am outside the house, a mid range to company my 70-300mm VR and give even better results then the 24-85mm VR is a must.
When I am outside replacing lenses is a pain in the A_S for me.
I need to juggle having the camera in one hand, the camera bag in the other and still dismount the lens, replace it and mount the other one.

I know what you mean about changing lenses being a hassle when you're out and about but as Derrel stated, you can get three fast primes for half the cost of a mid-range zoom, and in addition to saving money you'll also gain better IQ and better low light performance, only downside is having to change lenses. After seeing what the 50mm can do, I'll likely learn to quickly swap lenses and get comfortable with it, in exchange for better optics. I'm not sure if getting a fast (f/2.8) mid-range zoom lens is going to solve your "softness" problems goodguy, but you'll for sure get better low light performance and better looking pics.

If prime will work for you then by all means get it, I envy you for being so patience and committed, I know in the future I will have to bite the bullet and get the 24-70mm but that will be in the future, for now I am ok with my current equipment and my 70-300mm VR is SUCH an awesome lens that I still play with it every moment I can.

 

[goodguy]

BTW the more I read on Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 the more I know this is not the lens to get, the reviews are simply not impressive in regards to its sharpness, why spend so much money to get a nice lens ?
I rather pay more and get an AWSOME lens!!!

 

[CaptainNapalm]

BTW the more I read on Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 the more I know this is not the lens to get, the reviews are simply not impressive in regards to its sharpness, why spend so much money to get a nice lens ?
I rather pay more and get an AWSOME lens!!!

Yeah the sigma isn't getting the best reviews out there but it's what I expected. Their 24-70 is less than half the cost of the nikon. You get what you pay for I guess. I'm really enjoying my 70-300 too, great lens under the right lighting conditions, although sometimes I wish it was a bit faster.

 

[djacobox372]

The tamron 17-50mm 2.8 is the Dx equivalent of the 24-70mm.

 

[goodguy]

The tamron 17-50mm 2.8 is the Dx equivalent of the 24-70mm.

But he just bought the D600 so that's not an option.

 

[Robbo521]

i have a few sigmas and i am very pleased.so are the people i did the work for.