Top Nikon mid-range lens

Reoil

Hi Folks,
I'm looking to splash out €1400 or so on a good mid-range Nikon lens.
I have a 10-20mm and a 70-200mm VR, so I'm looking for something like a 24-70mm or similar, to fill the gap.

Does anybody here have any experience of which might be the most reliable to go for?

I'm not asking about where to get it, I'm asking about which lens might be the best to consider.

Cheers,
R.

quilmore

nikon 24-70 af-s N is THE lens
I have it and to say it's exceptional is an understatment

Borderfox

The 24-70 pro range are tanks and produce exceptional results

DaireQuinlan

quilmore wrote: »

nikon 24-70 af-s N is THE lens
I have it and to say it's exceptional is an understatment

Its also pretty huge, right ? I've been sorta half tempted more than once. I think I'd get the old afd 35->70 over the 24->70 though. That said, I don't do this professionally so thats a consideration

OP, instead of a mid range zoom what about picking up a brace of primes ? The 35 1.4 and the new 50 afs 1.4 would effectively cover the same range (with a bit of too-ing and fro-ing ...) and be a bit more flexible than the 2.8 zooms. Might be something to consider.

CabanSail

It may be helpful if you were to give a bit more information as to your needs.

Is this a DX or FX lens?

Does the lens need to be fast?

What Body or Bodies will you be using?

What is your intended subject matter?

quilmore

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Its also pretty huge, right ? I've been sorta half tempted more than once.

well, in papers it's a heavy lens
but the bulk of the weight is near the camera so it doesn't feel heavy at all

I'd say it's the "lightest" of the pro zooms
it is quite large, but after shooting for long with the 70-200 it's a fine and well balanced lens

one nice surprise is the focusing distance, it's much closer than most other zooms, 70mm really fills your viewfinder with even small-ish stuff

again, quality is so massive that the compromise with size/weight is going to be on the favour of the quality always, even if you come from a P&S

Arciphel

I'd say based on the fact he said he is using a 10-20mm lens that it's a DX camera like a D300, am I right? I think the lens choice depends on whether you will be going full frame anytime soon. On a DX frame, because of the sweet spot advantage of the samller senor, you could (in my opinion) get good results with something like a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8, and use the left over cash to buy something like a nice portrait lens, the Nikkor 85mm f1.8 is a great buy in this range. You could buy both fo these for about €800 if you look in the right places. have you invested any money in a flash unit yet?

Reoil

Thanks for the replies.
To cover a few points:

It beeds to be a fast lens - I'm not considering anything other than a 2.8.
It'll be used mostly for gigs, front of stage, onstage and backstage. Portraits too - weddings and the like.
It's a D300, yes.
I'm not interetsed in Sigma, by the way, Nikon only.
I'm looking for a single, mid range lens, not seperate lenses.
I have a SB-600.

Also, I don't give a crap about the size or weight of the lens, if I'm ok using the 70-200mm VR, the midrange lens should be no problem. Bigger is sometimes better for weight distribution.

Cheers!

quilmore

go on! splash out big time in that fine piece of glass you won't be dissapointed

but, 2.8 is not for stages
you need 1.4 or 1.8 for that
for that get a 35 1.8 af-s or a 50mm in 1.8 or 1.4

(I know who's selling a mint 50mm 1.8 btw :cool:)

Reoil

I have a 1.8 already, though 2.8 is prefectly good for stages!
You just need to know how to use it

melekalikimaka

I wouldn't dismiss sigma, they are excellent lens and put some nikon to shame

eas

melekalikimaka wrote: »

I wouldn't dismiss sigma, they are excellent lens and put some nikon to shame

I'm curious, witch ones? I've heard the sigma 50 1.4 is arguable better than the nikon 50 1.4 G, but that's about the one I can think of?

quilmore

melekalikimaka wrote: »

I wouldn't dismiss sigma, they are excellent lens and put some nikon to shame

what comes to mind about sigma is "they are good for the price" and "you get what you pay for"

the sigma 24-70 uses 82mm filters, if OP has the 70-200 they can share a 77mm cir-pol
CA in the sigma is poor even stopped down to f/5.6 as reported in many reviews, the nikon's 24-70 has nanocoating and no CA

also, the nikon pro line up is made to go to a war in afganistan, iraq or wherever is a war and back, not the same can be said of sigmas and their dust magnet seals

stcstc

there are a few reports of the camera mount of the 24-70 being flaky, it comes loose

i know 2 or 3 people on photography ireland have had this happen and a couple of them have mentioned they find discussion of this on the internet?

quilmore

stcstc wrote: »

there are a few reports of the camera mount of the 24-70 being flaky, it comes loose

24-70 sigma or nikon?

stcstc

the nikon

Arciphel

I love all the Sigma-bashing!

I have had a good few of their lenses and still have three on my D700 (24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8, and 70mm f2.8 macro). I find them very good, and perfectly capable of giving me the results I need.

I've had other ones in the past (10-20mm f4 and 30mm f1.4, as well as the 17-70mm f2.8-4.5) and all were great lenses and if I still shot DX, I wouldn't have sold them on.

Sure, I'd love a Nikon 24-70 f2.8 to trade upto from my Sigma, and I will when the time is right. With PMA coming up, I would hold off any big purchases to see if maybe a 24-70mm VR comes out? Also, the word is that the Nikon 70-200 VR vignettes badly on an FX body and that a new 70-200mm VR AF-S N is on the way?

quilmore

Arciphel wrote: »

I love all the Sigma-bashing!

I've found a comparison between the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM (is that the one you have?) and the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm F2.8G ED
it's in chinesse, try google translate or something similar, anyway, pictures are there that need no translation
I'll have to give you that they aren't that appart

http://dslcamera.ptzn.com/?p=864

al_

quilmore wrote: »

I've found a comparison between the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM (is that the one you have?) and the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm F2.8G ED

Ive recently upgraded from the Sigma to the Nikon lens in question here and have to say that the difference in quality, clarity, colour reproduction and just about everything is incredible. I was a sigma fan beforehand, have a few of their lenses and always recommended them to people. Have to say that I'll always recommend pro Nikon glass from now on.

If you can afford the pro glass, go for it, You'll never look back.

quilmore

it seems the tamron is a good option in this test:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/35mm_e.html

davmigil

Nikon 17-50 2.8 DX would seem the obvious choice.

melekalikimaka

davmigil wrote: »

Nikon 17-50 2.8 DX would seem the obvious choice.

unless its full frame

davmigil

melekalikimaka wrote: »

unless its full frame

Yes, but the OP has a D300, hence was thinking this would be more useful than the 24-70 for him. Drawback is if goes FF in future, but still think wouldn't be worth getting a Nikon 17-35 2.8 on DX system.