Which one will you choose? 24-85mm 3.5-4.5 vs third party 24-70mm 2.8
24-85mm 3.5-4.5 vs third party 24-70mm 2.8
(38 posts) (13 voices)-
Posted 11 months ago #
-
Unless the new 24-85 is really crappy, I would go for it every time. I had really bad experience with Nikon's 16-85vr however, I found that to be pretty unreliable with focusing alongside other issues, this new lens will cost about the same and is an FX lens, food for thought ha.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Gabbb said:
Unless the new 24-85 is really crappy, I would go for it every time. I had really bad experience with Nikon's 16-85vr however, I found that to be pretty unreliable with focusing alongside other issues, this new lens will cost about the same and is an FX lens, food for thought ha.Why not third party lenses?
Posted 11 months ago # -
-
Nikkor vs. off-brand polarises opinion on this forum more than anything else I think.
I have had very good luck with my Sigma 8-16mm on my D90.
A couple very good togs on here swear by Tokina.
Other very slkilled people here are convinced it's Nikkor-or-nothing.If there's any consensus at all, and I'm not sure there is, it's certainly try-before-you-buy.
Posted 11 months ago # -
shawnino said:
Nikkor vs. off-brand polarises opinion on this forum more than anything else I think.
I have had very good luck with my Sigma 8-16mm on my D90.
A couple very good togs on here swear by Tokina.
Other very slkilled people here are convinced it's Nikkor-or-nothing.If there's any consensus at all, and I'm not sure there is, it's certainly try-before-you-buy.
I wouldn't exactly call myself skilled, but I expect contrast detection auto-focus to work with all my af lenses, also I expect metering to work well and I really like if more than 50% of my photos are perfectly in focus when using the lens normally. The reverse engineering of the Nikon software is not exactly 100% yet for either of these brands, and it's not funny when you have to send in your lens for firmware update at every new camera body you buy.
Posted 11 months ago # -
It is hard to say. I really actually can't give my opinion either way. I think every Nikon lens I have had is and has been great. They all work excellent and AF is always accurate. I do have a Tokina lens and it works great as well. I really have no complaints and would probably buy Tokina again. I still however haven't gotten myself to buy any Sigma or Tamron...I don't know I want quality and I hate to spend lots of money on something that could be hit or miss or not totally work like it should. Especially when the Nikon version might only be a little bit more money.
Personally I think it is always a little disappointing with 3rd party. They might perform pretty well, but I don't seem as wowed as with my Nikon lenses.
Posted 11 months ago # -
tcole1983 said:
It is hard to say. I really actually can't give my opinion either way. I think every Nikon lens I have had is and has been great. They all work excellent and AF is always accurate. I do have a Tokina lens and it works great as well. I really have no complaints and would probably buy Tokina again. I still however haven't gotten myself to buy any Sigma or Tamron...I don't know I want quality and I hate to spend lots of money on something that could be hit or miss or not totally work like it should. Especially when the Nikon version might only be a little bit more money.Personally I think it is always a little disappointing with 3rd party. They might perform pretty well, but I don't seem as wowed as with my Nikon lenses.
Nikon has a lot of sample variation issues as well, but at least they are always compatible.
Posted 11 months ago # -
-
But at the same price, you are getting a stop of light? Is it worth the risk?
Posted 11 months ago # -
MikeWhis said:
But at the same price, you are getting a stop of light? Is it worth the risk?I will wait until some reviews come out before making any conclusions really. I only own one third party lens and I have tried several others, but I am not sure about long term durability. I know the Nikon lenses hold their value much better then the third party ones. I think Nikon generally controls CA and lens flare better then third parties and in general I think the AF is more accurate.
For the price I am curious how the Nikon will perform. It seems like the cheaper zooms don't perform as well sometimes and well it is FX so I am curious to see how it holds up since it is fairly inexpensive compared to other FX lenses.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Personally, I would not choose either. The MTF plots for the new 24-85 look very uninspiring in the edges and corners at 24/3.5 (although we'll have to see how the lens actually performs under realistic conditions, but even if the corners were perfect, I would still avoid this lens myself as I'm not a big fan of normal zooms, least of all slow ones (note that I am not suggesting that everyone do that, just what I would do, which seems to be the question being asked).
I'm also not a big fan of 3rd party lenses, particularly when they duplicate something you can do with a 1st party lens for cheaper (I'm ok when they do something 1st party lenses can't do). You're cutting corners somewhere, and you have to ask yourself whether you are completely sure that you won't want to get the 1st party version in the future, ever. After all, if you were comparing 1st and 3rd party normal 2.8 zooms, would there really be any question? This is particularly true with FX lenses, since there are many cheaper DX equivalents that will perform very well.
So here's what I think I would do: I would pick any 50mm lens instead: they are faster, lighter and cheaper than both alternatives, with only the added "inconvenience" of not being able to zoom. If I absolutely needed a normal range zoom, I would go with a first party 2.8 zoom. If that would completely break the budget, I'd save money by getting a DX camera and with a good normal lens instead trying to shoot FX with a budget lens.
Again, this is only what I think I would do (we'll see if I ever get an FX camera what I actually will do), so it's not a recommendation for others to do the same.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Due to grad school I was forced to purchase the older 24-85 G lens instead of the 24-70mm nikkor. It has been great actually very simple and fun to shoot with. I suspect the new VR version will be great although Nikon dropped the ball when they made the 24-85mm F 2.8-4, which is softer and has more distortion. Second party lenses can be good, but have no resale value if you choose to part ways. Try to wait a few weeks to see if the new 24-85 VR is up to standard before making your decision. On a side note,questions to ask yourself: Is the nikkor 24-70mm in your budget? Its simply the best even if it gets refreshed, which shouldn't come until at least 2-3 more years. Also, are you shooting DX or FX?
Posted 11 months ago # -
I wouldn't rule out the third party lens, very few offer the same optical performance as their OEM brothers, but some come close and can be significantly cheaper. As has been recommended here, I'd wait till I saw the MTF results and some reviews on both, then make up my mind. It's a tough one for sure, a 2.8 for the price of a slower variable aperture lens, is certainly tempting.
Posted 11 months ago # -
SkintBrit said:
I wouldn't rule out the third party lens, very few offer the same optical performance as their OEM brothers, but some come close and can be significantly cheaper. As has been recommended here, I'd wait till I saw the MTF results and some reviews on both, then make up my mind. It's a tough one for sure, a 2.8 for the price of a slower variable aperture lens, is certainly tempting.Here's something I found out. Sigma's 2.8 and Nikon's 2.8 has similar image quality, with Nikon slightly better, and much larger (excluding flare, which I don't see any good tests). The Tamron is slightly worse than Nikon and Sigma for the non-VC version, but slightly cheaper, for the VC version, most likely it's image quality is going to be slightly worse.
I'm not going for DX because I'm not actually saving money. The 24-85mm on FX has 2/3 stop advantage at the wide end and similar at the long end when compared to 17-55mm. Yet the 17-55mm is more expensive, just because it's a pro lens.Posted 11 months ago # -
Good points guys its smart doing the research and shopping in todays market. After all we are in what Outdoor Photography Magazine calls the "Golden Age" of lens technology.
Posted 11 months ago # -
MikeWhis said:
I'm not going for DX because I'm not actually saving money. The 24-85mm on FX has 2/3 stop advantage at the wide end and similar at the long end when compared to 17-55mm. Yet the 17-55mm is more expensive, just because it's a pro lens.
This is not the first time I see this math and I'm not sure if I get it. Care to elaborate?
Posted 11 months ago # -
MikeWhis said:
Here's something I found out. Sigma's 2.8 and Nikon's 2.8 has similar image quality, with Nikon slightly better, and much larger (excluding flare, which I don't see any good tests). The Tamron is slightly worse than Nikon and Sigma for the non-VC version, but slightly cheaper, for the VC version, most likely it's image quality is going to be slightly worse.
I'm not going for DX because I'm not actually saving money. The 24-85mm on FX has 2/3 stop advantage at the wide end and similar at the long end when compared to 17-55mm. Yet the 17-55mm is more expensive, just because it's a pro lens.Huh? How does the 24-85 have an advantage over the F2.8 lens? Did you mean the other way around? I just got the 17-55 and obviously it isn't an FX lens, but so far it seems to knock the pants off any of the other variable aperture lenses I have tried.
I think it is hard to compare Nikon pro lenses as they fall into a whole different category from even the best 3rd party lenses. The price is usually double, but build quality is always top notch and so is performance.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Say what you will, there is just no substitute for the Nikon 24-70 2.8. It's focal length, speed, sharpness, build quality and performance, makes it Nikons best lens. Of the lenses I currently own, this bad-boy gets the most usage; hence, I never leave home without it.
If you can wait and save the money...then do yourself a favor and save up...it will put a smile on your face each time you hit the shutter button.
Cheers.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Gabbb said:
This is not the first time I see this math and I'm not sure if I get it. Care to elaborate?Look, most of the time, people uses just the crop factor for focal length. You have to use it for it's f/stop too.
17-55mm/2.8 on DX is equivalent to 26-85mm/4.3 on FX.
Ever realise why FX has better low light performance? Ever realise why FX has shallower depth of field? It's not the sensor, but the lens.
Posted 11 months ago # -
golf007sd said:
Say what you will, there is just no substitute for the Nikon 24-70 2.8. It's focal length, speed, sharpness, build quality and performance, makes it Nikons best lens. Of the lenses I currently own, this bad-boy gets the most usage; hence, I never leave home without it.If you can wait and save the money...then do yourself a favor and save up...it will put a smile on your face each time you hit the shutter button.
Cheers.
That's the point, I don't plan to spend that much money on a Nikon 2.8, that's why I'm choosing these two.
Posted 11 months ago # -
I have decided. Either Nikon 28-300mm or Sigma/Tamron constant 2.8. The 28-300mm is just a bit more expensive and you'll get all the zoom you want. And most likely the image quality won't be much worse than 24-85mm. I'm not those pixel peepers, so I think I wouldn't see too much difference.
Posted 11 months ago # -
The Nikon 28-300 is a solid performer. It's not a pro 2.8, but it is very convenient. I spent the weekend shooting baseball and didn't want to lug the 200-400 in the hot sun. I used the 28-300 instead. It works well.
I'd stay with the Nikon glass. If you are shooting weddings etc and need a mid range zoom, the Nikon 24-70 is worth saving for. On the other hand, as has been suggested before, you can get a fast 50 and zoom with your feet.
In answer to your question, I'd get the new Nikon 24-85 over the non-Nikon.
Posted 11 months ago # -
MikeWhis said:
I have decided. Either Nikon 28-300mm or Sigma/Tamron constant 2.8. The 28-300mm is just a bit more expensive and you'll get all the zoom you want. And most likely the image quality won't be much worse than 24-85mm. I'm not those pixel peepers, so I think I wouldn't see too much difference.Lol why did you ask then? You seem to know what you want or are looking for without anyone's help.
I would personally probably get the 24-85 and the 70-300 for the price of the 28-300. From what I have seen the 28-300 isn't stellar at much more then being a single lens option.
Posted 11 months ago # -
MikeWhis said:
I have decided. Either Nikon 28-300mm or Sigma/Tamron constant 2.8. The 28-300mm is just a bit more expensive and you'll get all the zoom you want. And most likely the image quality won't be much worse than 24-85mm. I'm not those pixel peepers, so I think I wouldn't see too much difference.I would recommend going with Nikon glass. Good luck and happy shopping/shooting.
Posted 11 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
