17-50(55) 2.8 lenses- which to get, from a cost-benefit pov?

I'm considering expanding my arsenal with a wide to normal zoom, and rather than getting the 18-55 kit lens, i'd go for one of the low light capable f/2.8's

Price is a bit of a concern generally speaking though, the sigma and tamron versions run at a price roughly equal to 500 us dollars, while the nikkor version is 2000 dollars, so quite a noticelable difference.

So, given that money is a factor to a certain degree(i'd rather use those 1500 on something else ideally) - would you say the nikkor is worth the price comparing to the other 2? for price comparison purposes, an average danish salary is around 2700-3000 us dollars after taxes, so 2000 is noticeable.

Other than the money factor, how much better is the nikkor in your experience?

I'm tempted to go for the tamron VC version, but try and convince me that the nikkor is a better buy

Rasmus

I think you'll have to convince your self...I don't think there would be to many people that have bought or used both/all

I have the Nikon 16-35mm F4 that does every thing I want it to do...When I bought it I read a lot of reviews with photos comparing sharpness, colour with the 24-70mm F2.8...I'm very happy with my decision...

Another thing to look at is if you are going full frame at all...The Nikon 17-55mm is a DX lens

I've used one (17-55/2.8) It is a beast of a lens. My understanding is that they started out around a grand but now have went up to about 1500 but I do not know if that information is correct. If you are a pro or you have the money I would say go for it. If you are an armchair photographer I would do something less expensive. I wouldn't worry to much about the low light speed because with digital and the D7000 in particular the body is going to carry you in most situations.

This is a pic of the 17-55/2.8 mounted on a gripped D7000...