fbpixel

Moderators: E.J. Peiker, Greg Downing

All times are UTC - 5 hours

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 15 posts | 
by Mark Picard on Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:28 pm
User avatar
Mark Picard
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2325
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Location: Northern Maine
Member #:01043
O.k.., so I'm about to purchase either of these two lenses (not the Nikon version though - too much $)) for my D850 and was wondering if anyone here had/has a preference. I've read some of the reviews that suggest that the Sigma is better at the long end of the zoom, and the Tamron is better at the short end of the zoom. I will primarily be using the lens for stitched panos where I typically shoot in the vertical format, usually nearer the longer focal lengths (where apparently the Sigma is slightly better). I also already have the Sigma 24mm F1.4 ART, so the short end I will just use that lens if needed for that focal length. I know the primes are optically better, but I just don't need to be carrying around any more glass than needed. Thanks for your opinion/help! 
Mark Picard
Website:  http://www.markpicard.com
Maine Photography Workshops
 

by E.J. Peiker on Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:58 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 80344
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
It's pretty much a wash between those two lenses but build quality definitely goes to the Sigma Art.
 

by rene on Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:06 pm
rene
Forum Contributor
Posts: 299
Joined: 28 Aug 2003
Location: United-Kingdom
I would not dismiss the Tokina 24-70, apparently a very good option
Rene
 

by E.J. Peiker on Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:36 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 80344
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
rene wrote:
I would not dismiss the Tokina 24-70, apparently a very good option
Rene

Defintiely not in the same league with today's high density sensors.
 

by walkinman on Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:16 pm
User avatar
walkinman
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2774
Joined: 03 Sep 2003
Location: Alaska
Member #:01141
E.J. Peiker wrote:
rene wrote:
I would not dismiss the Tokina 24-70, apparently a very good option
Rene

Defintiely not in the same league with today's high density sensors.




E.J., how does the newest Nikon compare to the Sigma? I still have the old 28-70mm f2.8 and am thinking about an update this winter.

Thanks in advance.

Cheers
Carl
 

by E.J. Peiker on Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:25 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 80344
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Its WAY better than the old 28-70. The new 24-70E is imperceptibly less sharp in the center than the 24-70G and significantly better in the corners for an overall better sharpness balance through the frame. It also has VR so in some shooting situations it would be much sharper. But it's really not much netter than the Sigma or Tamron discussed above but costs much more money.
 

by walkinman on Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:19 pm
User avatar
walkinman
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2774
Joined: 03 Sep 2003
Location: Alaska
Member #:01141
Thanks ... I appreciate it.

Cheers
Carl
 

by steve white on Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:35 am
steve white
Forum Contributor
Posts: 8
Joined: 16 Jan 2010
E.J. Peiker wrote:
Its WAY better than the old 28-70.  The new 24-70E is imperceptibly less sharp in the center than the 24-70G and significantly better in the corners for an overall better sharpness balance through the frame.  It also has VR so in some shooting situations it would be much sharper.  But it's really not much netter than the Sigma or Tamron discussed above but costs much more money.




Just curious, but how does the Sony 24-70 compare to the 2 Nikon's and the Sigma and Tamron. I am thinking about getting the a7r3.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:50 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 80344
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
The current crop of high end 24-70's optically are all very similar regardless of manufacturer. IS/VR/OS are differentiators though. If you are asking about the 24-70 f/2.8 EF lens, it's excellent. There is also a 24-70 f/4 and of course the A-mount lens. The 24-70 f/2.8 FE G-master is the best of those three.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:12 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 80344
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Here is a new comparison and opinion on the three lenses in question...
https://fstoppers.com/originals/nikon-24-70mm-28-vr-vs-sigma-art-vs-tamron-g2-204182
 

by Kerry on Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:24 pm
Kerry
Forum Contributor
Posts: 838
Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Location: Chicago area/Indianapolis area
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR

What I Didn't Like

Its zoom range appears to actually be around 28-80mm

===========================

What? This implies that, as a practical matter, the Nikon lens is a 28-80/2.8. (I watched the video and the evidence is presented; it's plainly framing differently compared to the Tamron and Sigma lenses at the same specified focal lengths. I hadn't heard this before. Can anyone confirm this?
Kerry Leibowitz
Web Site Blog
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:48 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 80344
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Kerry wrote:
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR

What I Didn't Like

Its zoom range appears to actually be around 28-80mm

===========================

What?  This implies that, as a practical matter, the Nikon lens is a 28-80/2.8.  (I watched the video and the evidence is presented; it's plainly framing differently compared to the Tamron and Sigma lenses at the same specified focal lengths.  I hadn't heard this before.  Can anyone confirm this?

Hmm, interesting, next time I get one in for focus cal I'll definitely check that out.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:20 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 80344
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
OK, I watched the whole focal length thing and my interpretation is different then his.  It looks to me that the Nikon just has less focal length shift as you get close to your subject.  In both the 24mm and 70mm case he was focused very close to the lens.  Many lenses, especially zooms, have a large amount of focus breathing when you do that resulting in a much wider than advertised shot.  Nikon took so much heat for that on the previous generation 70-200 that they are now really designing that out of their lenses.  So my guess is that while the Nikon lens stays closer to 24-70 as you get to MFD, the Tamron and Sigma drop down to something more like a 22-60 but I will still test this when I get the chance to determine whether my conclusion or his conclusion is correct.  The proper way to do this test is at infinity focus for focal length and then at MFD for focus breathing.

The other problem I have with his test is the corner sharpness test.  It appears he took a brick wall close to the camera and focused in the center and then made a judgement of corner sharpness based on that.  That is a crude test for field curvature not corner sharpness.  That would only be a valid sharpness test for a flat field lens like a macro lens, not a zoom which is definitely not designed to be a flat field lens.  The difference in distance from the sensor to the center of the frame is dramatically less than the distance of the sensor to the corner of the frame.  For a true sharpness test you have to refocus for the corner.

Finally, in my experience with longer Sigma lenses, their OSS is very effective so either they really botched the design on the 24-70 or the OSS unit wasn't working in his sample of the lens.
 

by Mike in O on Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:52 am
Mike in O
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2026
Joined: 22 Dec 2013
EJ, I have a question about calibration that you raised in this thread. My 99II has the ability to adjust the 4 corners as well as the center...my understanding is this will not try to correct for field curvature. This is too sophisticated for me to mess with but since you brought up the the brick wall, I thought you may know the answer.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:06 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 80344
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Mike in O wrote:
EJ, I have a question about calibration that you raised in this thread.  My 99II has the ability to adjust the 4 corners as well as the center...my understanding is this will not try to correct for field curvature.  This is too sophisticated for me to mess with but since you brought up the the brick wall, I thought you may know the answer.

That is so that the camera can compensate appropriately for using off center AF points which may not focus the lens in the same place due to AF sensor tolerance issues.  It isn't there, as you say, to correct for field curvature which can only be done through lens design and as an end user, through aperture selection or focus stacking.

What you can do if you need a relatively close up brick wall to be totally sharp from corner to corner is to take several shots, one focused in the center, maybe a couple focused in opposing corners and maybe one halfway between the center and corner and then use something like Helicon or Zerene to stack them or even photoshop's facility to do that.
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
15 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group