Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG Macro Lens or Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 IF EX DG HSM

PaulStat

PaulStat

PaulStat

Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2003
Posts
5,508
Location
Cotham, Bristol
So I'm really really toying with the idea of a D700 now, but I don't have any full frame lens, currently I have a Nikon D70 + the 18-70 DX lens

Nikon lenses are currently too expensive for me so I'm looking at the Sigma equivalents. I mostly shoot landscapes and outdoor stuff.

So is the HSM lens worth the extra £100?
 
I don't think either lens is very sharp. The HSM version is a bit smaller and focuses faster & quieter.

If I was concerned about sharpness isn't there a tamron 28-75 - supposed to be as sharp as the 1st party lenses. Plus it's smaller and lighter. Only problem is loud AF and it's 28 not 24 wide.

Other options would be to buy older versions of the Nikon 24-70. (28-70?). For us canon users we have the 28-80L then 28-70Land 24-70L. Prices are about £300, £600 and £900 used respectivley. Perhaps that's a better choice (buying the old nikon lenses) - I would avoid the sigma.
 
If you're looking for a cheaper alternative to the Nikon lenses in that range on a full frame then I'd have a look at the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8. It gets some good reviews and seems to be quite highly regarded for the price. Onestop seems to be the cheapest for it. ;)


Edit: Oops. Seems p0ss3s3d already said that one. Consider that a +1.
 
Last edited:
Do you definitely need the range? Since getting my D700 my only zoom I haven't sold is the 70-200. I usually use a 35/40/50mm prime (though admittedly I'll keep a 20mm voigtlander pancake in the bag).
 
Why would you buy a body as good as a D700 and then stick a budget lens on it? What a waste of a body!

Like Mud said, be totally sure that you need the range and also consider primes. I can't remember the last time I used a midrange zoom on DX, even though I own two (including the Sigma 24-70 2.8): I can happily survive with just my 30mm 1.4 and on FX I could happily survive with just a 50mm 1.4.
 
Mud said:
Do you definitely need the range? Since getting my D700 my only zoom I haven't sold is the 70-200. I usually use a 35/40/50mm prime (though admittedly I'll keep a 20mm voigtlander pancake in the bag).
Click to expand...

I guess if I had a wideish prime I could cope with that. Remember I have no experience with full frame so I'm only aware what my 50mm looks like on DX camera, no idea how much more I'll see in the frame with full frame.
 
Look through mine tomorrow morning if you want...if you want to try to find me at the O'Bedlam thing, I'm mid-twenties with a ponytail and a bad beard.

Could always set your 18-70 to ~33mm to approximate the view.
 
Nah, Ben. I'm not as scary as I sound, just finishing a doctorate is taking its toll on my grooming ;)

e: can't spell...
 
Last edited:
Do yourself a favour and never read Ken Rockwell's site please thanks in advance! Also, stop considering putting cheapo budget lenses on a state-of-the-art body, you'll only get cheapo budget results and it will be a total waste of time, money and effort. Do it the opposite way round if you want to save money (i.e. state-of-the-art lenses on a budget body).
 
Agreed re the D700 deserving a quality lens comments.

I use mine mainly on a Nikon 24-70, but the older 28-70 is not far behind it.

If you really have to go for a budget mid range zoom, then as above, the Tamron 28-75 is generally considered to be the one worth having, if you can find a good copy. I have seen some nice pics with the Sigma 24-70's though, but nothing compares to the Nikon lenses really.
 
Buy a D300s (£1,150) and a 35mm f/1.8 (£165, total spend £1,315): bingo, you've saved yourself over £1,000 versus the £2,365 you would've spent on a D700 and a Sigma 24-70, and you'll end up with significantly, noticeably better image quality (even the low light capabilities of the D700 are pretty much made up for by the stop-and-a-third advantage the 35mm f/1.8 gives you), the same build quality, AF and features, and a sensor format that doesn't make your current lens choices obsolete. You even get video as an added bonus.
 
robmiller said:
Do yourself a favour and never read Ken Rockwell's site please thanks in advance! Also, stop considering putting cheapo budget lenses on a state-of-the-art body, you'll only get cheapo budget results and it will be a total waste of time, money and effort. Do it the opposite way round if you want to save money (i.e. state-of-the-art lenses on a budget body).
Click to expand...

surely you can't go far wrong with prime lenses (Nikkor ones none the less).

I appreciate what you're saying Rob but what would be the point in me getting a FX lens for a 6.1 mega pixel DX body. Like I keep saying I consider this a stepping stone in to the full frame market, which I'd like to go to eventually anyway, especially given my photography style of choice.

I'm sure one day I'll sell whatever lens it is I choose to get now and go with the super duper £1k+ Nikkor lens
 
Last edited:
I'd wait till you can get the Nikon 24-70 and the D700, rather than putting a more budget lens on. The above option is good, the D300s and the 35 DX. Be a very good combination, that.
 
I had the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 on a Canon fit and it was "ok", lots of people absolutely swear by it so I do wonder if I had a soft copy. I bought the Canon 24-70L f2.8 in the end and it does have far better AF which mean a lot to me, optically it is better but there's not a great deal in it if you don't pixel peep.

The Sigma I also looked at but I was less than impressed with actual user pictures even though the newer HSM version reviews well. Photography On The Net (although being a Canon forum) might be worth a visit to look at the lens archive which has a lot of user pictures for a wide variety of lenses which I find useful as you get to see them in actual use. Of course Nikon forums may also have this as far as I know!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom