Any viable alternative to the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8?

LiveAwake

I'm in the market for a fast zoom lens to give a little extra flexibility to candid/portrait/event shooting . . . I currently do most with my Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 or Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 when I need sharp/fast, and suffer the slower/less sharp Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 when I really need the versatility of a wide/long zoom range.

I've got my eye on the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8. I've rented the lens, and it's a beast, but a beautiful beast. Just wondering if any of the alternatives out there are even worth considering - $1700+ is a lot to drop for this lens, but I want quality, so I'll save up for it if I have to.

Nothing slower than f/2.8 please.

Shooting Nikon D300. I see full-frame in my future, just waiting for the cash to magically appear.

Jeremy Winterberg

I hear the sigma and tamron versions are alright if you get a good copy. I am nearing the end of my rental with the nikkor 24-70 2.8, and it is a beast like you said.

I guess, rent each of the alternatives and make the call yourself.

Art Scott

I have used Sigma Lenes for over 25+ yrs.....never had what I would call a bad, inferior or not good copy.....now I only buy the top lenses----I trade from a 28-70f2.8 to the 24-70f2.8 and still found the 24 not wide enuff for my taste....but I still use it and just shoot multiple shoots and stitch them together then crop to what I visualized in the 1st place............I would recommend the Sigma 24-70 without a prob.....I do not have the newest version and the one I currently own is attached to a Konica Minolta 7D and is tack sharp................

Mitchell

I have a Nikkor 28-70mm, f2.8 lens. This was the predecessor to the Nikkor 24-70mm. These can be found in great shape for under $1000. Well worth the money and every bit as good as the newer version. I highly recommend this lens.

LiveAwake

Thanks everyone for your opinions. I will probably have to get my hands on each of them and see how they strike me. . . . I want something that's made well enough to stand up over time, so I need to be convinced about the cheaper options . . .not worth the savings if the AF craps out in a few years, etc.

rookieshooter

I rented both the Tamron and Sigma alternatives and neither were even in the same ballpark as the Nikkor. It's expensive, but when you use it you understand why it costs so much.

NikonsandVstroms

Seymore wrote: »

I've had the Tammy 28-75/2.8 that I was quite happy with. The build is nothing like Nikon's, but it did render quite well and was a very affordable option. I traded it (along with Tammys other gold ring 17-35/2.8-4) with a good friend for a hardwood floor... (priorities) but would buy replacements for both in a heartbeat.


HTH...

I have the 28-75 too and it is an amazing lens, what you give up is the weatherproofing, and its AF is slower.

angevin1

LiveAwake wrote: »

I'm in the market for a fast zoom lens to give a little extra flexibility to candid/portrait/event shooting . . . I currently do most with my Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 or Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 when I need sharp/fast, and suffer the slower/less sharp Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 when I really need the versatility of a wide/long zoom range.

I've got my eye on the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8. I've rented the lens, and it's a beast, but a beautiful beast. Just wondering if any of the alternatives out there are even worth considering - $1700+ is a lot to drop for this lens, but I want quality, so I'll save up for it if I have to.

Nothing slower than f/2.8 please.

Shooting Nikon D300. I see full-frame in my future, just waiting for the cash to magically appear.

Personally I think it's a tuff call! The reason I say this is, while you were trying and others are suggesting lenses in that zoom range, I can't help but think 24mm is still not quite wide enough.

One thing I did with my crop camera body was get a Kenko 1.4TC. then, I could mount a 17-35mm on it for wider zoom, and add the TC for longer-mid-range-zoom...for the $200 a TC cost, it really allowed me to keep a decent lens and stretch it out nicely, easily. While the TC obviously pulls some light from the mix, it is barely notcieable, esp. starting with a good lens and f/2.8.

As for true pro imagery I still have an old Nikkor 35-70 f/2.8 They can be had cheaply: <$500 and the imagery is sharp. And while I am convinced it is equally sharp to the Beast, I am also convinced it is not in the same league when it comes to image quality!

With each iteration of lens, comes new and improved optics...So, like you've recently found out using the 'beast'. You have to ask yourself, what is it I want? or what is my priority?

LiveAwake

Has anyone spent a good bit of time using the 24-85mm f/2.8-4 that Nikon made? I've heard some mixed reviews - some seem to love it, others find it lacking. It's quite a bit more compact (and also more affordable) than the 24-70 f/2.8, and gets an extra 15mm on the long end and a 1:2 macro setting to boot. But I'm wondering about sharpness etc. . .

Opinions?

time2smile

I have the Nikon 24-85 f3.5-4.5 and the Tammy 28-75 f2.8 both are sharp.
Nikon AF-S does focus faster..

Good luck hunting

LiveAwake

time2smile wrote: »

I have the Nikon 24-85 f3.5-4.5 and the Tammy 28-75 f2.8 both are sharp.
Nikon AF-S does focus faster..

Good luck hunting

Thanks. f/3.5 is not really fast enough for my needs, though I have heard good things about that lens. I think if I was going to go for that one, though, I'd probably just stick with my 18-200 3.5-5.6 for the added flexibility. I'm really looking for something pretty fast for low-light and shallow depth of field.

My 50mm f/1.4 is stunning, it just lacks the flexibility of the zoom lenses so it's not great for events.