Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 Lens: I'd love to have a 24-70 in my arsenal but can't handle the cost of the Nikon model. If you have had experience with the Sigma lens I'd like to have your...

Bunkershot Loc: Central Florida

I'd love to have a 24-70 in my arsenal but can't handle the cost of the Nikon model. If you have had experience with the Sigma lens I'd like to have your comments. Quality, sharpness, focus, etc. I own the Sigma 10-20 and love it.

creativ simon Loc: Coulsdon, South London

Bunkershot wrote:

I'd love to have a 24-70 in my arsenal but can't handle the cost of the Nikon model. If you have had experience with the Sigma lens I'd like to have your comments. Quality, sharpness, focus, etc. I own the Sigma 10-20 and love it.

I have owned the Sigma 24/70 for about 2 years, no complaints whatsoever, sharp shots, well made and happy to recommend it

gemlenz Loc: Gilbert Arizona

no image stabilization though...that's a downer, just sayin'

creativ simon wrote:

I have owned the Sigma 24/70 for about 2 years, no complaints whatsoever, sharp shots, well made and happy to recommend it

creativ simon Loc: Coulsdon, South London

gemlenz wrote:

no image stabilization though...that's a downer, just sayin'

That is true gemlenz and thanks for pointing that out, not an issue for me as mainly used in studio tripod mounted

traveler90712 Loc: Lake Worth, Fl.

Look at the Tamron for your camera. Cheaper then the Nikon and rated better then the Sigma and Nikon.

Photocraig

gemlenz wrote:

no image stabilization though...that's a downer, just sayin'

I have the SIGMA 17-70 f2.8-4 Contemporary for Canon. It has Optical Stabilization and very close focusing at 70mm. It was listed at $399 at Adorama, but my sale price was $360.

It is crisp, sharp, focuses fast and I have no complaints. I bought it SPECIFICALLY for the OS. The same product description is for the Nikon mount. It IS an APS-C only lens.

CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.

Bunkershot wrote:

I'd love to have a 24-70 in my arsenal but can't handle the cost of the Nikon model. If you have had experience with the Sigma lens I'd like to have your comments. Quality, sharpness, focus, etc. I own the Sigma 10-20 and love it.

Take a look at the Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8 Micro (Macro) same price as the Sigma.
It is a very versatile Lens.
Craig

gemlenz Loc: Gilbert Arizona

Photocraig wrote:

I have the SIGMA 17-70 f2.8-4 Contemporary for Canon. It has Optical Stabilization and very close focusing at 70mm. It was listed at $399 at Adorama, but my sale price was $360.

It is crisp, sharp, focuses fast and I have no complaints. I bought it SPECIFICALLY for the OS. The same product description is for the Nikon mount. It IS an APS-C only lens.

:thumbup:

NikonJohn Loc: Indiana U.S.A.

Not sure about the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 I would probably go with the Tamron if going "third party" and the Tammy does have image stabilization.
I just got the Nikon 24-120 f4. Haven't used it much yet but I like it so far. Only one stop less than the 2.8 and much less money, weight and size. Plus it does have VR. I decided to take a chance on this one and went grey market and got it for $554, about half the cost of a "USA" lens. I have never had a warranty claim on a lens yet so I'm hoping it works well for a long time. :) The seller does offer a one year warranty through the store though.
You might want to look at Photozone.de they do excellent reviews of a lot of lenses. It helped me chose which one I wanted.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Bunkershot wrote:

I'd love to have a 24-70 in my arsenal but can't handle the cost of the Nikon model. If you have had experience with the Sigma lens I'd like to have your comments. Quality, sharpness, focus, etc. I own the Sigma 10-20 and love it.

Take a look here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV9ju8LmRfU

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

I chose the Sigma 24-70 over the similar Nikon lens back in film days. The Sigma front did not rotate on zoom or focus, whereas the Nikon did. That was a PITA when using a polar' filter. No problems with lens performance using the Sigma. You should enjoy using it.

Nukepr Loc: Citrus County, FL

You might want to consider the Tokina 24-70 2.8. It is a new lens without a lot of reviews, but those that are out say it is a good lens. I took the chance and bought one, and so far it seems like a very nice lens. It does not have image stabilization. It is heavy. It costs $999 for US model. My use so far was shooting around town and one event, and the pictures I got were clean and crisp. I am pleased with the lens and recommend you look into it.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

I tested the Sigma 24-105 ART lens and found it was no better in general than my Canon 18-200 kit lens. At a variety of apertures, the centers were equally sharp. The Sigma did produce slightly sharper edges wide open. I posted test shots here and people did not see much of a difference. I confirmed the screen results with prints.

The moral is test the lens very carefully against what you now have and be very objective about deciding to keep it.

OviedoPhotos

I went with the Tamron 24-70 f2.8. Awesome lens.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

gemlenz wrote:

no image stabilization though...that's a downer, just sayin'

Indeed image stabilization is a great tool when using a tripod is not possible or practical. Another easy way to fix the lack of IS is to raise the ISO or the shutter speed beyond the focal lenght of the lens, in this case beyond 1/70 sec. and preferable 1/250 sec.
After Tamron came up with VR in their 24-70 at least Nikon has followed with a new version of their lens. Very expensive thought!