Nikon 24-70/2.8 equivalent.....

Y15HAL

Y15HAL

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,721
Name
Vishal
Edit My Images
Yes
I got hold of a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 expecting it to be something special....boy was i wrong! :(

I must have picked myself a dodgy version! :cuckoo:

Anyways, i just wanted to know whats the best lens to get which would be of similar quality to the nikon version?

I dont have the money to be forking out for the nikon version, so need something cheaper....obviously i know it won't be as sharp as the nikon....

This would be used on a crop body...(for the time being! :gag:)

Any help would be much appeciated! :)
 
If you can live without the wide end could you afford a used Nikkor 28-70 2.8 (The Beast). Might find one for £600-650 ish. If this is too much at the moment the Tammy 28-75 2.8 has a pretty sound reputation. New around £300
 
Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 gets good reviews and can be had for +/- £200 used. I've just purchased one myself and although I haven't extensively used it my first impressions are very good (excellent value for money)....a little soft wide open at 2.8 but perfectly usable and nothing a pp sharpen wouldn't fix. Stopped down to a notch or two sees a marked improvement in sharpness...definitely worth considering.
 
Thanks trevor, 'the beast' is a little out of the price range at the moment, especially because i want to buy a 70-200/2.8 aswell at some point..... :(

Sounds like the tamron could be an option then.....
 
There is no equivalent unfortunately, that's why the 24-70 Nikkor is £1200. I've owned the Tamron and it's a good lens for the money, but doesn't even come close to the Nikon. Save, beg, borrow and steal if you have to in order to get the Nikon, it really is well worth the outlay.
 
Vishal, which version of the Sigma lens did you get? I've got the HSM one, and it's an absolute belter.
 
Agreed with Dman, nothing comes close to the Nikon the chances are high that if you are not happy with with the Sigma, you won't be happy with another 3rd party branded version. Eventually you will sell what you have now, or what you replace it with and then buy the Nikon! Expensive way of going about it!:cuckoo:

Buy the Nikon or save for it I say :thumbs:
 
look at his other thread, his sigma copy is beyond pants !

OP - can you return it ? have you spoken to the seller ?


return it and maybe try to find a nikon 35-70mm f2.8 for around 240 or so. or the tamron.
of course the new nikon is amazing, but it costs 6times more .
 
Dman said:
There is no equivalent unfortunately, that's why the 24-70 Nikkor is £1200.
Click to expand...

TRUE - if you want stunning Nikon quality - wait - save - it's worth every penny.
 
Starastin said:
look at his other thread, his sigma copy is beyond pants !

OP - can you return it ? have you spoken to the seller ?


return it and maybe try to find a nikon 35-70mm f2.8 for around 240 or so. or the tamron.
of course the new nikon is amazing, but it costs 6times more .
Click to expand...

To be fair, I'd be looking for a refund on the lens, it's quite evident that the lens is a very poor copy and I would want my money back.
 
I'm not sure if i can return it....

It was bought from a fellow TP member, i picked the lens up, but at the time, didnt have the chance to test it, as it looked like the guy was busy at the time, and i didnt want to cut into his time, and anyways, i was on my way to work.....

The guy i bought it off for didnt have it for long, after buying it from someone else who claims it was a "pin sharp" copy! :(

I may have to sell myself to get the nikon version! Any takers? ;)
 
Y15HAL said:
I'm not sure if i can return it....

It was bought from a fellow TP member, i picked the lens up, but at the time, didnt have the chance to test it, as it looked like the guy was busy at the time, and i didnt want to cut into his time, and anyways, i was on my way to work.....

The guy i bought it off for didnt have it for long, after buying it from someone else who claims it was a "pin sharp" copy! :(

I may have to sell myself to get the nikon version! Any takers? ;)
Click to expand...

Seems to me there's a good reason for that! Either way it's not your problem, had you bought this second hand from a retailer, you'd be returning it, I don't see what the difference is here.
 
braddersmd said:
Vishal, which version of the Sigma lens did you get? I've got the HSM one, and it's an absolute belter.
Click to expand...
That's the problem with Sigma, Mark. Quality control is awful.
 
Dman said:
I know, I was backing up your point :D
Click to expand...

oh ! thank you for that ! :lol:


back to the seller, buyer -

you shouldn't feel bad about it - you have all the rights to return it. well - if it wasn't long ago that you bought it anyway. Doesn't matter if he's busy or not. he probably was just trying to get rid of it , as the same as the previous seller.
 
FWIW, I use the same lens, the non HSM 24-70 - a few months ago had a problem in the middle of a wedding with it front focusing. Its was about 18mths old at the time. When I got home I checked recent images against ones from a year ago and realised how bad it had got - it had defintely been a gradual decline but suddenly got obviously bad that day.

I sent it back to sigma, with original receipt but expecting to pay for it. They recalibrated and serviced it FOC and now its back to being very good again. Much better than your sample images, so if money is tight [I too want to replace it with the nikon version, for the additional quality] it may be worth getting the chaps at Welwyn Garden City to give it the once over - even if its at a cost, its a damn sight cheaper than buying another part of Nikons Holy Grail ;)
 
I had a Sigma 24-70 when I shot Canon and it was awful, that's perhaps a little unfair, at 2.8 it was unuseable though, great at f8 though... but what isn't?
How about the older Nikon 35-70 F2.8 AF-D, I've got one and it's brillant....
 
Thanks for your input Chris....

Whats the point of having f2.8 if you can't use it? I think the lens is VERY bad at 70mm....
I have taken a couple of half decent images with it though..... :thinking::cuckoo:
 
I'd send it back and buy a 35-70... seriously, Google it and have a look, a few people complain about flare with it but I've never had an issue. Pity you're so far or you could have nipped up and tried mine. Sharp and extremely well made, you could probably knock nails in with it.
 
but it's nikon and it's 2.8 on every mm. I think it counts. none of the nikon f2.8 zooms are bad, although some are old and the 80-200mm has the silly push/pull vacuum dust sucker.

talk to the seller for sure.
 
I meant the fact that whats the point of haing the sigma lens and not being able to use it at 2.8......i have no doubt that the nikon version would be spot on! :)

I've contacted the seller......just waiting now.....:thinking:
 
I mean when you said that you might need something wider. :) . I've used minolta 35-70mm f4 and didn't feel the lose of the wide end that much, but then again that's perfectly my range - 35-70mm.

if half of your shots with 17-70mm was on 17mm then yes, different story I guess.
 
I feel i would need something wider, as i do some indoor events in tight spaces, so the wider, the better i think...
 
Hsm version is mega. But also mega expensive too (relative to usual sigma prices). Those samples are definitely duff. Send it to Garden City, the Ex lenses have a 3 year warranty anyway. Cheaper than getting the nikkor version. And cheaper than getting rid and starting again.
 
Puddleduck has gone through 5 different copies of HSM and they were all bad. I think I trust him and wouldn't want to try it out myself :|
 
Does anyone know when the lens was produced though? Surely longer than 3 years?

Also, because it was a used lens, i don't have a receipt....so would they still repair it? would it even be repairable?? :(
 
Y15HAL said:
Dave, i WISH i could buy the nikon version......but because i want the 70-200/2.8 aswell, i'm not going to be able to afford one nikon let alone two of them :(

Mark, i have the EX DG Macro version (non-HSM), have a lookie here for some sample pics.............
Click to expand...

You may have a lens from the early batch when they were just introduced. Apparently as with some other Sigma lenses they did have initial quality problems. I do have the same Sigma (non HSM) cost me just under 200 a few years ago and its very sharp. This is the photo done with this lens at 70mm f/2.8 (i.e. wide open) and it is sharp:

Val-20080831-001.jpg
 
Y15HAL said:
Does anyone know when the lens was produced though? Surely longer than 3 years?

Also, because it was a used lens, i don't have a receipt....so would they still repair it? would it even be repairable?? :(
Click to expand...

Usually this involves a simple recalibration so it should not cost as much as repair.
 
Just for the record I have a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 and I am very happy with it. It was pin sharp on crop format D300 from about f4.5 and tbh I think it is very good on my D700 from f5.6. That's not to say it was rubbish wide open, just not we would hope for. Some of my best shots have been taken on this lens.

I'd like a Nikon 24-70, but for now I also have 'the beast' (Nikon 28-70). That is excellent, very impressive, if the 24-70 is better it must be amazing. It's all very subjective of course as most people won't have had all these lenses in the same situations. We all know you can get minor differences in calibration or mechanics, and so a Sigma on one persons camera may be different on another. I would guess Sigma could quickly recalibrate the lens and hopefully it's not 'within acceptable limits'. If the D90 is like my D300, you can also fine tune the focussing.
 
Last edited:
Alexey - Thanks for that - i would be very happy if my lens was like that at 70mm!! I was expecting something like that, but was very disappointed to receive the dud copy that i've got.

I dont think a calibration will solve the point of a 'bad batch' lens though would it?

Martin - glad to hear there are some decent versions out there!! ;)

For Info, Sigma warranty is only 1 year, and 3 years if it has been extended.

Black Cloud - as far as i know, the D90 does not have the option to fine tune/micro adjust! :(
 
Last edited:
Sigma would certainly look at it, and offer an estimate to repair. You don't have to accept, they can return it just for the cost of postage, so you have nothing to lose in that respect

For ref - this was taken with the same lens, at f2.8 and iso 800 - definately much sharper then yours seems to be - straight from camera other then a resize.

5019679647_e66d19a368_o.jpg


and a close crop of the image in the mirror - yes its not pin sharp, but given the ISO and the effect of the mirror, its not too shoddy either and a quick USM or similar would have it finger cutting

5020288616_b9e43a8113_o.jpg




If you are going to send to Sigma btw, email them some of your images so they can see the issues.
 
you don't buy sigma, you buy a job where you need to find a good copy and by doing so you can save some money which would otherwise be spent on nikon :D
 
Yvonne, thanks for the input, looks fairly good to me! I'd be happy with that! :D

Will have to think about posting to them. The only issue is me being without a wide zoom lens for 2-4 weeks! :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top