Sigma 24-70 vs. Nikon 28-70

[Swampy]

I did some test shots tonight. Same camera, exact same settings for each comparison shot. I set up the shot with the Nikon, took the test shot then switched to the Sigma and took a test shot with that one. The results are very interesting. Are you really serious about your photography? Hope so if you have the Nikon. Here's the quick stats:

28-70mm f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S Zoom-Nikkor
Lens Construction: 15 elements in 11 groups (2 ED-2 Aspheric)
Minimum Focus Distance: 2.3 ft. (27.6 in.)
Dimensions (diameter x length - in.): 3.5 x 4.9 in.
Weight (oz.): 31.3 oz.
Price: $1429.95 (minus current rebate: $1329.95)

24-70mm f2.8 EX ASP DG DF
Lens Construction: 14 elements in 13 groups
Minimum Focus Distance: 15.7 in.
Dimensions (diameter x length - in.): 3.5x4.5
Weight (oz.): 24.7
Price: $409.00

The Sigma is shorter by .4 inches, lighter by 6.6 ounces, costs $1000 less, has a shorter minimum focus distance, goes 2 stops further than the Nikon (f27 and f32), goes 4mm wider and even has a shorter name.

The Nikon has AFS and has a better build to it (less plastic). I will also add that the Nikon has the same 77mm threads as the 70-200VR lens among a few other popular lenses.

[Swampy]

Here are proof shots for the minimum focus distances between these two lenses. Amazing the Nikon specs say 2.3ft (27.6in) is the minimum distance where my tests show about 18.25 being the real world minimum (from the focal plane). Sigma is also off by stating 15.7 inches where my tests show about 14.125 inches.

Top pic is the Sigma.

[Swampy]

Nikon on top, Sigma on the botom.

[Swampy]

Nikon on top, Sigma on the botom.

[Swampy]

Nikon on top, Sigma on the botom.

[Swampy]

Nikon on top, Sigma on the botom.

[Swampy]

Nikon on top, Sigma on the botom.

[Swampy]

Nikon on top, Sigma on the botom.

[Swampy]

So, the Nikon has some better color and is also sharper at wide open. With a little tiny bit of work, can you really tell the difference in the end if you didn't have both lenses to compare like this?

Which pic is which here? (right click and "save as" to see the answer)

[Melody]

The results are very interesting. Are you really serious about your photography? Hope so if you have the Nikon.

The Nikon has AFS and has a better build to it (less plastic). I will also add that the Nikon has the same 77mm threads as the 70-200VR lens among a few other popular lenses.

:rolleyes: Well since I own the 28-70 I am just thrilled with this, yeah I got it so I could use the same filters as the 70-200 and now on the 12-24 I mean who wouldn't pay $900+ more to save on filters!

However, Thank You for the time and effort in providing the comparisons.

Melody (guess it's a brand name/label thing like shoes and such LOL, well I have to try and laugh here)

[Ruffles]

Thanks for the great comparison. I'm starting to like Sigma lens more and more. The last pic fooled me and when you factor in the other goodies the extra $1k will get you, it becomes even more attractive.

Steve

[Swampy]

I think I also need to mention some other things. On the S2, the Nikon can be switched from manual to auto focus with the flick of one switch, either on the lens or on the camera, or even doing both if you want. The Sigma however, is a different beast. To get manual focus on the S2 with the Sigma, you must flick the switch on the S2 AND set the lens to manual as well. Not all the much of a big deal for $1000 bucks. :) But it could be a pain to do for some people if they're switching back and forth a lot.

On the D70 however, the Sigma worked fine with just doing one of the manual switches. Strange. Must mean the S2's Manual/auto switch isn't set up correctly.

I'll also add that the hood on BOTH camera's suck, but the Nikon Hood sucks more. They are both a little stiff getting the hood on and off. However, at least the Sigma lens is still usable with the hood in it's stored position.

[HulaMike]

Interesting comparison Swampy. I own the Nikkor 28-70 and like the color that lens produces. As I buy new lenses seldomly, I usually go with best overall performance rather than price. A BMW is nicer to drive than two Volkswagons....(wink)

[Swampy]

You're right Mike. That's why I have a 400mm Nikkor. But, not everyone can afford the best, so for those in doubt, here's the proof. Again, did you notice any serious differences with the last two pictures of rthe full frames? Not much to me, although I still need to calibrate my screen. hehe

[robinp]

Again, did you notice any serious differences with the last two pictures of rthe full frames? Not much to me, although I still need to calibrate my screen. hehe

Yes Swampy, you do need to calibrate - the difference is obvious :)
In all the shots the Sigma colour is warmer & muddier- BUT, you were using a Nikon camera.... What are the colour results of the two lenses when used on the S2?

Remember the Sigma is "DG" i.e. designed with digital sensors in mind - it may have better performance when dealing with sharp edges in backlit situations, less chromatic aberration?

Cheers, Robin

[Swampy]

Yes Swampy, you do need to calibrate - the difference is obvious :)
In all the shots the Sigma colour is warmer & muddier- BUT, you were using a Nikon camera.... What are the colour results of the two lenses when used on the S2?

Remember the Sigma is "DG" i.e. designed with digital sensors in mind - it may have better performance when dealing with sharp edges in backlit situations, less chromatic aberration?

Cheers, Robin

Robin, I was only refering to the last two pictures in this thread. I've looked at them on quite a few different monitors and they don't look much different. The "test" pictures, you're correct, the Sigma has warmer tones to them. Using a Nikon camera shouldn't make any difference between the two lenses as I've noticed the same results from the S2 during everyday shooting. I'll take two tonight and post them from the S2. They'll look the same (although the colors will be off on the S2 a little probably after comparing side by sides between my S2 and D70).

[HulaMike]

You're right Mike. That's why I have a 400mm Nikkor. But, not everyone can afford the best, so for those in doubt, here's the proof. Again, did you notice any serious differences with the last two pictures of rthe full frames? Not much to me, although I still need to calibrate my screen. hehe

(big yuck) Actually I thought the Sigma was better looking on screen (last shots) after you tweaked it. In the other test shots the color of the Nikkor was obviously superior. The true test would be performance over time in many different lighting situations. And as you mentioned, the Nikkor offers manual focus over ride with the flick of a switch. Very handy most of the time. That's worth something I guess.

[Swampy]

(big yuck) Actually I thought the Sigma was better looking on screen (last shots) after you tweaked it. In the other test shots the color of the Nikkor was obviously superior. The true test would be performance over time in many different lighting situations. And as you mentioned, the Nikkor offers manual focus over ride with the flick of a switch. Very handy most of the time. That's worth something I guess.

Expensive manual focus switch. I guess if Fuji would have done the S2 right, the manual switch on the body would work on it. Don't know why it doesn't on the S2 but does on the D70.

[HulaMike]

actually, you don't need to switch the body switch on the S2 to shoot manually; at least with a Nikkor 80-200 Swampy, maybe other lenses as well. All I have to do with my 80-200 on the S2 is turn the "M/A" ring to "M" on the lens and then focus manually.

[Swampy]

I know that Mike. I said earlier, (maybe not this thread?), The S2 has two ways of going manual. You can do either or both, the front switch or the lens switch or both. Why you would do both would be beyond me, but you can. I just know with the Sigma 24-70, you HAVE to do BOTH, the lens and the body switches. If you switch the body or the lens, the lens still autofocus's only really, really slow, like you're working with 1/4 of one CR123.

On the D70, you flip the switch on the body into manual and you're in manual. Or, if you put the lens in manual, you're in manual. You don't have to both.

Maybe I said this poorly before. Apologies.

[Swampy]

I wanna say also that I don't have to do BOTH switches for any other lens I have either. It's just that dumb 24-70 Sigma. Other than that, I don't really have any gripes about that 24-70.

[ekc903]

Thanks for doing that test, Swampy. It's always hard for me to know whether to wait and buy the more expensive lens or get the affordable one and shoot more in the meantime. I tend to agree w/ HulaMike's BMW theory. But, I can't afford the 28-70 (ok, ok, I can't afford either right now) even though the color appears to be much more superior. Also, why have the 2.8 if it isn't sharp wide open? Most of my favorite S2 shots are from a week when I rented the 28-70. Sounds like I'm talking myself into the Nikkor now. Anyway...great test, thanks for sharing, and please show/tell us your S2 results if they vary.

[ekc903]

Is saying "much more superior" like saying "much more better"? If so, sorry to offend anyone with my poor grammar!

[Swampy]

My conclusions are that the 28-70 is a better lens than the 24-70. There's no doubting that. BMW's are ok. But, like "someone" said, expensive lenses don't make you a great photographer and just because you drive a BMW doesn't mean you know HOW to drive it correctly. I've beat M5's and M3's among other various model BMW's with my "lowly" Chrysler. Should it have beat the M5? No way. In the end, I'll use the 28-70 more than the 24-70 simply because I know it's slightly better. But, for those who have been considering which one to buy and are short of money? That Sigma sure puts up one hell of a fight.

I took a couple more shots last night. I kinda blew it in that I left it on "12mp" mode, so I couldn't do a 100% crop to compare with the exact same image as the ones above. I have done the crops and the full sizes still. I've done a lot of work, so I'm going to make a few of you do some work by not typing which one is which and making you right click and save as to see which one is which.

[Swampy]

Here are 100% crops. I did no edit these 4 pictures in any way except to resize the ones above and to crop the ones below here. I also used the EXACT same setup and lighting conditions as I did with the D70 the day before. I left everything set up exactly the way it was from the night before because I KNEW someone would say "but what about..."........ ;)

[HulaMike]

Swampy, just a side note FWIW:

I now realize why the "M" on the S2 body isn't highlighted with white ink like the "S" and "C" focus settings.....it isn't active on the S2!! As a designer I wondered about that the first S2 body I bought. Miss print I thought, but my second body is the same. It has to be intentional as th "M" setting isn't active on the S2. You do it all with the lens.

[jhawk1000]

Seems to me that the differences are really immaterial in digital with either camera. When post processing is done, and it usually is, the photographer will select a palette and a sharpening effect he or she likes and when that is factored into the shots, it looks like a toss up with the extra money going for vanity value. This is not to say that vanity value is not worth something but I guess that as I get older and closer to retirement, vanity value is diminished to me.

Would I use the Sigma? You bet I would if I had it. Would I buy it? Probably not since I have an adequate set of lenses covering most of the range. My 35-70 Nikkor 2.8, my 24-50mm Nikkor and one of the cheapest lenses I have ever bought, a Sigma 28-105mm 2.8/4 fill that gap. By the way, the lens I use the most on the S2 is the cheapest lens I own, the Sigma. It does macro, has good aperture, and gives me sharp pictures. Most of the lillies I posted are products of the Sigma.

Mel

[Tom Nolle]

I made a less scientific and thorough test than Swampy's back in 2002 when I got the S2, and decided that the differences between the Nikon and Sigma lenses in the focal ranges I was interested in were too small to pay the premium for given how much could be done to equalize in Photoshop. I got ALL Sigma lenses (24-70, 70-200, 180 macro, 500) all EX and I've been very happy with the decision (and able to take an extra vacation on the savings).

Tom

[HulaMike]

Ah hem, did someone forget to mention that this particular Sigma's not as sharp as the Nikkor 28-70? I don't believe that's a vanity issue for a photographer.

[robinp]

my 24-50mm Nikkor
Mel

Interesting Mel, when I first got my S1 I had a Nikkor 24-50mm but found it suffered badly from chromatic aberration (see below) - it was not a "D" type, is yours?




and one of the cheapest lenses I have ever bought, a Sigma 28-105mm 2.8/4 fill that gap. By the way, the lens I use the most on the S2 is the cheapest lens I own, the Sigma. It does macro, has good aperture, and gives me sharp pictures. Most of the lillies I posted are products of the Sigma.
Mel

Wish you'd told us that last week Mel when I was shopping for a 28-105, I ended up buying a S/H Nikkor from an Ebayer in Texas which hasn't arrived yet - I could have got the Sigma new locally for the same money.

Cheers, Robin

[Swampy]

Swampy, just a side note FWIW:

I now realize why the "M" on the S2 body isn't highlighted with white ink like the "S" and "C" focus settings.....it isn't active on the S2!! As a designer I wondered about that the first S2 body I bought. Miss print I thought, but my second body is the same. It has to be intentional as th "M" setting isn't active on the S2. You do it all with the lens.

Mike, My "M" works fine on my camera on every lense except my Sigma 24-70. With any other lens I've tried, if I flick that switch to M and it's in manual focus. Don't have to mess with anything else. I've got both AFS, AF-SII and "Screwdriver" type lenses. Only the 24-70 Sigma needs to be set to M on the camera AND the lens to go to manual.

[HulaMike]

Poor design and craftsmanship on Fuji's part then..... :rolleyes:

[Melody]

Well the M works just fine on my camera too.

Ok it's embarrasing but I'll confess, I've never touched that button or so I thought, however I went to the Chino air show and got the 400mm on the tripod this is right after it was cleaned and my autofocus would NOT work. I tried the 70-200 it wouldn't work either! Then the 28-70 NOPE, so I knew it was my camera. I could have sworn I moved that switch and it still didn't work, so the entire time at the airshow I am having to manually focus the 400 and I thought panning airplanes for the first time was gonna be an experience, I'm lucky there are planes in my pictures! I got home and then talked to Bryan needless to say he knew right away what it was SHEESH!! Well it won't happen to me again anyway.

Melody

[LAH]

Photography is how I pay my bills so I suppose my criteria for a piece of equipment is going to be different from someone who does photography part time or views it as a serious hobby. Each and every piece of equipment in my bag has to meet some basic specifications above and beyond price.

I look first for sharpness wide open. I’m paying for a 2.8 lens because I’m going to use it at that aperture quite often, I don’t want to crank it down 2 stops to get acceptable sharpness.

Secondly I want good contrast and color from a lens and it would be nice if that color matched the other lenses in my stable, because I might not always be shooting digital with that lens and even if I am the less I have to work with post production the better.

Additionally, I want a lens that will stand up to daily use, I don’t baby my equipment, it gets used and there is a huge difference in the amount of use different brands of equipment will tolerate. There is also a difference in the amount of warranty time on different brands of equipment.

I also look at service issues. If my lens dies, I can call NPS and within 24 hours I’ll have a loaner to use until my lens gets back from the shop. This has saved me a number of times over the years usually when I did something stupid and broke a lens or damaged a camera body. I find it difficult to put a price on that kind of backup. In fact it’s the one thing that really concerns me about the S2 over the Nikon cameras.

Finally, there is resale. Over the years I've used Nikons and then sold them, one, a 70-200 2.8, the old push pull design, was used for 4 years and sold for $50 less than I paid for it new. Another was sold for 1/2 of what I paid for it after 8 years of hard use while a Tamron I had wasn't worth even trying to sell. Once again this will depend on how hard a photographer uses his or her equipment.

For these I replaced my 35-70 2.8 Nikon with a new Nikon 28-70 S series lens.

Is the Sigma a good lens for many photographers? You bet, Tamron has a good one in the same range too. If you aren't shooting wide open, if photography isn't your business and that lens isn't going to make you some money, if you don't have the cash, go with the Sigma, enjoy yourself and make photos.

Thanks for a great lens test. :cheers:

[Swampy]

LAH - As for the build, quality and consistency across the board, I agree with you 100%. The Sigma does feel "cheap" compared to the solid build of the 28-70. But it works is all I'm saying and no one will know the quality difference if they don't compare identical shots side by side, except those who read this forum. :)

I was on a tight budget at the time of the Sigma purchase (owning a 400mm 2.8 tells you that budget has been lifted :)), had I had the budget at the time, I would have gone that route for sure. But I have to hand it to Sigma on this lens. It's a tough piece of lens. I've had it on my S2 since day one as a daily shooting lens and I put it through quite a bit, kicking it around everywhere on the S2. I am in no way telling people to buy the Sigma over the Nikon or vice-versa. I just wanted to show people the differences so they have a better idea of how to spend thier money if they're on the budget like I was.

Your message proves a lot as well and I appreciate the time you spent on it. There's a lot of good information to follow from everything you said.

[Sneakyracer]

I have the Sigma 24-70 2.8 ($370) and now also have the Canon 24-70mm 2.8L ($1300).

For the price the sigma is great lens. I made some really good photographs w/ the sigma in situations where I needed f2.8 and in the studio at f11 w/ strobes.

The only problem w/ the lens is that the AF really cant match the better nikon and canon lenses. Build quality, well my is still intact although i dont use it much nowadays now that ive switched to canon. It certainly doens feel weak. Some have commented in regards to sigma using adhesive to keep some parts of the lens together. I cant confirm that though. The lens does not have neutral color and is somewhat warm. It easy to correct but its there.

The Canon of course is superb. Very well sealed lens and sleek + focuses very quick and focuse down to about 15 inches/

[dartz]

I have the Sigma 24-70 2.8 ($370) and now also have the Canon 24-70mm 2.8L ($1300).

The only problem w/ the lens is that the AF really cant match the better nikon and canon lenses.

The Canon of course is superb. Very well sealed lens and sleek + focuses very quick and focuse down to about 15 inches/

i'm agree with you, canon is famous for its quick AF...but silky smooth CMOS isnt thing i love :) just matter of opinion..my partner using 10Ds, my other partner goin to buy D70... since we're entering pro world, good lenses become main arsenal, id rather wait two months so i can buy AFS's ED lenses than Sigma next day..:)