24-70mm lens recommendation?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Voyager1968, Jul 7, 2008.

  1. I need to upgrade from my 18-55 kit lens. I am looking for a 24-70 or a 28-70 f/2.8 lens to go with my 70-200 Sigma. Thing is, I just can't afford a Nikkor right now, so I am looking at the third party lenses offered by Sigma, Tamron, and perhaps Tokina. Does anyone have experience with these lenses, and could/would you recommend one over the other?
  2. The reason I'm asking is that I've read some fairly lackluster reviews.
  3. bradNYC


    Mar 28, 2008
    I had the Tammy 28-75 2.8 recently. The new one with the motor built in...I liked it.
  4. The Ben

    The Ben

    Oct 17, 2007
    Houston, Tx
    buy a used 28-70 like I did. They can be had for less than $1000
  5. GKR1


    Apr 19, 2007
    San Diego
    Why not the sigma 18-50mm, it replaced my 18-70 lens and I could not be any happier. Here are a few examples from the last few days. It is great f/2.8 walkabout lens and it is sharp, contrasty, light, and does pseudo macro for $400. I also think you'll miss the wide end.


  6. I have the Sigma 24-70 DG non-Macro version. From all of the negative responses that this lens gets, I just don't get it. The copy I have is very sharp and has no front or back focus issues. There is very slight softness at f/2.8 (when viewed at 100%) but some of that may be from the shallow depth of field at that large of an aperture.

    I picked up my copy used for $249 at my local camera shop. The customer who traded in the lens was changing to the Sigma 18-50 as he needed a wider lens than the 24mm. I have shot many social events with it, mostly with a SB-600 flash and it has not disappointed one bit. It seems to yield even better results on the D300 than what I got on the D70s. I was able to get a 2-week exchange guarantee if I was not satisfied with it. For the money, I feel as though it was worth every penny I paid for it.
  7. Thanks!

    The plan I have is to get the 24-70, and since I don't shoot A LOT of wide angle stuff, keep the 18-55 handy if I do need to go wide. Then, as funds allow, get, perhaps a 12-24 to go with the others.

    I just think I'd miss the 20mm between 50 and 70 more than I would the 6mm at the wide end.
  8. rvink


    Mar 21, 2006
    New Zealand
    I have not used either lens, but I have heard a lot of good reports on the Tamron 28-75 and Sigma 24-60 (not 24-70).

    Since you are shooting DX cameras, have you considered the 17-55? The gap between 55 and 70mm can easily be covered with a bit of foot zooming and cropping. Unless you particularly need a standard zoom which covers 70mm (maybe for portraits), the 17-55 seems to be the best standard zoom for DX. If that's too expensive, the Tamron 17-50 gets a lot of good reviews here.
  9. 005-1.jpg

    Here's a simple shot by my 24-70G. This is great lens and I don't regret having it.
  10. I agree - the Tamron 17-50 is a fantastic budget alternative to the Nikon 17-55, and the 50-70 gap can be easily compensated by "zooming" with your feet.


  11. Do you plan on using it with your D40? If so HSM is a must. I prefer the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 in that range with HSM. The 24-70 doesn't have HSM AFAIK.
  12. I'm also looking for something faster but the biggest problem I have with the Sigma 24-70 is the use of 82mm filters. This would mean I would have to buy new UV, CPL, ND filters and that would really add to the price.

    I'm considering the Nikon 24-70 as I have the lower range covered with the 12-24. I've traded down from a Sigma 18-50/2.8 to the Nikon 18-70 as I found myself needing the 50-70 range is situations where I couldn't get a bit closer and I want to crop as little as possible.
  13. philcozz


    Jun 27, 2007
    Colchester, UK
    I highly recommend the Sigma 24-70... Mine has been solid in all uses.

    Some examples:




    Attached Files:

  14. It would be used most often on the D300 with the kit lenses reserved more for the D40 at the present time.
  15. gfx1


    Mar 31, 2008
    the Netherlands
    I have the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and I'm not completely happy with it. It's heavy, not really wide on crop (the 36-105mm range is the same as the compact I got before that so it seemed a logical choice).
    My sample is a bit soft at f/2.8 or it front focuses a bit and manual focusing it doesn't improve.

    It's my least used lens, got an 18-135 for walk-around reach and a lightweight 35mm f/2 because that's the 18-135 weakest point.
    On fullframe it makes more sense (I tried it on an analog nikon)