[ShopVac]

So, I'm looking for a decent lens for the camera (D90), but really would like to keep it under $1000. I believe I have my mind set on a 24-70 f/2.8, but the Nikon version of this is ~$1800.00...a tad higher than I want to spend.

So in looking for some others in my range, I came across this...

Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/24-70...x-dg-hsm-sigma

I'm questioning if it's worth it, I can get this fro around $899.00 (less from some unknown sites).

Tamron makes an AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF), but at $350.00, it seems like one of those 'to good to be true' items.

Anybody have any other recommendations or experience with the items above...or others that may hit the price budget?

One other thing I don't quite get...why would the sigma lens be 1/2 the size of the Nikon lens? Is a larger lens necessary?

[sourphish]

The thing with Sigma and Tamron lenses in my experience, is that they CAN be very good in terms of sharpness. While their AF motor speed / sound, and construction may or may not be as good quality as the original Nikon / Canon lenses, I've had a few great copies that were almost on par with their name-brand counterparts and have tried some that were soft all around no matter what. You just have to test out many copies to find the right one since the range of quality for Sigmas and Tamrons seem to be quite vast, whereas Canon and Nikon have much better quality control.

I just bought a Tamron 17-50 (Canon mount) for my girlfriend after trying out 3 copies. A great alternative to the Canon 17-55 version that costs 2.5-3x as much haha.

Edit:
Oh, I'm sure you already know but you shouldn't buy from "unknown" sites, there are a lot of scam stores that show up. A pretty good way to check is to visit resellerratings.com and search that store to see if it's legit.

[E90SoFlo]

I choose Tokina over those too.

A+ lens.

[FStop7]

A few years ago I had the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 and it was very good for the money. The focus speed was slower than Nikon or Canon and the bokeh was not as good. But it was still a great performing lens, especially at that price point.

[ShopVac]

Originally Posted by E90SoFlo

I choose Tokina over those too.

A+ lens.

I see some comparisons between the Tokina 28-80 vs some others...but don't actually see anywhere that sells this lens. Maybe something they are not making anymore?

Originally Posted by FStop7

A few years ago I had the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 and it was very good for the money. The focus speed was slower than Nikon or Canon and the bokeh was not as good. But it was still a great performing lens, especially at that price point.

I see this same comment in many of the reviews...unfortunately, focus speed is one items I'm concerned with.

I appreciated the insight...

[ShopVac]

Originally Posted by sourphish

Edit:
Oh, I'm sure you already know but you shouldn't buy from "unknown" sites, there are a lot of scam stores that show up. A pretty good way to check is to visit resellerratings.com and search that store to see if it's legit.

I know about it now...but wish I knew about it back when I bought my camera.

[1013mm]

I liked the Tamron, it wasn't bad. Contrasty and sharp.


straight from camera... Nikon D80 + the tamron

[leemik]

The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is a highly regarded lens.. at $350 it's definately worth it.. I had a Tamron 17-50 when i first started out and i loved that thing.. It had it's quirks though, noisy AF motor and poor AF in dark conditions but for $400, i was willing to put up with it.

Some lenses are bigger than others because of their design.. lenses are like cars.. the purpose may be the same but are not all the same inside. There are luxury lenses and there are cheap bang for the buck lenses just like cars.

--mike

[FStop7]

The Tamron also weighs significantly less than the Canon or Nikon lenses.

[Litos]

i'm a Nikon snob and will never "personally" toss a Tokina or Tamron on my camera.

......BUT, people are much happier with their 3rd party Tokina lenses than any Tamron.

one comes to mind - the 11-16 Tokina F2.8.

simply put, it's a stunning lens that outperforms the Nikon 12-24 that costs almost 3 times more.

that said, the 11-16 Tokina works perfectly with DX, but not for FX.

[FstopBMW]

I have the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 and its super sharp. I would think that the Full frame version would be just as good Hope this helps!

[ShopVac]

Originally Posted by FstopBMW

I have the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 and its super sharp. I would think that the Full frame version would be just as good Hope this helps!

I do appreciate everyone's comments in regards to this...lots of praise on the Tamron, not so much on the Sigma.

After my other research, I believe both to list rather good details in the pics, although there are some issues about the edge of frame distortion at the the full 70mm setting on the Sigma. Needless, I chose the Sigma specifically for the focus speed. Everything I see has stated that the Tamron takes an extended time to focus, which limits some of the usage for this lens that I was going for. The Sigma's focus speed was on par with the Nikkor...which should fit the bill.

I should have this in a couple days...we'll see if I made the right choice or not.