Sigma 24-105 F4 ? Tamron 24-70 F2.8? Sigma 17-50 F2.8?

[Camera Fun]

I'm still wanting to add another lens and am considering options that offer constant 2.8 or 4. I like the idea of the longer range with the Sigma 24-105 but like the idea of the 2.8 with the Tamron. I'm not sure I would actually use 2.8 all that often but it could be valuable when/if needed. Either lens choice one would most likely be on my D7000 most of the time. I could still use my 18-105 for anything wide but would eventually look at another lens for wider angles. I've also considered the Sigma 17-50 2.8 (over the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC) based on reviews; could do wider shots but with less range. I tend to lean towards sharper photos and I am shooting raw to do some minor processing with the Nikon view nx2. Any thoughts/advice?

 

[Marcel]

I have a Tamron on my D7000 and it performs very very well. But I've also read great reports about the Sigma... It's not the lens you have but how you use it that will make a huge difference. I know that the 2.8 extra stop is well worth it as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

It's not the lens you have but how you use it that will make a huge difference. I know that the 2.8 extra stop is well worth it as far as I'm concerned.

Highly, highly, agree with both of these points.

Really good, f/2.8 (or faster) glass is the bomb and once you get used to it, there's no going back.

 

[hark]

II'm not sure I would actually use 2.8 all that often but it could be valuable when/if needed.

Even if you don't shoot wide open often (or ever for that matter), a faster lens allows more light into the viewfinder. And generally faster lenses tend to be sharper than their slower counterparts.

 

[Rick M]

Another vote for the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC!