Which 24-70mm f/2.8 has the better value? (Opinion)

[DonSchap]

There comes a time when the quality of the shot is at odds with the quantity of ready cash you have in your pocket.

Basically, when it comes to photography, if you do not use decent enough equipment, no matter how great you are with a camera ... there will always exist a gaping margin for improvement that some critic is going to point out, because you did not use this or that piece of high-end optic.

There are a number of "serious-spending" users to make your laying claim to a decent enough shot almost impossible because you did not use the manufacturer's high-end glass. Argument abounds that unless it has the "label" ... you cannot get a truly exceptional shot.

Personally, I say "HOGWASH!" I am of the belief that you can certainly produce excellent work with "acceptable" level glass ... and it does not have to be the prime manufacturer's stuff, either.

If your efforts are at the point where you have to inspect your work at 300% or better to determine the quality of the shot,
stop stop.gif I contest that you are simply looking too hard for flaws. What is the point, in the end? If you are selling the work, that is one thing, but if it is for your own edification ... try to enjoy taking the composition ... rather than inspecting it for edge focus flaws.

Lighten up! You certainly can enjoy this craft without buying into all the hype concerning high-end glass. For one thing, not only is it expensive ... it downright heavy to lug around. Before you buy your next lens, do some research on the class of the lens and various alternative lenses that are out there, before plunking down $1500.

A case in point is the SIGMA 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM ø82mm (28 oz) versus the SONY 24-70mm f/2.8 CZ ø77mm (33 oz). After a couple of reviews, these two lenses are nearly identical in performance ... yet the Zeiss lens is almost twice the cost of the SIGMA.

Sorry ... in the past, I have not been a big SIGMA fan ... but, they have a winner in this particular zoom ... and the SIGMA gets the job done, lighter and for less cost.

[kirbinster]

Well I agree with you, but only to a point. There is a big difference in some lenses. I had a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG Macro and replaced it with a Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 AF-S lens and the difference in sharpness is highly noticeable. The Nikon beats it hands down, but as you know it is also 4 to 5 times the price. Do you need the better glass maybe not, but if you can afford it and enjoy having it then why the heck not.

[DonSchap]

The lens I pointed out is a newer version ... supposedly on par with the of manufacturer originally high-priced glass. God, I hate having to keep buying these to find out. Geesh.

[candleman]

all i know is...
after 2:00PM, if i still have a job, i'm buying a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG Macro

(Department Re-Structure meeting)

[DonSchap]

Originally Posted by candleman

all i know is...
after 2:00PM, if i still have a job, i'm buying a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG Macro

(Department Re-Structure meeting)

Just know, that is NOT the same lens I was referencing.

THIS is it (<- click here)

Thanks

[candleman]

i know.. you mentioned the new IF version... i'd rather getth older version (still good) and my portable background with papers than just one IF

i just bought the other one anyway (EX DG Macro) & i pick it up tonight

its still allot better than my kit lenses.. and costs just as much as the crappy 18-135
(comparing price i paid as opposed to new prices, 18-135 i got new.. this is used)

[end] thread hijacking [\end]

[kirbinster]

The Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 DG EX Macro is not a bad lens, and when you consider the price it is a phenomenal value. The Nikon is sharper, and the AF-S is a big plus as it lets me use it on my D5000 as well as my D300. For most applications you will not notice a lot of difference between the two lenses.