You said "My plan is to by a D800 in the next 6 months". With this in mind, you cannot go wrong with the 24-70 Nikkor, but check this out:

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=6687

And, in the next six months, Nikon may bring out some new bodies with even better ISO performance. So, maybe just hanging on for a month or so, see what comes down the pike, look at the D600, maybe even try out a D5100 or D3200 for low light. Not purchase, but to see how the newer sensor works if better. If you have a local camera store, go in with a memory card and try their cameras, go home and check the images and see how things go with hi ISO. Of course, the way I do it is to wait for the newest version of something to arrive, then buy it. My last body I waited about a year and a half. And the D400....who knows?

As for the 135mm f/2.0...no VR, but a very sharp lens.

My D7000 struggles in low light. Give it plenty of light to work with, a bright sunny day and the shots are sharp as a tack full of color.
The D7000 with the 18-200mm-VR is a great take anywhere combination.

Thanks for the responses guys!

I can see the next few months are going to consist of eating mainly beans to save for some top glass.

I work for a theatre so I occasionally get to do the rehearsal shoots and small shows production photos (which is an amazing opportunity to build a portfolio). So I'm fairly close to what I'm shooting. I would want to keep both bodies as I find now I struggle as actors move around the stage fairly randomly so need to be able to cover a fair few distances.

No chance in using tripods or monos! I'm usually pouring with sweat after running around for 90 mins.

So I'm thinking from what you guys have said maybe the best setup would be D7000 + 135 f2 for close up portraits + D800 24-70 for wide to medium shots. Any idea how much better the 135 would handle than my current 80-200D (which actually does a very good job! See link below)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimbob_uk/sets/72157630408823452/with/7496765794/

msmoto <- I've thought a lot about getting a D700 but I just think it would be worth saving extra for a D800 as I would most likely have to get one down the line anyway. Some productions are crazy dark so I need a real low light beast. If you look at the link above in a Flickr set called feather boy, that was nearly in complete darkness and my D7000 was really struggling. Even with my 50 1.4 strapped to it.

If you go for the 24-70mm then don't forget your mono or tripod, it's an amazing lens but VR technology is pretty cool to. Here is VR in action. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlIPPLDk2dE

I can't speak to the 17-55 as I've never shot with it. But I did pick up a used copy of the 24-70 from a local shop this past weekend (a customer had purchased it but didn't like the weight). It's an incredible lens, even compared with others that I own, such as the 17-35, the 70-200, and the 105 macro.
I would say that if you are considering going FX, that should be the biggest factor that influences your lens purchases. Bear in mind that if Nikon produces the rumored D600 that may drive a lot of current DX users into FX, potentially flooding the market with used DX lenses, particularly if the rumored D400 never materializes (and reducing the value of your 17-55). That's all conjecture though and we could debate that one all day long.

It is all about the money...but, my thinking is a D7000 with the either the 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4, D800 with a 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII. I like the idea of two bodies if in a tight situation. The long lens is ready for across the room and the short for what is in front of you.

Another option is one of the f/2.0 primes like the 135mm or 105mm. The 135mm on the D7000 would be a nice medium to long option. And at f/2.0 this is a good lens. Then the D800 could sport the 24-70mm f/2.8, the 50mm f/1.4 or the 85mm f/1.8.
So, by now this must be confusing.

If you are purchasing a D800, I would suggest all the glass you purchase be FX and the pro lenses. The 80-200mm f/2.8 is not a pro lens.

Or go with a D700 used or D3s used if money is a limiting factor.

I have found that determining the focal length and f/stop by experimenting, then getting what i need/want works well for me. Review what you have shot, look at the images, cropping, think about which one of the focal lengths/format combinations works best, and go for it.

And, welcome to NRF! And, a P.S.....I do not have one of the coveted 24mm-70mm f/2.8 lenses......

I just recently got the 17-55 and it is an awesome lens. If I was going to buy a FX body soon I probably wouldn't have purchased it. That being said it sounds like you want to still use your D7000 and the 17-55 would be great on it.

There are so many options though if you want to shoot both bodies and combinations of lenses...it would really depend on what you wanted to do. If you wanted both to be coupled with zooms or a zoom and a fast prime (which is what I would probably do). If you want to use the zoom on the D800 the 24-70 seems to be the obvious choice. I seem to just be rambling at this point though...I will note that it does seem that third part lenses don't perform like Nikon lenses in the extremes. They seem to have more noise (as you suggest), lens flare, ghosting, and chromatic abrasion.

I don't think wide angle lenses will be much use for theatre performance shooting, unless the OP can get really close.

As for the 24-120mm F4, if you are shooting in a dark theatre, F2.8 is almost a must to get a fast enough shutter speed. Unless you are shooting just for personal use, I think the 80-200mm F2.8D would be a better option for telephoto, because in practical terms 120mm isn't much more reach than 70mm on FX.

I'm for the 24-70 as well unless you want to go wider. With all of those D800 pixels, these lenses:
14-24 f/2.8
17-35 f/2.8
16-35 VR f/4
Can offer some great perspectives on an FX body.

Do at least consider the 24- 120, yes you lose a stop, but the 800 is happy at ISO 1600 or even 3200 and it is sharp wide open

It has more reach than the 24 -70 and VR

but both the Nikon 24 -70 and the 24 -120 are two of the best mid range FX zooms in the world, add a D800 and you will be a happy bunny

Welcome to NR jmdrawneek, As PB PM has stated, the 24-70 2.8 is the one, I too, would recommend. The 24-70 is a must have in my book.

Cheers.

If you want a similar focal range for the D800 as what you have with the D7000, then the 24-70mm f2.8G is a no brainer.

Hi,
I can't get my head round which of these two lenses would be the best investment.
17-55 Nikon
24-70 Nikon

I'm currently using a D7000 and shoot theatre productions with a Tamron 17-50 (non VC). But this lens just isnt fast enough (AF) and oddly seems to produce more noise than my other nikon lenses when pushed.

I tend to fall back on my primes 35 1.8 DX, 50 1.4 & 85 1.8.

But as you can imagine this is causing me to have to swap lenses and miss shots.

My plan is to by a D800 in the next 6 months so I'm not sure weather to get the 24-70 as it would be more useful to have D800 + 24-70 and my D7000 with 80-200. Which would take advantage of the DX getting extra range and FX being wider.

Or go for D7000 + 17-55 and D800 with the 80-200. The 17-55 would be cheaper but only DX?

Can you guys think of any pro/cons ive missed? Or reasons to go either way?

Thanks!!