Giving up primes and 18-200 for Sigma 24-70 2.8

GolfTango

Senior Member
I have a D7100 which 99% of the time use my 18-200mm VR glass. I also have both the 35 and 50mm 1.8 primes which rarely, if ever, get used. I've noticed that most of what I shoot falls within the 24-100 range, so I was thinking of dumping all my DX glass and stepping up to the Sigma 24-70 2.8. I can't afford the Nikon equivalent and this lens gets decent reviews. Thoughts? Suggestions?
 

Rick M

Senior Member
Take a look at the new Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, I've tested it and is excellent. Aside from that, Sigma is coming out with an f2 version next year, I'm waiting for that.
 

WayneF

Senior Member
I have a D7100 which 99% of the time use my 18-200mm VR glass. I also have both the 35 and 50mm 1.8 primes which rarely, if ever, get used. I've noticed that most of what I shoot falls within the 24-100 range, so I was thinking of dumping all my DX glass and stepping up to the Sigma 24-70 2.8. I can't afford the Nikon equivalent and this lens gets decent reviews. Thoughts? Suggestions?

And you never need wide angle? I mostly do agree with you, certainly a good zoom is much more versatile then the primes... Except 24mm is not wide angle on DX - only a 52 degree width on DX. Lots of landscapes and indoor scenes need more wide angle. We cannot always stand back further. Maybe also keep the 18mm?
 

GolfTango

Senior Member
And you never need wide angle? I mostly do agree with you, certainly a good zoom is much more versatile then the primes... Except 24mm is not wide angle on DX - only a 52 degree width on DX. Lots of landscapes and indoor scenes need more wide angle. We cannot always stand back further. Maybe also keep the 18mm?

Good point. I'd grab a 18-55mm kit lens for that range.
 

Bill16

Senior Member
I think both primes and zooms have their uses. I personally wouldn't get rid of a great zoom or prime, just because at this time I'm not using it much. With my luck I'd wish I hadn't gotten rid of it later down the road.
On the other hand, if I had a few lenses I didn't like, that would be different. No sense in keeping a lens that doesn't work very good in the range it's made for.

I just wouldn't get rid of a lens just because it's a prime, or just because it's a zoom. Just my opinion. :)
 

DraganDL

Senior Member
Heavy barrel distortion is plaguing the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC - it distorts stronger than 17-50mm (APSC)... I see these days, "fast" lenses are growing popular, but so grow their levels of distortion(s)...
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
I really like my Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8. The only thing I'm not too fond of is its bokeh wide open (not as smooth and creamy as Nikon's). The advantage to the Tamron is that it comes with some type of vibration reduction which the Nikon and Sigma lack--something quite useful especially on a DX body.

Here are a couple of photos taken with my Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 on my Nikon D90:


10734153673_65b57cf377_b.jpg


10320593495_ca1446176a_b.jpg
 

Geoffc

Senior Member
And you never need wide angle? I mostly do agree with you, certainly a good zoom is much more versatile then the primes... Except 24mm is not wide angle on DX - only a 52 degree width on DX. Lots of landscapes and indoor scenes need more wide angle. We cannot always stand back further. Maybe also keep the 18mm?

Wayne

Isn't 24mm more like 36mm on DX? I think the point is valid though. I sold my DX glass and when I use my D300s these days I often put my 16-35 on it which gives a useful normal range. On FX that's an ultra wide.
 

ShootRaw

Senior Member
You are excited..nothing wrong with that..Still tryin to get my hands on the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8...@799. Everyone is still out of stock..
 

WayneF

Senior Member
Wayne

Isn't 24mm more like 36mm on DX?

It is, 24mm on DX is more like 36mm on FX. It is slight wide angle, but just not very much. It would be real easy to want more.

Said another way, 16mm on DX is more like 24mm on FX. This is twice the width of the "normal" lens, and I would call that wide angle. :)
 

Geoffc

Senior Member
It is, 24mm on DX is more like 36mm on FX. It is slight wide angle, but just not very much. It would be real easy to want more.

Said another way, 16mm on DX is more like 24mm on FX. This is twice the width of the "normal" lens, and I would call that wide angle. :)

My point is, I was wondering where the 52 mm comment came from.
 

gqtuazon

Gear Head
I have a D7100 which 99% of the time use my 18-200mm VR glass. I also have both the 35 and 50mm 1.8 primes which rarely, if ever, get used. I've noticed that most of what I shoot falls within the 24-100 range, so I was thinking of dumping all my DX glass and stepping up to the Sigma 24-70 2.8. I can't afford the Nikon equivalent and this lens gets decent reviews. Thoughts? Suggestions?

This type of dilemma is one of the main reasons why I shifted to FX. The 24-70 mm becomes ideal.


Sent from my iPhone.
 

WayneF

Senior Member
My point is, I was wondering where the 52 mm comment came from.

I made a 52 degree comment. The horizontal width of view of a 24mm lens on DX is about 52 degrees wide. Closer to Normal than Wide. On FX, 24mm sees about 74 degrees wide.
 

Geoffc

Senior Member
I made a 52 degree comment. The horizontal width of view of a 24mm lens on DX is about 52 degrees wide. Closer to Normal than Wide. On FX, 24mm sees about 74 degrees wide.

Sorry I was reading deg and thinking mm. The mind only sees what it wants to.
 
Top