I been thinking about, Nikon 50mm 1.4g and a 24-70mm f2.8

davetucker

davetucker

Suspended / Banned
Messages
606
Name
Dave Tucker
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Chaps,
I have recently bought a Nikon 50mm f1.4g lens from this forum and I am delighted in the quality.

For a while I have been considering a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 lens, however I am not sure the investment is worth it as the Nikon 50mm has a wide aperture and the only advantage I would loose is the zoom capability, from 24-70mm, or is there advantages, with the Sigma 24-70mm I am missing?

I "lust after a Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 lens but my budget or my wife would beat me to death if I payed £950 for a camera lens.

regards
Dave
 
depends what you do, i have both, the nikon 24-70 is immensely useful. It wont make you gush with joy or ever think wow i cant wait to use it, the 70-200 does though. But if you are a working professional it will just get out of your way and do what its meant to do. not sure about the sigma.

That tends to be my experience, the stuff that just works is a bit boring but work and the stuff that really shines is flawed in some way but its the juxtaposition of such things that makes them lust worthy and a joy to make work.
 
Its a difficult one. There is no question a 24-70 on a FF camera is a very useful lens, but if you getting by and love the primes you could get another one to go wider with a 20 or 24mm prime. You can do the same job with 2 primes you just need to use your feet more. Dam site light an cheaper than the heavy huge nikon 24-70.
 
As others have said it depends what you do. I also have the 50mm f1.4 and when I first got it I never stopped using it. However getting the 17-55mm f2.8 has resulted in the 50mm not seeing much action and they can be had for about £600 second hand. I'd even be tempted to sell the 50mm to fund it assuming you are on DX format?
 
I could (but won't) afford the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 so own and use (a lot) the Sigma equivalent. I could also (but won't) afford the f/1.4 50mm - I have and use the f/1.8 instead (I'm not a fan of ultra shallow DoF nor do I need the extra light (under 1/2 a stop) that the f/1.4 would give me. If I DO need more light grabbing, I'm happy to up my ISO.

If the OP can afford to buy both, IMO, he should, IF he feels he wants/needs the low light/shallow DoF of the 50mm f/1.4.

Robert, footzoom is all very well but I'm betting that neither of us can either walk through walls or on water and that the law of gravity applies to us both as well. In situations like that, a zoom is far more practical than a pair of primes, although a bagfull may cover most eventualities. I spent years with just primes and always wished I could afford a Vivitar Series One 70-210 (IIRC) zoom for the flexibility it offered - now I have a trio of zooms covering 12mm up to 300mm and a trio of primes for specific uses (f/1.8 50mm for low light, an 8mm fisheye for fisheye shots and a 105mm f/2.8 VR macro [guess what that one's for - yup, that and portraits!]) I am now getting older though and my back and legs have started to complain about the weight of this kit, so I am now using a bridge camera for walkabout use, with the SLR kit (D700 + lenses as above) being kept for special occasions and more "serious" photography. The bridge (Fuji HS30) gives me good prints at A3+ straight from the camera, accurate metering and good colours, as well as a (35mm equivalent) zoom range of 24mm - 720mm, although AF is a little sketchy in lower light much over 450mm, although in good light, it works well all the way up to the logest end.
 
I "lust after a Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 lens but my budget or my wife would beat me to death if I payed £950 for a camera lens.
Click to expand...


Good job youve not got into sport like me and lust after the nikon 300mm/400mm 2.8 primes :(
 
You get what you pay for.

Sigma 24-70 f2.8

Nikkor 24-70 f2.8

The whole point of a 2.8 lens like this is the fact that it has 2.8... and teh Sigma is quite poor wide open. In fact, it's edge performance compared to the Nikon is not even close at any aperture.

The Nikkor is not perfect either, as it suffers from CA quite badly, but that is correctable in Lightroom.. sharpness is either there or it's not.

If you can't, or won't pay for the Nikkor, stick with your 50 1.4G as that is a truly awesome performer.
 
I have both, and they both have their place. We don't always have the time or the space to zoom with our feet, and though I never complain at the quality of the images from the Nikon 24-70, I do like to use the 50mm 1.8G, and especially handling the lighter weight.
 
Nod said:
I could (but won't) afford the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 so own and use (a lot) the Sigma equivalent. I could also (but won't) afford the f/1.4 50mm - I have and use the f/1.8 instead (I'm not a fan of ultra shallow DoF nor do I need the extra light (under 1/2 a stop) that the f/1.4 would give me. If I DO need more light grabbing, I'm happy to up my ISO.

If the OP can afford to buy both, IMO, he should, IF he feels he wants/needs the low light/shallow DoF of the 50mm f/1.4.

Robert, footzoom is all very well but I'm betting that neither of us can either walk through walls or on water and that the law of gravity applies to us both as well. In situations like that, a zoom is far more practical than a pair of primes, although a bagfull may cover most eventualities. I spent years with just primes and always wished I could afford a Vivitar Series One 70-210 (IIRC) zoom for the flexibility it offered - now I have a trio of zooms covering 12mm up to 300mm and a trio of primes for specific uses (f/1.8 50mm for low light, an 8mm fisheye for fisheye shots and a 105mm f/2.8 VR macro [guess what that one's for - yup, that and portraits!]) I am now getting older though and my back and legs have started to complain about the weight of this kit, so I am now using a bridge camera for walkabout use, with the SLR kit (D700 + lenses as above) being kept for special occasions and more "serious" photography. The bridge (Fuji HS30) gives me good prints at A3+ straight from the camera, accurate metering and good colours, as well as a (35mm equivalent) zoom range of 24mm - 720mm, although AF is a little sketchy in lower light much over 450mm, although in good light, it works well all the way up to the logest end.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure any lens let you shoot through walls! I use a med zoom myself i'm not a prime fanboy or anything but there is a argument you don't need one. Tele's you mention is a different matter but the OP wasn't asking this was he. They are happy with there 50mm adding a wide prime is a cheap way of giving them some more scope. Like you however i would prefer to get a sigma 24-70 or prehaps the tamron 24-70 vr that panamoz are selling for a good price if you don't mind grey imports.
 
Last edited:
Robert, I spend a fair amount of my photography time on Crete, where beaches tend to have cliffs backing them and (obviously!) the sea on the other side. Not into people pics and the beaches are often packed, so I rarely shoot along the beach.

As I've always said (and have put in my signature), my posts are just my opinion, which isn't necessarily the only (or even right) way to do things! My bag is split evenly between zooms and primes, with the zooms getting most use, especially my (good copy - possibly not quite as edge to edge sharp as the Nikkor but most of my subjects are away from said edges so not affected!) Sigma 24-70 (on FF). Of the primes mentioned in my earlier post, I reckon the 8mm gets most use.

Teles only really got mentioned in my brief description of my current chosen walkabout camera. Chosen for zoom range and lightness! The D700 kitbag weighs in at a little over 8kg, while the Fuji, in its bag with all accessories weighs less than the D700 with the 24-70 fitted - way easier on my back and no problems getting it through the weight restriction on carry on baggage (a major consideration).
 
mart77 said:
depends what you do, i have both, the nikon 24-70 is immensely useful. It wont make you gush with joy or ever think wow i cant wait to use it, the 70-200 does though. But if you are a working professional it will just get out of your way and do what its meant to do. not sure about the sigma.
Click to expand...

This is a brilliant summary of exactly how I felt about my 24-70. It's a lens that's almost beyond criticism as it does everything exceptionally. And yet despite the fact mine lived on the camera, I was always desperate to use something else more exciting (including a 50mm 1.4). I kept my 24-70 until I'd shot a mate's wedding (perfect lens for that) and then sold it. Already having a 50mm, I replaced the 24-70 with a 28mm 1.8 and an 85mm 1.8. Pretty happy for now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top