Alternative to "The Beast"??

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by barriosa, Jun 17, 2007.

  1. I’m looking for an alternative to “The Beast”. I think I need something with just a little more range than my 17-55 f/2.8 for wedding photography and I want to get something less than a grand. That puts The Beast and the 70-200 out of my range, so I’m looking for a good alternative.

    1. Anyone have any experience with any of the 28-70 f/2.8 lenses from Tamron, Tokin or Sigma?
    2. If The Beast is a perfect 10 lens how would you rate yours?
     
  2. You may want to check out the Nikkor 35-70 f2.8. A very nice lens.
     
  3. Kerry Pierce

    Kerry Pierce

    955
    Jan 7, 2006
    Detroit
    I have no experience with the 3rd party lenses of that range, but I own both the 35-70 f/2.8d and 28-70. Near as I can tell, the optics of the 35-70 are just as good as the 28-70. The 35-70 is a lens I will not part with. :smile:
     
  4. A friend of mine swears by the Tamron 28-75 . . .

    . . . and he also has the Nikkor 28-70. He bought the 28-75 for his son as a cheaper alternative to the 28-70 and was surprised by the IQ so much he tested them head to head. He found images almost indistinguishable between the two, with the 28-70 being sharper at the wide end and the Tamron sharper at the long end.

    That said, there are many reports of sample variation with this lens. Lot's of folks have bought two or more of them or sent one in for tune-up by Tamron before ending up with a sharp one.

    I've never heard of anyone that got a 28-70 lemon new, FWIW.

    Greg
     
  5. CAJames

    CAJames

    Sep 6, 2006
    Lompoc, CA
    Do you need f/2.8? If not the 24-85 AF-S G is a great lens and somewhat under appreciated so they are very reasonably priced used.
     
  6. aldirtfarmer

    aldirtfarmer

    300
    May 2, 2006
    Aiken, SC
    Fred,

    I owned the Sigma 28-70 f2.8 for about three years. a very good lens on my D70. I sold it and the Sigma 17-35 f2.8-4 to fund the Nikkor 18-200 VR. In some ways I wish I had not done it. Optical wise I traded down but gained the longer range and VR for a walk around package- I was fighting dust bunnies with a three lens package which included the Nikor 80-200 f2.8 AFS. The single lens (good for most cases) really helps in that area. But since then I have added a Macro and still use the 80-200 for high quality shots.

    I will recommend the Sigma 28-70 f2.8 but I can not compare it the nikor since I never used that particular lens. The Sigma 17-35 was also a high quality lens I don't think you would be disappointed if you go Sigma.
     
  7. Nikkor 35-70 2.8, IMO the best lens for the money in Nikons line up.
     
  8. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    35-70 2.8d...although it might leave u lacking on the wide end...;-)
     
  9. Thanks for all you suggestions
     
  10. To those who recommended the Nikon 35-70 lens, since that is a type D lens am I correct in assuming it will work on the Nikon D40 or D40X? The reason I ask is because I plan on getting that body for my wife later on this year.
     
  11. CAJames

    CAJames

    Sep 6, 2006
    Lompoc, CA
    It will not auto-focus on a D40(x). The D40(x) will only auto-focus with AF-S type lenses.
     
  12. Hi Fred,
    I guess your choice has to evaluate these parameters:
    1) build quality
    2) optical quality
    3) zoom range.
    4) optional features (i.e. AF-S: swm)
    5) price

    Surely the beast has all them.
    My 28-75 I'd recommend for optical quality, zoom range and price. Compared to your "10" Nikkor 28-70, it just misses two points: af-s and build quality, so I'd rate 8. An 8 gained at 1/6 of the 28/70 price...

    Sigma 24/70 and Tokina 28/80 are better built than Tamron but - from what you can read -a bit softer wide open at wider end. Also their price is surely convenient, even if greater (at least here) compared to the 28-75. Of course, also their zoom range is favorable. They both lack of AF-S and this could be a bother, sometime. Missing the AF-S, having an higher price and a (supposed) slightly worse quality, I guess they would mark a 7.5 or so.

    Nikkor 35-70 has excellent build and optical quality, less zoom range and I don't know how many $ it worths there. Overall, it could be a 7-7.5, but this is - comparing to others - only if you judge build quality as important as all the rest. Of course if you prefer some of these things, your choice is easier.
     
  13. Thanks for the info, I might still get it for myself but that is good to know.
     
  14. Dino,
    Thanks for the info. So you rate the Tamron an 8 and have enjoyed your lens? Its funny you mention that they aren't as high on build quality as the Sigma or Tokin. I have read that their lenses are second to only Nikon in build quality. Something about Tamron being formed by former Nikon employees. Maybe I read that wrong.
     
  15. I've owned the 35-70, and it's a fine lens. Not many complaints with IQ, but it tends to "hunt" a bit more in low light. If I had a grand to spend, I'd pick up a used Beast. It's the one lens I've never had regrets about purchasing.
    Just my 2 cents.
     
  16. I might just do that. I have until July 27th to make my decision.
     

  17. I can't say that I have too many lenses that were worth more than what I paid for them. The Beast is one...my 300 AF is the other. Best of luck with your decision.
     
  18. Ciao Fred, I just took away two points from 10. Sigma EX line and Tokina 28/80 are well known to be lenses well built. They have a very nice finish and are quite bulky, while Tamron prefers going toward compactness and lightness while maintaining great optical quality.
     
  19. I have to be honest; most of what I've read here has led me to decide to just wait until I can afford the beast.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.