Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

jojoba

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Dec 9, 2011
1,584
21
I'm about to purchase a zoom lens for my D600 and I'm down to the Nikon 24-120 vs the Sigma 24-105. Based on what I've read on the internet (I'm no pro so may have misunderstood some of the info) and my own preferences, the score card at the moment looks like this:

Nikon pros
- longer range
- weather sealed (it's cold and wet where I live)
- lighter

Sigma pros
- from what I can work out, this lens has the edge on sharpness and general IQ (?), but it's a bit hard for me to assess how much this translates into actual difference for my needs.

I'm an amateur and for the most part I shoot landscapes, architecture, macros and abstracts. I want to venture more into street photography and portraits, eventually.

The price turns out equal for me. While the Nikon costs more where I live, I have lots of filters in that size, but would need to purchase 82mm filters for the Sigma (and they're expensive).

This zoom, along with my 50mm prime, will serve as my main lenses for a good while.

So, if anyone has experiences with one or both lenses, or have been through the same decision process, please let me know your two cents.

Thanks!
 
Thanks, both.



They're both F4.

Part of me would really like a 24-70 2.8 lens, but I've come down on a slightly longer focal range.
/QUOTE]

The 24-70 mm f 2.8 is an awesome lens. Personally I'd steer clear of f 4 lenses if you can. You might be losing a bit of focal length, but you will gain a better image by being able to isolate your subject from the background easier.
 
Thanks, both.



They're both F4.

Part of me would really like a 24-70 2.8 lens, but I've come down on a slightly longer focal range.



Could you expand on why?
Nikon his a highly regarded brand and the lens you mentioned is the kit with the D750. I haven't read anything bad about it. I know nothing about the sigma.
 
I had the Nikon 24-120 on a D600 but traded it in for the 24-70 2.8. I went for faster and sharper with less distortion and to some extent, build quality.

The extra reach of 120 vs. 70 at the long end for me is minimal and I've never missed it but I do have longer lenses I can go to if needed.

I will say that the 24-120 has a slight edge over the 24-70 for low light static shots (the VR) but this is easily overcome with a tripod.

I don't know anything about the Sigma but plenty has been written comparing the two Nikon lenses.

~ Peter
 
Thanks for the input, everybody. I've now found a good deal on a second hand 105mm 2.8, that I'm supposed to pick up tomorrow. If that goes through, I'll probably reconsider and go for a 24-70 2.8. I've recently changed to full frame and was used to having a 2.8 lens with my DX camera.
 
You can rent one before deciding to put money down on one. I like the 24-70mm (like someone else said) its fast especially in low light.

The 105mm is great. I shot with one before and got it on my wish list. I was thinking of pairing it with the 24-70mm because it can be used as a foot zoom.


http://www.lensrentals.com

I looked at the 24-120mm and thought I could use it as a walkabout lens on days I want something light, not too heavy. More for street photography and whatever else that you like shooting. But the 24-70mm lens = awesome.
 
OK, I've decided. I picked up a 24-70 2.8 today, and I've found a really good second hand deal on a Sigma 150mm 2.8. I'm happy :) and broke :eek:

Thanks so much for the input, everybody!
 
OK, I've decided. I picked up a 24-70 2.8 today, and I've found a really good second hand deal on a Sigma 150mm 2.8. I'm happy :) and broke :eek:

Thanks so much for the input, everybody!
Nothing beats broke but happy. ;)

Enjoy! :)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.