Nikon 24-70 vs 28-70 f/2.8 vs Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 HSM vs Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (Too Many?)

[yoman]

Hello guys,
i now am stuck choosing either one of these lenses

i was planning to buy sigma 24-70 but now i hesitate
the other three competitors seem great also

my question is, what makes the nikon lens 2-3 times higher than the tamron or the sigma one ?
and what aspects do i have to consider before buying either one of these lenses ?

really need your opinion guys, please help

 

[Nikon_Josh]

View attachment 7585View attachment 7586View attachment 7587View attachment 7588

Hello guys,
i now am stuck choosing either one of these lenses

i was planning to buy sigma 24-70 but now i hesitate
the other three competitors seem great also

my question is, what makes the nikon lens 2-3 times higher than the tamron or the sigma one ?
and what aspects do i have to consider before buying either one of these lenses ?

really need your opinion guys, please help

Usually I defend the third party choices as generally speaking third party makers offer cheaper choices with near equal quality to the main manufacturer.

But in this case... the Nikon 24-70 2.8 is a superior lens. If you want a 24-70 and you want the best, the Nikon 24-70 is the best you can get by quite a margin.

The new Tamron 24-70 VC though, you need to look into this one just to say. This could be a great lens in the making!

 

[jriepe]

I also am considering purchasing a good 24-70 f/2.8 but I am going to wait for for in depth reviews of the new Tamron that was just released. If the image quality pans out to equal the Nikon lens I will purchase that one but the filters will be expensive as I think it takes 82mm filters. The price of the new Tamron is around $1,300.

Jerry

 

[spacefuzz]

But in this case... the Nikon 24-70 2.8 is a superior lens. If you want a 24-70 and you want the best, the Nikon 24-70 is the best you can get by quite a margin.

I agree with Nikon Josh on this point. I just purchased a 24-70 a few days ago and while researching its competition nothing seemed to come close. The new $1300 Tamron might....but its not being released till the end of May.

You want to look for sharpness over its entire aperture /focal range. As well as chromatic abberation, distortion, build quality, etc. Lots of reviews available on google.

 

[Aloicious]

I have not tried the other ones you mentioned, but I use my nikon 24-70 all the time and have nothing bad to say about it. its an exceptional piece of glass, I don't regret purchasing it at all...if its something you're interested in, you may look at a good one on the used market. it may save you a little bit, but they still hold their value really well..

 

[vipgraphx]

Well one thing is that nikon is guaranteed to be backward and frontward compatible with all past and future body's

In regards to the nikon though I have read and watch vides on you tube though about light passing through the focus finder.




you might want to look more into that.....

 

[Aloicious]

I'd never heard that issue, I just barely tried exactally what he did with my lens and had no light leaking with it on my D3s even up to 20s exposures at ISO6400 50-55mm about 1" from a 60w incandescent bulb. I wonder if nikon has already adressed this issue, or if his is a bad copy or something...

 

[skinnyboy_74]

When my D90 was my primary body I opted for the tamron 17-50 instead of the nikon 17-55, mainly because of price. However, when I went full frame I decided to go for the nikon 24-70 over the tamron or sigma. I had heard, and read, such great things about the nikon version that I decided to try it out, knowing that it'd be a workhorse of a lens for me because of its range. The day after I picked it up I shot a wedding and it never came off the camera. It's a fantastic piece of glass. A little heavy, by the end of the night my arm was getting tired, but a gripped D700 + 24-70 isn't a light setup. But quality wise? A great lens. Like was mentioned, it is an investment but it definitely holds its value over time.