Nikon D750 & D780

Tamron 15-30 2.8 - amazing lens
 
snerkler said:
Interesting, so you weren't impressed with sharpness or AF speed on the Sigma? The limited reviews I've seen say that the Sigma is sharper than the Nikon, and the Canon 24-105mm f4 L but this appears to agree with what you said, particularly the long end on both (not a direct comparison camera wise unfortunately)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=0
Click to expand...

Just had a look at the link and followed the too buy option to B&H and there's some user comments of the Sigma being better that the Nikon 24-70 f2.8. Maybe the case as the Nikon is an oldish design now compared to the Sigma and why Nikon have brought out the new model.

I'm in for my shoulder and elbow operations next week, so the GAS will be going crazy whilst I cant use my gear for up to four months. I had the 24-120mm f4 although a nice lens it wasn't a wow, so considering my options during my recovery and providing I can get the strength back into my arm.... Although I do have an itch for a D810 for the cropping ability for my bird photography, which is my main interest.
 
anibap said:
Nice captures Simon.

The Sigma 24-105 is highly rated by many including Lenstip detailed review here - http://www.lenstip.com/389.4-Lens_review-Sigma_A_24-105_mm_f_4_DG_OS_HSM_Image_resolution.html

I have seen some nice shots taken with it.
Click to expand...

Depending on how I get on after my op's I need to buy another walkabout lens after selling the 24-120 as it was too heavy for me at present. It's going to be between the Tamron 24-70, Nikon 24-70, Nikon 24-120 and the Sigma, but your photos with the 24-85 makes me consider one of them. I should have bought my last kit with the 24-85 and listened to Gary. What has me swaying to the Sigma is I bought their 105 Macro lens and I was really impressed with the build and iQ, OS, plus what you hear about the other ART lenses. Sigma have upped their game since I bought 17-50 f2.8 a few years ago which was a lemon.
 
Last edited:
Swanseajack said:
Just had a look at the link and followed the too buy option to B&H and there's some user comments of the Sigma being better that the Nikon 24-70 f2.8. Maybe the case as the Nikon is an oldish design now compared to the Sigma and why Nikon have brought out the new model.

I'm in for my shoulder and elbow operations next week, so the GAS will be going crazy whilst I cant use my gear for up to four months. I had the 24-120mm f4 although a nice lens it wasn't a wow, so considering my options during my recovery and providing I can get the strength back into my arm.... Although I do have an itch for a D810 for the cropping ability for my bird photography, which is my main interest.
Click to expand...
Wow, that's a big claim tbh. For overall appearance the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 is hard to beat in the short zoom stakes. Sure some might pip it here and there in terms of sharpness but I've not seen a short zoom that has that je ne sais quoi of the Nikon.

I'm actually giving some serious consideration to selling my 18-35mm in order to fund a walkabout (Tammy 24-70, Nikon 24-120, Siggy 24-105) but can't decide whether I'll regret not having the extra width for landscape :rolleyes::banghead:
 
snerkler said:
Wow, that's a big claim tbh. For overall appearance the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 is hard to beat in the short zoom stakes. Sure some might pip it here and there in terms of sharpness but I've not seen a short zoom that has that je ne sais quoi of the Nikon.

I'm actually giving some serious consideration to selling my 18-35mm in order to fund a walkabout (Tammy 24-70, Nikon 24-120, Siggy 24-105) but can't decide whether I'll regret not having the extra width for landscape :rolleyes::banghead:
Click to expand...

You be 6mm short at the wide end. Just take a couple of steps back :)
 
rookies said:
You be 6mm short at the wide end. Just take a couple of steps back :)
Click to expand...
Lol, yeah but there's also perspective to think about :p
 
snerkler said:
Wow, that's a big claim tbh. For overall appearance the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 is hard to beat in the short zoom stakes. Sure some might pip it here and there in terms of sharpness but I've not seen a short zoom that has that je ne sais quoi of the Nikon.

I'm actually giving some serious consideration to selling my 18-35mm in order to fund a walkabout (Tammy 24-70, Nikon 24-120, Siggy 24-105) but can't decide whether I'll regret not having the extra width for landscape :rolleyes::banghead:
Click to expand...

How much are you thinking? I could still be tempted by an 18-35... :whistle:
 
Swanseajack said:
Depending on how I get on after my op's I need to buy another walkabout lens after selling the 24-120 as it was too heavy for me at present. It's going to be between the Tamron 24-70, Nikon 24-70, Nikon 24-120 and the Sigma, but your photos with the 24-85 makes me consider one of them. I should have bought my last kit with the 24-85 and listened to Gary. What has me swaying to the Sigma is I bought their 105 Macro lens and I was really impressed with the build and iQ, OS, plus what you hear about the other ART lenses. Sigma have upped their game since I bought 17-50 f2.8 a few years ago which was a lemon.
Click to expand...

I find the 24-85 VR perfect for my needs and it is light and versatile enough. The weight and balancing on the D750 is fantastic for a whole day while travelling. It is my most used lens.
When it comes to specific work like portrait or street, I use my 85 1.8G and planning to pick up a wide prime for streets.
 
snerkler said:
I'm actually giving some serious consideration to selling my 18-35mm in order to fund a walkabout (Tammy 24-70, Nikon 24-120, Siggy 24-105) but can't decide whether I'll regret not having the extra width for landscape :rolleyes::banghead:
Click to expand...

Keep it. It is a great value lens. Sharp and versatile for landscape. I find 24mm less at times.
 
twist said:
Wide end is different to long end, 1mm has far more effect than it would at a longer FL.
Click to expand...
Agreed. @rookies this is the difference between 18mm and 24mm on FF.

Screen%20Shot%202016-01-20%20at%2011.53.01_zps7qjjz2yj.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2016-01-20 at 11.53.01.png
    Screen Shot 2016-01-20 at 11.53.01.png
    311.2 KB · Views: 21
Last edited:
Wow it does make a different but can we walk a bit further back if we can. I know sometime we can't
 
snerkler said:
Wow, that's a big claim tbh. For overall appearance the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 is hard to beat in the short zoom stakes. Sure some might pip it here and there in terms of sharpness but I've not seen a short zoom that has that je ne sais quoi of the Nikon.

I'm actually giving some serious consideration to selling my 18-35mm in order to fund a walkabout (Tammy 24-70, Nikon 24-120, Siggy 24-105) but can't decide whether I'll regret not having the extra width for landscape :rolleyes::banghead:
Click to expand...

Some of the reviews, like all, they can be taken with a pinch.> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1009622-REG/sigma_635_306_24_105mm_f4_dg_os.html

I suppose you need to decide which lens you are going to use the most, 24mm is still wide on FF. For my needs I have bought a Tamron 19-35mm, I know it's not going to compare to the 14-24, 16/18-35mm but land & sea scapes is something I would like to get more involved in, and as a starting point it will do.

Depending how I get on, I'm hoping to purchase another walkabout in late spring, if I did go for the Nikon 24-70 it will be probably be mid-late summer, unless my numbers come up.
 
anibap said:
Keep it. It is a great value lens. Sharp and versatile for landscape. I find 24mm less at times.
Click to expand...
It is a great lens for sure, and if I could I'd have this and a walkabout. Funds have been low and will continue to be for a while though and I don't know if a walkabout would be more useful overall. Of course, it could just be a bout of GAS ;)
 
rookies said:
Wow it does make a different but can we walk a bit further back if we can. I know sometime we can't
Click to expand...
Yeah you can, but perspective will be different particularly if you have something large in the foreground.
 
minnnt said:
How much are you thinking? I could still be tempted by an 18-35... :whistle:
Click to expand...
Thinking a straight swap for your 24-70mm :lol:

TBH I have no idea what the second hand market is for the 18-35mm so would need to look into it first before I decide to do anything. That could decide whether I keep it or not ;)
 
Stop talking primes will yar. Otherwise I might have to get one apart from my 50mm.
 
Sometimes I use the 24-85 VR for occasional portrait when I don't have the 85 F1.8G. The 24-85 can't match the 85 or any other portrait lens, but comes in handy at times. The IQ is a big difference between a DX kit lens on DX body vs FX kit lens on FX body.

My daughter

Ashmi by Anirban Acharya, on Flickr

Mrs anibap

Anu by Anirban Acharya, on Flickr

Daughter of a friend

Sohini by Anirban Acharya, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Interesting, so you weren't impressed with sharpness or AF speed on the Sigma? The limited reviews I've seen say that the Sigma is sharper than the Nikon, and the Canon 24-105mm f4 L but this appears to agree with what you said, particularly the long end on both (not a direct comparison camera wise unfortunately)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=0
Click to expand...

Well the one I tried, on the Sigma stand didn`t impress me at all (and I went with the intention of getting one, so wasn`t a spur of the moment thing). Then when I tried the Nikon, it, to me was so much better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top