Whats the real difference?
 

Shortly after the new year (January Sales time) i will be purchasing a new Nikon D300s, and a nice bit of glass for it!

As most of my photography is studio stuff, i have been trying to identify a good bit of glass suitable for my needs.

SO! i have been looking at both a 50mm F1.4 prime lens, and a 24-70 F2.8. I'm swaying more towards the 24-70 though TBh, any other suggestions for portrait/studio work appreciated.

Looking on Sigmas website, i see they have two, 24-70 lenses, and i was just wondering if anyone can better explain what the real difference is in terms of quality (if any) between the two. obviously one is macro (the cheaper one). but why is the other one a good few hundred pounds more expensive, as my first thoughts are " go with the cheaper, macro one)

24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM
[url]http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/standardzoom/24-70mm_hsm.htm[/url]

24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG MACRO
[url]http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/standardzoom/24-70EXmm.htm[/url]


Thank you. :)

Hi Gdallas, welcome to the forums.

The main difference seems to be the HSM AF system and the ELD glass element in the more expensive lens. The macro designation doesn't mean that it's a true macro lens (sadly). It's being used to show that it is capable of focussing closer than you might expect but it won't give true 1:1 magnification (the Sigma website says it can do 1:3.8).

The price difference is really down to the ELD glass in the more expensive model which is higher quality glass designed to reduce "all types of abberation" so you should get less distortion and less colour fringing etc.

The other difference is that the more expensive model has an internal focusing system which means the front of the lens doesn't move in or out when the lens focuses.

Hi Chris,

I was actually imported from the old forums!!, but this is my first chance to post in the new suroundings, but thanks!


Yup, i think youve hit the nail on the head Re HSM and ELD. Just wondering if one will REALLY notice a massive differnce in quality?


cheers

Hi - I'd forgotten about the old DCM forums! Seems like such a long time ago now!

As for real world differences between the lenses, it's hard to say. I can't see a back to back review of the 2 lenses but logic would suggest that, in tricky conditions, you would expect to see less CA with the new model. You'd also expect to see less spherical aberration (or other optical distorions) but the older model was pretty popular and looking around at the user reviews people rated it highly.

It kind of depends on what you shoot and what you can afford. I expect IQ differences to be visible at 100% magnification or when you pixel peep but how significant the upgrade is I really don't know. :(

The Sigma 24 - 70mm f/2.8 HSM is a very different lens to its predeccessor, and is now a viable alternative to the Canon L or Nikon N versions. I do have to say though that most of its performance will be wasted on a crop frame camera, as you are paying for better performance at the borders & corners which on a crop frame you will never use.
In addition 24mm becomes 36mm at the wide end that just isn't wide enough, consider a 17 - 55mm f/2.8 (if there's something like that for the Nikon) which will give you more the range you need and a 50 - 150mm or 70 - 200mm f/2.8 as well

Thank God there is someone here who can give you an answer rather than have me prattle on at you! :D

thanks flake,

That makes a lot of sense now!

I have an 18-55 just now, uber cheapo one tho, not as fast either, so ye i might look into a better 17-55 at f2.8.

Cheers

Thank you too Chris-p

17-55 is, I agree, a more useful 'walk around' lens, but for studio portraits I think the 17-24 range will be wasted, and the 55-70 bit would be more useful.

Don't forget that VAT goes up again on Jan 1st, so any saving in the sales might be partly negated by the VAT rise. Current price of £1200ish would go up to £1226. But the January Sales always start earlier than jan 1st, and that may be more likely this year.

Chris

Suggest you go for the Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 rather than the others suggested as it's a cracking lens and will be useful if you go full frame. Another one to consider is the Nikon 85mm F1.4 AF lens at £865 or the Nikon 85mm F1.8 at £295, which are ideal for indoor portrait work and will still work on a full frame camera, if you should upgrade to full frame in a few years time. :D

Hmmm, I must admit i am royaly confused now!

Dilema, i have already a cheap Sigma 18-50mm f3.5-5.6, whcih i picked up new for about £69 couple of years ago from jessops. i do like what it produces, but im going to be getting a better cam so i wanted a betterbit of glass. therefore i was liking the look of the new sigma 18-50mm f2.8, i think this would be a good upgrade?

Then again, im still drooling over the 24-70mm, but from what it sounds like here, i have no need for the more expensive model as i dont have a full frame cam. That said, i was looking foreward to the HSM offered in the newer 24-70. this feature is available in the 18-50!

Hmmm, decisions decisions!