f2.8 normal zooms (for nikon)

welly

welly

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,766
Name
Alastair
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey guys,

I'm going to replace my 18-200 with a normal zoom and have managed to reduce my choice down to these beauties:

Sigma 24-70 f2.8
Tamron 17-50 f2.8
Tokina 16-50mm
or something like an older Nikon 35-70mm f2.8

I'm shooting with a D300 so my concern with the Nikon 35-70 would be missing masses of focal length between my 10-20mm sigma and the 35-70mm. So I'm a little hesitant on missing all that focal length but I understand it's a great lens.

I have no immediate plans to go full frame and so don't mind buying DX lenses but may well do in a year or two (more two as opposed to one!).

This is likely going to be my main lens and so I want a good one. I certainly can't afford the Nikon 17-55. That one is simply out of the question unless I get an absolute bargain somewhere so I'm likely to be looking at the Sigma, Tamron or Tokina realistically.

Any thoughts on these lenses? I would much prefer my main lens to be a Nikon if I'm honest. The other alternative is going for a bag of prime lenses? I have a 50mm f1.8 and 60mm f2.8 micro.

Cheers guys!

Welly
 
It's a lot of money, but it's worth it though. The Tamron is good alternative, I don't believe the Tokina gets a good write up, which is a shame as their lenses are usually pretty good.
 
I think I'm edging towards the Tamron, having read a few reviews and seen some sample images. It does look to produce some great images, although the bokeh on the Nikon is just the bit nicer. But when you're a part time student and paying for everything yourself, funds are somewhat limited! I can always go for the Nikon when I'm a rich and famous <something>.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
The Tamron 17-50, or take a big, deep breath, open your wallet and buy a Nikon 17-55 :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I use the Sigma 24-70 and its a wicked lens, im really happy with it. Its large (although a newer smaller version is out now). I hear it can be as sharp as the Canon counterpart, and im certainly impressed. Try before you buy if you can.

Also you would get more reach with the Sigma over the Tamron.
 
I am sure Sigma do a 18-55 or 50 that has been getting good reviews and &#402;2.8 might want to have a look at it..

Nigel
 
The Tokina 16-50 is an optical disaster, it might say f/2.8 on it, but its unusable at that aperture.

The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is superb, and while you might want a Nikon lens, if you shoot it blindfold vs the Nikkor 17-55 you won't be be able to tell them apart.
 
Sigma 24-70 is going to be the next lens I buy - have seen some great results from it.
 
Sigma are supposed to be launching a new version of the 24-70 with HSM next month.

Not sure if its the proper HSM or the cut down version.

I suppose I should also recommend the Tamron 28-75, although its not really wide enough for a normal zoom on DX, although its a stonker on the D700 :)
 
i dodnt know that about the Sigma lens - may have to wait till there are a few reviews around before looking at that lens! (i would prefer internal zoom but i can keep wishing!)
 
The Sigma 24-70 is internal focusing. This lens is my lens of choice. Then also buy the Sigma 18-50 Second hand and you have then got an amazing set up. Have seen the 18-50 going for about 170 2nd hand!

Siggy 10-20, Siggy 18-50 f2.8, Siggy 24-70 f2.8


Not a bad little kit bag! Haha!
 
focusing and zoom have a slight difference but i like my lenses to not extend ( i have 2 of them, one of which is tobe repalced by the new year:) )
 
I'm more and more swayed towards the Tamron, reading a few more reviews. As soon as I get rid of my 18-200 (any buyers? :)), I'll be picking up that lens I think. At 250 of your English pounds, it seems like a steal.
 
I sold my 18-200 ( and really miss it sometimes) Anyway, for the wide end I went for the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, and it really is a nice lens. Looks well made, nice smooth zoom and, the acid test, nice sharp pictures with good bokeh.
I looked at all the exif data of most of the shots I took with the 18-200 and found most of them between 18 and 50, hence the Tamron.
I have a few recent shots taken with the Tamron on my Flickr ( below) if you want a look. ( or will be soon! darned uploader, isn`t!)
Allan
 
Are you sure you can't wait a little longer and save for the 17-55? Only I, and I am sure many others, can vouch for this lens; it really is something else.
 
Got the Tamron 17-50 2.8 great lens :thumbs:Have'nt tried the Nikon in case it induces lens lust:lol: must resist
 
i had a tamron 28-75mm f2.8 before i upgraded to the nikon 24-70mm f2.8 and it is a really good lens for the money
 
LSPC said:
Got the Tamron 17-50 2.8 great lens :thumbs:Have'nt tried the Nikon in case it induces lens lust:lol: must resist
Click to expand...

Actually I recommend you try it, it won't induce lust, and the money you'll save will get another lens.

Pretty much every review I've read (Thom Hogan / Photozone) where both have been compared puts the Tammy neck and neck or slightly ahead.
 
cannockwolf said:
i had a tamron 28-75mm f2.8 before i upgraded to the nikon 24-70mm f2.8 and it is a really good lens for the money
Click to expand...

Agreed - actually I had both on my D700, and ended up not keeping the 24-70.

I find the 28-75 a stunner, especially for landscape where its just superb edge to edge.
 
puddleduck said:
Agreed - actually I had both on my D700, and ended up not keeping the 24-70.

I find the 28-75 a stunner, especially for landscape where its just superb edge to edge.
Click to expand...

Thats very interesting, I am after a lens in that range, is it really better than the Nikon 24-70? I can feel the credit card quivering!!

Allan
 
i'd look at how you use your 18-200 i think you'll proabably find the 24-70 an easier step focal length wise unless you spend a lot of time near the 18mm end of the 18-200 then i'd go for the tamron but if i've read correctly you've got a sigma 10-20 then i'd push back towards the 24-70 again, which if you get a good one can be well worth the money.
 
allanm said:
Thats very interesting, I am after a lens in that range, is it really better than the Nikon 24-70? I can feel the credit card quivering!!

Allan
Click to expand...

I never said it was better - but its really really close.

Actually I can tell the difference, the 24-70 has smoother bokeh, and perhaps a hair more contrast.

I really liked the 24-70 but its a pretty big beasty especiily when the lens hood is on. The Tamron is much more compact, and when on a 15 mile hike where weight is a premium would be my preferred choice.

So my choice is based on pragmatism rather than pure optics - which are very close.
 
Well, I plunged for the Tamron 17-50 after seeing a bargain on Fleabay (£219 including delivery). I'm absolutely chuffed to bits with this lens! I think the image quality is just great and have taken this set with it:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alastairmoore/sets/72157608245566182/

I certainly think this will do me very nicely until funds allow for the D3/24-70 combo I aspire to!
 
puddleduck said:
I never said it was better - but its really really close.

Actually I can tell the difference, the 24-70 has smoother bokeh, and perhaps a hair more contrast.

I really liked the 24-70 but its a pretty big beasty especiily when the lens hood is on. The Tamron is much more compact, and when on a 15 mile hike where weight is a premium would be my preferred choice.

So my choice is based on pragmatism rather than pure optics - which are very close.
Click to expand...


I would get some images that just weren't sharp enough for no reason what so ever with my Tamron, even though the shutter speed was good and i was stable enough it just used to through the odd one up, your right about the size and weight though the nikon is twice as big and twice the weight but i still love it :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top