24-70mm 2.8, Sigma a viable alternative to Nikon?

[dxbtiger]

Xmas budgets being set in the tiger household *groan*

Saw this advertised on a local site

http://tnydu.biz/E6fM1A

Is the Sigma version a viable (yet cheaper) alternative to the much discussed Nikon version?

Will be attached to a DX body (D90), currently have the 18-105 kit lense that has been a good starting point to learn the basics of the DSLR world.

Also have the 50 1.8 and am getting the Sigma 10-20 (slower one) at end of the month.

Whilst I may miss the extra reach the 105 gives me it isn't great fully extended and I would imagine as a walk about lense the 24-70 range should be adequate for most of my needs and give better image quality than I get currently. I don't shoot anything (yet) that requires long, fast glass, although did try motorsport for the first time this weekend.

[miniman]

I have the older version of this as my main walkabout lens (albeit Canon fit). It's a fantastic lens. The only downside of mine is slow and noisy AF but the version you are looking at has the HSM so should be fantastic.

[nickcowen]

This is on my to buy list, it's had some good reviews
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/6676/...

[Simpo Two]

dxbtiger said:

Is the Sigma version a viable (yet cheaper) alternative to the much discussed Nikon version?

Found some reviews: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/596258-REG/S...


But you have to ask - who is doing the reviewing?

[andy-xr]

I've used both, and there's better colour rendition on the Nikon version, you'd have to really pixel peep for more differences though, and there was nothing that couldn't be sorted out with a little bit more contrast and saturation. I own the Sigma version btw, borrowed the Nikon

ETA - the Sigma was slightly slower to focus as well

[mmertens]

If you're on a budget check out the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 as well for that focal range. I have that on my D700 and it really is very good... Maybe a bit plasticky and tiny compared to the nikon (or sigma) 24-70 but the glass is (more than) fine. Has quite a bit of a following (on the D700)... seems the one without internal motor is better (focuses quicker) on a D700, wouldn't know whether that's the case on a D90 as well.

Maarten

[RobDickinson]

Thats the sigma 24-70 f2.8 HSM which is optically much better than the non HSM one.

Still not a patch on the nikon version, doesnt even measure up to the canon one.

Buy a 17-50f2.8 OS.

[LongQ]

You won't always find a test of the lens you want for the sensor size you have but ...

www.photozone.de

is a rather useful site for short but detailed lens reviews.

[dxbtiger]

Thanks for the input so far all.

RobDickinson said:

Thats the sigma 24-70 f2.8 HSM which is optically much better than the non HSM one.

Still not a patch on the nikon version, doesnt even measure up to the canon one.

Buy a 17-50f2.8 OS.

Canon not an option

Are you saying the 17-50 is a better lens, irrespective of cost Rob? I think I would find that range a bit limiting

[gary71]

I owned the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 (older non HSM) for a couple of years before being able to realise the funds required for the Nikon equivalent.

For the money the Sigma is a good lens, but it's not fair to compare it to the Nikon!

I traded in the kit lens and it was a significant upgrade, particularly the wide aperture, the Nikon is the same step again.

[RobDickinson]

dxbtiger said:

Canon not an option

Are you saying the 17-50 is a better lens, irrespective of cost Rob? I think I would find that range a bit limiting

Its a lot wider, and only a little shorter, remember you can walk or crop...

[dxbtiger]

gary71 said:

I owned the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 (older non HSM) for a couple of years before being able to realise the funds required for the Nikon equivalent.

For the money the Sigma is a good lens, but it's not fair to compare it to the Nikon!

I traded in the kit lens and it was a significant upgrade, particularly the wide aperture, the Nikon is the same step again.

So you would say as much as a difference between the Sigma and the 18-105 i'm using now and the Sigma and the Nikon 2.8 24-70?

RobDickinson said:

Its a lot wider, and only a little shorter, remember you can walk or crop...

True, but will an UWA by then, albeit a slower one, hmmmm decisions decisions.

[cornet]

Or get a 2nd hand Nikon 17-55 f2.8

I've just picked one up from local shop for £650 with 12month warranty for my D90.

[gary71]

dxbtiger said:

gary71 said:

I owned the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 (older non HSM) for a couple of years before being able to realise the funds required for the Nikon equivalent.

For the money the Sigma is a good lens, but it's not fair to compare it to the Nikon!

I traded in the kit lens and it was a significant upgrade, particularly the wide aperture, the Nikon is the same step again.

So you would say as much as a difference between the Sigma and the 18-105 i'm using now and the Sigma and the Nikon 2.8 24-70?

The step from the kit len is the wide aperture and all that can offer, together with a step up in build quality and reduction in abberations. The step up with the Nikon is to get the above with a level of sharpness to rival a 50mm prime, greater contrast, no abberations ever, and faster focusing (due to the built in motor)

dxbtiger said:

True, but will an UWA by then, albeit a slower one, hmmmm decisions decisions.

I bought mine second hand for £900 and also own a Sigma 10-20 for the wide stuff.

[dxbtiger]

Just had a call from a mate who knows I was looking for a potential upgrade.

He has just been offered the following as a group deal by some rich Russian who is leaving the country.

Sigma 12-24
70-200 2.8
150-500 5-6.3
24-70 (2.8) (fate? )
70-300 4.5 -6

^ all above are Sigma

D90 + kit lens (18-105)
SB900

Price he wants is 12,000 AED which works out at a touch over 2,000 sterling.

His wife reckons the equivalent of 1,750 will seal the lot.

He already has the 70-200 2.8 and knows I want the 24-70 but at that price thinks he is going to buy the lot and split the group and sell them.

All in pretty much brand new condition apparently, I'm sorely tempted to delay the 10-20 purchase and get in on this action.

Reckon I could get the 24-70 for about 300 sheets and tempted by the 70-200 as well, he paid about 850 quid for his new here.

I have told him I reckon there is cash to be made in the group, D90 with the kit lens alone are going for about 600 quid here.

Anyone see a flaw in the above logic?