Nikkor vs. Tamron vs. Sigma lenses

[dndpaints]

Hey all,

So here's a question for you...I've never used anything but Nikkor lenses on my cameras. Recently I rented the Nikkor 24-70mm 2.8 and loved it. I want to buy one but unfortunately my budget doesn't allow it at this time. How would you all say that Tamron and/or Sigma lenses in this type compare to the Nikkor model? I'd be using it primarily for portraits.

Thanks

 

[412 Burgh]

Hey! I can't help directly. As for I never used a tamron or sigma on my Nikon. I used a tamron on my friends rebel. It performed well but I just didn't like the zoom ring. It felt almost unsmooth and stiff to zoom. It wasn't a 24-70! It was a lower end lens so that may factor in. My best opinion would to be rent a tamron 24-70 2.8 and see how you like it.

 

[joaopsr]

As all brands, Sigma and Tamron have good lenses and bad lenses. I have a couple of Nikkors, and a couple of Sigmas.
I have a terrible Sigma piece of crap, and I have a very cheap Sigma which was a great surprise. My Sigma 18-35 is a paperweight, nothing good comes from it. My old Sigma 28-70 f2.8 is great for it's price (something like $300 used). It's not as good as the Nikkor 24-70, and it could never be. Not for that price.

When looking for older versions of Sigma 24-70 or 28-70, make sure you get the model right. There are a ton of different versions, some better than others.

There's a new Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC (VC is the Tamron's image stabilization system) that sell for about 1000€ in europe (don't know US prices). The reviews are very positive, but I've never tested it.

The big question is not about which is better. The Nikkor is better. Period. The question is which has the better "bang for buck", and that depends on what you plan to get from them. And yes, I shoot weddings with a $300 Sigma lens!

 

[Patrice]

Good Nikkor lenses are generally exceptionally good. You already know this since you have the excellent 80-200 and the 'not bad' 50G. Third party lenses, for the most part, will come close in performance and quality but most often they don't quite match up in all respects. The 24-70 Nikkor is a nice lens however the older 28-70 is not a dog of a lens. Personally, I would look to a well cared for Nikkor 28-70 before going to a third party lens. But that would be my choice and not necessarily the one you would make.

Also, the Nikkor 17-55 is a really good choice for a dx body and would make a nice addition to your 80-200. These are easily found in good condition from photographers changing to a larger format body.

Also a good performer is the Nikkor 16-85, it's worth a look, as is the 24-120.

 

[joaopsr]

The 24-70 Nikkor is a nice lens however the older 28-70 is not a dog of a lens. Personally, I would look to a well cared for Nikkor 28-70 before going to a third party lens.

Yes, indeed. It's a great lens. Too bad it's kind of hard to find.

Also, the Nikkor 17-55 is a really good choice for a dx body and would make a nice addition to your 80-200. These are easily found in good condition from photographers changing to a larger format body.

Also, yes. The 17-55 f2.8 is great. I owned it before I moved to full-frame. Sold it for a bargain (and accepted that Sigma 28-70 f2.8 as part of the payment). I wouldn't have sold it if I had bought the D800, since it has enough resolution to be used in DX mode... But not the D700, sadly.

 

[digital flower]

I like the couple of Sigma lenses that are in my bag. I don't really notice a difference with the Nikon branded lenses (except the 105mm/macro).

 

[Tee]

I'd say save the pennies for the Nikon 24-70. It's a great lens and is tops in reviews. With that said, I also have a couple of Sigma primes that I really enjoy: 50 1.4 & 28 1.8.

 

[spacefuzz]

I really like my nikon 24-70, it puts out great photos. I just purchased a 70-200 though and did a ton of research, tested several versions, rented and took them out of the store, etc. I ended up going with the Tamron 70-200 (no VR) because it was $1600 cheaper than the nikon 70-200 VRII and actually was optically superior in side by side testing. Perhaps I just got a really good copy of it though, because the first tamron I tested wasnt so hot. Id recommend going down to the camera store and trying out all the lenses they have, see what you like better / if any perform better.

 

[dndpaints]

"You already know this since you have the excellent 80-200 and the 'not bad' 50G."

Also, the Nikkor 17-55 is a really good choice for a dx body and would make a nice addition to your 80-200. These are easily found in good condition from photographers changing to a larger format body.

Also a good performer is the Nikkor 16-85, it's worth a look, as is the 24-120.

I think you may have been reading one of the responders stats I only have the 18-200 and the 50 1.8.

I think at this point I really want something with a fixed aperature...so the 16-85 is out. The 17-55 sounds like a good alternative but it's DX. Not a problem for me now (shooting on D7000) but I hope to upgrade to the D800 within the next year or so. But joaopsr says his worked well on the D800 in DX mode...hmmm, something to think about for sure.

 

[Patrice]

I think you may have been reading one of the responders stats I only have the 18-200 and the 50 1.8.

You're right, I was looking at the signature of the first response below your original post. Sorry.

If the 24-70 is out of your comfort zone financially I'd recomend saving up for the 24-120. It gets excellent reviews. And since you are planning an FX body soon then don't discount the multitude of available 'D' lenses available. Many of those are stellar performers. AF-D lenses will work on your D7000.

You might also want to look at Tokina lenses. They are well built and have good image quality.

 

[joaopsr]

But joaopsr says his worked well on the D800 in DX mode

Sorry to disappoint you, but I did not say that (But yes, it should work fine, though)
I said I would've kept the 17-55 IF I had bought the D800, which I did not. But, given the resolution of the D800, it generates "hi-res" images in DX mode (around 15Mpix, I believe), and that is, for me, more than enough (more than the D700 in FX mode)

 

[pixmedic]

we have the Tamron 17-50 and 28-75 f/2.8 lenses and love them both (non-VC). our primes are all nikkor. you can NEVER go wrong buying OEM glass for your camera since third party lenses are sometimes a hit or miss kinda deal with quality control. you can mitigate some risk however, by buying from a store or online outlet like KEH, Buy & Sell New & Used Cameras, that has a good return policy. ebay or craigslist will not likely afford you that option.

 

[bhop]

I've had all three brands. I'd save up for the Nikon.

 

[TheLost]

It depends on the lens..

The new Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD is $1300(US)... A good used Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 can be found around $1500.
The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS is $1400(US)... A good used Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 vr1 can be found around $1500.

Both those Tamron and Sigma lenses are highly rated... Both nikon's are better lenses.

However, The Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM @ $600 is an AMAZING lens and compared to Nikon's 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX @ $1400 is a great choice.

Don't forget to add Tokina to the mix... I'd pick their crop sensor UWA's any day over Nikons