So....

[mwcfarms]

So I'm looking at getting a different lens. Now I would love to be able to afford the Nikon 24 to 70mm F2.8 but its too much for my budget.

Now I can always look at this Nikkor AF 24-85 mm f2.8-4 as an option or the Sigma 24 to 70mm but the rep at the camera store said they don't even rent it out any more because of the C/A their copies had not matter what. The other thing I have read about this lens is sometimes the barrel sticks.

My question is for those who have more experience with the third party lenses. I have the Sigma 105mm and I love it its tack sharp, fast and has proven to be a great addition to my set.

Is the Nikon a better route too go? Its comparibly the same cost as the sigma only difference is the aperature doesn't stay constant.

Going to keep searching through posts here to see what else I can learn but if anyone has additional info they want to toss my way I appreciate it.

Thanks.

 

[mwcfarms]

Well I think I am going to try out the Sigma 24 - 70mm and if I hate it I can always return it. Excited to put it through some paces if it would only stop raining.

 

[IgsEMT]

I've used both Nikon 24-85 and Sigma you mentioned. Never had an issue with either one. What I DO love about nikon is it's also a macro AND should I decided to sell it (unlikely though) it'll hold it's value.

 

[mwcfarms]

Really so that would elimante my need for the Sigma 105mm macro then? I didnt see that on its specs will have to look again. Thanks for the tip.

 

[ajkramer87]

Its not going to do 1:1. Most zooms get like 1:2.

 

[mwcfarms]

Yup I saw that too. But it might provide the amount that I want. Will see once I get to the store. Thanks for the tips guys. :hug::

 

[Josh220]

Dee,
You already have that range covered with your 18-105mm. I realize you want better optics, however I don't think getting the same range in a 3rd party brand will give you the results you are hoping for. If you are going to get something within the same range you should get something that will undoubtedly be far superior. I would try saving for the 24-70 or keep an eye on craigslist for a used one.

Another option is to get the new 16-35mm. It's actually a little sharper than the 24-70, and on a D90 it will give you almost identical range as a 24-70 on a FX body. The 24-70 is intended for FX anyways, and can be a little restricting on a DX body. The 16-35 will be a 24-70 with the crop.

Just my 2 cents. I just don't think going to Sigma is the route to go.

 

[IgsEMT]

another one of my favs is 28-105
I don't nesesarily prefer older lenses bu they are still good quality and significantly cheaper.

 

[bigtwinky]

The only third party I have is the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for my Canon.

I am very happy with it. I paid just over $500. The lens is sharp. Actually, I had to bring my original copy back because the first wasn't too sharp, but the second one I got is nice.

I've used it for over a year. I've shot low light dance shows, weddings,... plenty of things with this lens.

I actually rented a 24-70 from Canon and shot a show with both lenses. Same camera, same lights... at f/2.8, the Canon was sharper. At f/5.6, the Tamron was sharper. The difference in both cases isn't huge, but noticable if you pixel peep.

Having used the Tamron alot, and recommending the Tamron to others, I'm still planning on switching to the Canon. Why? The autofocus speed is much faster in low light with the Canon. I find the contrast and colours in the Canon just look nicer, which means less processing. And the f/2.8 sharpness. I shoot alot more lowlight now than I did a year ago, which makes it a much bigger factor.

But really, the Tamron was an AWESOME purchase. It will be with me for many more months until I save enough for the Canon (and hope for the IS version to come out).

I dont know if the Tammie is as good on the Nikons as it is on the Canons, but this might be an avenue to explore.

 

[IgsEMT]

I dont know if the Tammie is as good on the Nikons as it is on the Canons, but this might be an avenue to explore.

Don't forget Tokina. I don't remember which ranged they make but they aren't bad in a 3rd party.

 

[bigtwinky]

Tokina makes an amazing wide angle, the 11-16mm

 

[mwcfarms]

Well thanks for all the tips guys I in the end decided to save up for the nikon 24 - 70 but I did pick up a 35mm. F/2D and an umbrella and stand for my flash no point in not saving up for 4 or 5 months and getting it then. Thanks for all the tips. I did however rent a wide angle for harvest farming pics lol

 

[Patrice]

Dee,

The 28-70 f2.8 nikkor is also a very good pro lens and less expensive than the 24-70. Does not have nano crystal coatings but might be a bit more robust.

 

[Josh220]

Dee,

The 28-70 f2.8 nikkor is also a very good pro lens and less expensive than the 24-70. Does not have nano crystal coatings but might be a bit more robust.

Robust is an understatement

The 28-70 is nicknamed "the brick" and for good reason.

 

[mwcfarms]

Lol I am going to save up for the 24 to 70 new. I have time to save for it and time to practice and learn with the others I have. I have to say that this little 35mm I picked up is nice and crispy. Really liking it so far. Better than the 50 1.8 I have. Thanks for all the help and suggestions guys. I really appreciate the knowledge and opinions. :hug::