Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 18, 2007, 6:41 PM   #1
Senior Member
stevem1928's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 112

I am looking at getting a standard zoom lens for lower light situations. The Nikkor 28-70mm 2.8 is ~$1,400. The Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 is ~$400. Is the Nikkor really worth $1,000 more? I recently bought a Nikkor 50mm 1.8 and was impressed with how the lens works for me indoors. As an amature, will the difference be all that noticeable?

I have the Sigma 18-200mm 3.5-6.3 and it seems good enough for the type of photos I take. I don't seem to notice any difference (exclulding the VR function) compared to when I use a friends Nikkor 18-200mm VR. I did not include the VR function in my comparisons since both 2.8 lenses I am considering do not have stabilization.
stevem1928 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 18, 2007, 7:48 PM   #2
Senior Member
tjsnaps's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sacramento, Ca
Posts: 652

The only Sigma lens I ever owned literally fell apart in my hands a month after I bought it. But that's hardly a fare appraisal of the entire product line. My Nikkors are almost 50 years old and still work fine. That's hardly fare either sense I doubt even Nikkors are made to that standard any more. But the point is that's what you are paying for. Reliability as much if not more so than image quality. On the other hand I have three older Tokinas that are still going strong as well. It's a matter of how much use and abuse you might put the lens through.
tjsnaps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2007, 8:50 PM   #3
Senior Member
Bob Nichol's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Eastern Ontario Canada
Posts: 823

The short answer is image quality! Here are comparitive ratings:


Bob Nichol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19, 2007, 2:12 AM   #4
Senior Member
kenbalbari's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 822

Or check the photozone user survey:

Nikkor AF-S 28-70mm f/2.8 ED (65 inputs)
Performance WIDE (wide open) very good(****)
Performance WIDE (stopped down) very good(****+)
Performance LONG (wide open) very good(****)
Performance LONG (stopped down) superb(*****)
Distortions WIDE little distortions(****)
Distortions LONG little distortions(****+)
Vignetting WIDE little vignetting (w/o) (****+)
Vignetting LONG no vignetting(*****)
Color Balance slightly warm
Flare little flare (****)
Optical Verdict (max. 5 pts) very good (4.34)
AF Speed fast (****+)
Build Quality superb (*****)

Sigma AF 28-70mm f/2.8 (99 inputs)
Performance WIDE (wide open) good (***)
Performance WIDE (stopped down) very good (****-)
Performance LONG (wide open) good (***)
Performance LONG (stopped down) good (***+)
Distortions WIDE significant (***)
Distortions LONG little distortions (****)
Vignetting WIDE little vignetting (w/o) (****-)
Vignetting LONG little vignetting (w/o) (****)
Color Balance neutral
Flare quite heavy (**)
Optical Verdict (max. 5 pts) good (3.4)
AF Speed very slow (*)
Build Quality not so good (**)

That's probably typical of the difference between a $1400 lens and a $400 lens.

kenbalbari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19, 2007, 3:35 PM   #5
Senior Member
stevem1928's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 112

Thanks. I will try to see if I can find some pictures from each lens to compare.
stevem1928 is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:54 AM.