Which 24-70 f/2.8 Nikon-fit?

Before getting into this, why do threads in this section only go back 4 pages? Couldn't search any previous threads on my query.

Anyway, I have been out of the photography loop for the last year or so, despite investing in a D600 back in May, and barely using it. Hoping to get back in it next year. I need a 24-70 f/2.8 to go with it (still using my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 on DX/crop mode at the moment). Nikon version aside, which is next best in terms of value between Tamron or Sigma (looking to spend £500 max on a used example if possible)? I do shoot wide open A LOT, so think f/2.8 is a must. Will do some research and hopefully buy by new year.

I will keep my Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 for now (not used a lot though) and use it on DX/crop mode for the forseeable future and still debating whether to keep my 50 f/1.8. I used to love it but the wide zoom is way more practical. Alternatively, should I keep the prime and get a wider zoom e.g . Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S? The prime gives me 50mm, and the Sigma 75-225mm. WIll mainly do general travel photos, architecture and the odd friends' weddings (not professional).

D90 data:
Untitled by *SM*, on Flickr

The tamron is much better regarded than the Sigma (Which is softer and has ugly Bokeh).
Tokina has a new 24-70mm that is supposedly just as sharp and well built as the Nikon G (non-E) lens.

Nikon also released a new 24-70mm E, the old one has reduced in price a lot on the second hand market (I know because I was thinking of selling mine)


Some other options:
Nikon 24-120mm or Sigma 24-105mm f/4.0 combined with prime lenses. As much as I like the 24-70mm f/2.8 it has quite a shirt zoom range, I often wish for more reach, it ends just as things get interesting. It is also quite havy. Im thinking of sellignmy 24-70 and getting the Nikon 24-120mm F/4. and some primes.

Nikon has some fantastic f/1.8 primes: 20mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm. Then there are superb 3rd part options liek Sigma 24mm, 35mm and 50mm f/1.4 ART, and now Tamron have released 35mm and 45mm f/1.8 with VC (VR).

Have a look at your focal length distribution, 17mm and 50mm. I'm the same, 24mm and 70mm and the 70mm frequently too short but with a dabble around 28/35mm. I already have the excellent 85mm f/1.8 so was thinking of adding the Tamron 35mm f/1.8 VC, Sigma 24mm f/1.4 ART and Nikon 20mm f/1.8

That way for landscape and casual shooting I have the 24-120mm f/4.0, and it is also useful for events on a second body when shooting events with a choice of prime on the main camera body. The problem is when I have shot events I am constantly switching between 24mm and 70mm and sometime the 28-35mm zone so i don't know if I am comfortable giving up on the 24-70mm and going for primes.



Just too many good lenses out there now!

Thanks D.P. Yeah that Tokina looks interesting, but price is still high as expected and unlikely to hit used market for a while.

Interesting what you mention about 24-70 being too short range. I don't disagree but I had started reading on the 17-35 f/2.8 and liked the sound of price and lightness (compared to 24-70).

Is there a difference between bokeh/depth of field at f/2.8 between a DX and FX lens? Hadn't considered the lenses stopping at f/4 so far.

So first things first the 17-35mm is a very different lens to the 24-70mm., used for different things. The 17-35mm is very much a land/city-scape, architecture kind of lens. The 24-70 is a portrait, event, landscape, person, general lens.

The 17-35mm is OK optically but is an older design and all the newer wide angle lenses are superior, if you want a wide angle then I would look very closely at the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC which blows the old Nikon 17-35mm away. The Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 is also very well regarded, and the Nikon 16-45mm F/4.0 VR is a good performer, and the new Nikon 18-35mm f/5.6 lens is actually outstanding optically.

The Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 has its place which is why Nikon still sells it new (can take regular filters, is stil f2.8 and goes to 35mm unlike the Nikon 14-24mm). However, I wold look elsewhere. Tamron 15-30mm is on top of my list but the Nikon 18-35mm is very tempting due to size and weight, it performs extremely well for the price, it is just a slower lens which for landscape work is irrelevant.


As for the 24-70mm, I don't think in itself is too short but all lenses are a compromise of some such and a lot depend on what you are used to and what you like to shoot. I came form a 16-85mm on crop which is about 130mm on FF. I liked 85/130mm a lot but could have done with a bit more even. Now on FF I am back to 70mm which is like 55mm on crop, that feels much more restrictive.

Zoom lenses always trade off zoom range, aperture, optical quality, weight and price. :
Nikon 28-300mm f/5.6: optically moderate, super useful range, slow
Nikon 24-120mm f/4.0: Optically good, useful range, moderate aperture
Nikon 24-70mm f2.8: Optically very good, somewhat restricted range, fast aperture
Primes 24/28/35/50/85mm f/1.8 : Optically excellent, highly restricted and needed to swap lenses frequently, very fast aperture
Primes 24/35/50/58/85mm f/1.4: Optical perfection, highly restricted and needed to swap lenses frequently but bigger and heavier than 1.8 primes, as fast as you can get


You have to decide where to jump in and what trade offs to make. If you go for the 28-300mm then you are liekly doing something wrong and should be looking at a crop camera or bridge, unless you also add primes. The 24-70mm is a good trade off, you wont feel a bug need to add primes but you don't have the flexibility of the long zooms or the absolutely DoF control or low light ability of primes. The 24-120mm f/4.0 is a fine lens, but again it raises the question why you are using a FF camera.

Primes are a solid choice but you have lost a ton of flexibility and a full set is very expensive.


I currently have the 24-70mm but think a swap to 24-120mm f/4.0 + a bunch of 1.8 primes will be an upgrade. I gain flexibility with the 24-120mm and i gain Dof control and low light capabilities with the primes. I can sue my camera in 2 different modes then. However i love my 24-70mm!


And yes, an f/4.0 lens on FF will offer a similar DoF as a f/2.8 lens on a crop camera when keeping the subject the same size, hence an f/4.0 lens still has good DoF control but I don't think it makes sense if it is not accompanied by some primes.

Thanks DP, much appreciated. I read some reviews of the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 last night and on paper, seems to be the best balance. Will try to find one in a shop to get a feel for it.

Bought a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 last week second hand for £499 from Misfuds. Few tests suggest autofocus with my D610 is fine, but will need to give it a proper road test soon.

Only complaint so far is that when the hood is on backwards, it is a little hard to zoom in/out. But most situations, when shooting, I should have the hood facing forwards.