I think it depends on what you're going to be using it for. I've got the 24-70 f/2.8 and love it. With the crop factor on my D300 though, I think the 17-55 might be better, but I stopped buying DX lenses a while back knowing I was going to go FX. I only have one non Nikon lens and it's a Tokina 11-16. It's a great lens, but I've also used an Nikon 12-24 which I think is nicer.
I've got two friends who've gotten the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8. They absolutely love the lens and i'd have to agree with them, the sharpness on the Sigma is great. It is also a fraction of the cost of the Nikon 24-70mm, so you could probably get another lens if you wanted to! I see that you've got a D90, which means if you use the 17-50mm, it is effectively a 24-75mm equivalent lens (1.5X crop sensor).
In saying that though, I've used the 24-70mm f2.8, and I think the price justifies the lens. As it is "pro" lens, it is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used, it could be even sharper than some primes (don't hold me to that :P)!
There is also the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 DX to consider, but because it is quite expensive for a DX lens, and only $300 cheaper than the 24-70mm, you might as well get the 24-70mm if you had to choose between the 2.
Since the D90 is a DX body, the 24-70mm is actually a 36-105mm. So if you actually want to shoot at 24mm, I'd suggest the Sigma 17-50mm.
Personally, I've forced my self to stop buying DX lenses, as I am waiting for the D800 to be released so I can upgrade to a full frame! Secretly, I'm saving for a 24-70mm f2.8 as well, either that or the 70-200mm f2.8 :P
@josephpadiernos if you do get the 24-70mm, DWI have the best price I can find at $1715.00. I've gotten a few lenses from them in the past and they are great to deal with!
It's a fantastic lens, and I'd love to have one. As matt says, it depends on what you use it for. I had a Sigma 17-55mm f/2.8 and it was horrible. Not sharp at all. Now have a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC - it is SUPER sharp and a quarter the price. The Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8 isn't too bad either.
If you look after a lens it will last a long time, will outlast a few bodies. So it's a good investment if you have the cash, but you could also buy a good tripod, flash, a macro lens, lightroom or photoshop, with that same cash.
Thanks for all your help. Well I think you also buy that "peace of mind" when you get the nikkor lenses because no doubt it would perform well. It's just really pricey!! and I'm also saving for a good tripod. but all other else is already in my bag like flash etc.
I'm more into events photography as a side job. So I realized I needed some constant aperture lens. I already have a 50mm prime.
I buy my lenses from DWI too and recommend them :) Just this week I ordered a 24-70mm 2.8 (Carl Zeiss though). Cost a bomb but I'm sure it will be worth it, I can't wait to shoot with it!! Fingers crossed the delivery dude comes on Monday :)
The first thing to consider is do you have the right focal length? I'm sure you have thought about what other pieces of glass you already own and what type of photography you like best.
The next thing to consider is what is your 5 year plan. Will you stick with a DX body or will you upgrade move to a FX body. If you are going to upgrade then you should not go for 3rd party glass.
Now for the emotional side of things. Yes you will stress over the money, most of us do. But once you have shot with pro glass you will be so happy with the quality and sharpness. It will be worth it.
Read reviews before buying, borrow or rent if you can first.
Both Sigma and Tamron make some excellent glass. They both also make some marginal lenses. Same is true of Nikon and Canon, though the percentage of miss is a lot lower. It is not a matter of one brand being best all the time.
Also, "pro" lenses generally have a better build quality. My Canon L-series are built like tanks. That said, my Tamron 180 is pretty solid too.
I received my 24-70mm f2.8 yesterday from the US and took it out for a quick roadtest today. I have to say it is crazy good. the optics is sublime, the focus is so fast, sharp and accurate. On the tram i was admiring the workmanship and design of the lens and i shit you not i had a wide grin on my face.
I guess the financial aspect plays a big role for most people. So you have to ask yourself, if you get a cheaper equivalent, will you be able to live with always wondering how much better the 24-70mm will be?
I don't like off-brand lenses. People for some bizarre reason love handing me their Tamron lenses to shoot with, thinking I'll love them. Usually I get home and laugh at how shitty the optical quality is and how horrid the photos look. I only shoot with Nikkor lenses, aside from my Tamron 12-24 that I use only for car interiors. The 24-70 f/2.8 is my next lens purchase, and I definitely going for the Nikkor one.
Nikkor and Canon lenses will also retain their values a lot better than the off brand ones, so if you ever have to sell down the road, you'll get a better amount of money from them.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
In saying that though, I've used the 24-70mm f2.8, and I think the price justifies the lens. As it is "pro" lens, it is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used, it could be even sharper than some primes (don't hold me to that :P)!
There is also the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 DX to consider, but because it is quite expensive for a DX lens, and only $300 cheaper than the 24-70mm, you might as well get the 24-70mm if you had to choose between the 2.
Since the D90 is a DX body, the 24-70mm is actually a 36-105mm. So if you actually want to shoot at 24mm, I'd suggest the Sigma 17-50mm.
Personally, I've forced my self to stop buying DX lenses, as I am waiting for the D800 to be released so I can upgrade to a full frame! Secretly, I'm saving for a 24-70mm f2.8 as well, either that or the 70-200mm f2.8 :P
wew almost $2k for a single item! haha if it happened it's the most expensive thing i ever bought yet
http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/store/product.asp?idProduct=1917
If you look after a lens it will last a long time, will outlast a few bodies. So it's a good investment if you have the cash, but you could also buy a good tripod, flash, a macro lens, lightroom or photoshop, with that same cash.
I'm more into events photography as a side job. So I realized I needed some constant aperture lens. I already have a 50mm prime.
The next thing to consider is what is your 5 year plan. Will you stick with a DX body or will you upgrade move to a FX body. If you are going to upgrade then you should not go for 3rd party glass.
Now for the emotional side of things. Yes you will stress over the money, most of us do. But once you have shot with pro glass you will be so happy with the quality and sharpness. It will be worth it.
Enjoy
Both Sigma and Tamron make some excellent glass. They both also make some marginal lenses. Same is true of Nikon and Canon, though the percentage of miss is a lot lower. It is not a matter of one brand being best all the time.
Also, "pro" lenses generally have a better build quality. My Canon L-series are built like tanks. That said, my Tamron 180 is pretty solid too.
I guess the financial aspect plays a big role for most people. So you have to ask yourself, if you get a cheaper equivalent, will you be able to live with always wondering how much better the 24-70mm will be?
Nikkor and Canon lenses will also retain their values a lot better than the off brand ones, so if you ever have to sell down the road, you'll get a better amount of money from them.
ok I'll go with the nikkor one! haha I'll just save $1k more. then hello to that great lens :D