Might I suggest the Tokina 16-50 f/2.8.

I bought it and am in love with this lens. It is built like a tank, metal and has a huge focus ring for if you do video.

Have it mounted on my D90 90% of the time!

I just bought this lens to see if I can carry one less lens with me traveling (to leave the 35 1.8 at home and do less lens switching). So far, it's been great, love the speed, IQ and constant aperture. Only thing is, I hadn't really needed to pay much attention to distortion correction before, but this one I do need to correct the distortion at 17. Maybe that's basic info, I tend to buy, then find out about these things :)

PB PM said:
Are you sure about that? From what I've heard the VC version of the Tamron isn't that great compared to the earlier non-VC versions.

I have read different accounts on this. I really can't say because I don't have the older one. I have the VC one and it's pretty sharp. I shot with the Nikon 17-55 too. It's a beast. But it's hard to justify its price when I don't necessarily need its ruggedness.

With your 18-105 I don't know if you would gain anything but depth of field. Have you thought of skipping both and picking up a 85mm f1.8, 35mm f1.8 and maybe one of the 60 or 85 macros? You will get more depth of field, speed and a macro that you may be looking for with some money to spare.

That being said:
I have been kicking the thought around the 17-55 and the Tamron for some time and have tried and read everything on this range. I have DX now but I hate to drop $1k on something that I will need to sell in a year or two when I move to FX. When I have used a friends, it is a great lens!

I have daily search on ebay and have seen used ones go for $800 and refurb ones for $950 for reference.

Tamron - both VC and non VC have came up with very high marks. VC is quieter and faster AF. I have read a few didn't like it or thought it was soft but I also saw the EXIFs that showed a 55mm and shooting at 1/8s - not really a good test. Most sites have shown it is just as sharp as it's predecessor. If I get one, this would be it.

Tokina has a 16-50mm 2.8 as well, but everyone has ranked it below even the older Tamron. Sigma's lens, below that.

I have a older Tokina 24-70 2.8 and it just sits on the shelf - odd user range for DX. I find I use my 85mm f1.8 more than this lens mainly due to weight and speed.

I had two different 24-85mm f2.8-4D macros and they both stunk - when I read more, Nikon had some well known sample issues with this lens so be careful if you go this route. The people with good samples absolutely love them like the gentleman above.(Just my luck:) I do have the 24-85 F3.5-5.6 AFS G lens and love it. I don't use it much but just can't bring myself to sell it. It is a great little lens - odd range again on DX though.

Get a Tamron 17-50mm Non-BIM for around 300 used. In terms of sharpness, it is 90% of what the Nikkor is.
Otherwise, try to find a better deal on the 17-55mm, the going rate for used is 850 for good condition.

poster said:
Get Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC

Cheaper and it's sharpness is comparable to Nikon 17-55 2.8.

Are you sure about that? From what I've heard the VC version of the Tamron isn't that great compared to the earlier non-VC versions.

Hi,

I have that lens and paid a little be more for a refurbished one from B&H with a 90-day warranty - just as a comparison.

The lens is pretty good, very good if you're a working man - or woman.

But it is a heavy SOB. I come from a background in which I would, when I was a much, much, younger man, would carry my equipment for hours and hours - I won't say how much, but more than you can imagine. Weight then, and now, means something to me. Unless you need the f2.8 over that range, I'd really think about it. As a student (I'm a retired professor, too), your pocketbook will take a beating unless you have a way of getting cash off the lens.

All that said, I use it for work a lot. If it is something that you can really use, you'll really like it's performance.

My best it your decision,

Mike

if you do Videos + photos => get Tamron VC

if you only do picture and you're sure that you wanna stay with DX for a long time ,then get Nikon 17-55mm :)or if you're jumping to FX in near future ,then leave all these lenses and get 24-70mm:)

Nikon seriously should update this lens and 24-85mm f2.8-4D with macro (I call it swiss army of knife lens )now :|.its ages when it was released .

"I'm aware about 24-85 f2.8-4D being replaced with 24-85 F3.5-5.6 ,but nikon stopped the production of the later and former is still sold."

The 17-55 is a great lens. If you know the seller and the lens's history, I would say that price is very good. It is built like a tank (metal not plastic). You might consider taking it to an authorized Nikon repair facility and have it cleaned and recalibrated. If you plan on staying with the DX format, you are making a great long term investment.

Get Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC

Cheaper and it's sharpness is comparable to Nikon 17-55 2.8. Plus you get VR with that tamron.

Unless you would need the ruggedness of the Nikkor lens I would say get the Tamron, save the diffeance for other purchases.

BTW that price isn't good for a used Nikon 17-55mm.

I can get this lens for 960 used - not used much either. I shoot with a D90 - my lens are the 50/1.8, 70-300 and 18-105 kit lens.
will this lens work on the D90? do you think I should go for it or pay the difference for the 24-70 2.8
I'm a photography student at the Academy of Arts, SF and am getting pretty serious about it. I definitely need a fast lens. I don't want the 70-200 because it's way too heavy and the 70-300 covers my sports interest.