Which lens would you buy?

[anonymouscuban]

We just got confirmation on our fiscal year-end performance and I will be getting a nice bonus the 1st week of June. I am going to use a bit of it to buy a new lens. My goal is to eventually upgrade all of my lenses to full-frame pro glass because one day I will upgrade to a full-frame body.

I currently own a Nikon D300 and the following lenses:

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5
Sigma 30mm f/1.4I will only be purchasing one lens right now. I am stuck between buying the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 or The Beast 28-70mm f/2.8. I don't have anything in the focal length of the former so I will be supplementing my lenses if I go this route. However, the latter will be replacing the lens I use most, the Sigma 17-70mm so this would give me pro glass for the bulk of my picture taking.

I'm really stuck between the two lenses. There are benefits with going with each so I would like to know what you would do if you were in my shoes.

Thanks,
Alex

[Qarik]

I would go the beast route. That zoom range is the most important for your shooting I would think.

[Mitchell]

No doubt, the beast is my favorite lens.

[WingsOfLovePhoto]

I think it depends on what you are shooting. I have both and use them for very different things. I use the 24-70 as my main portrait lens in the studio(but mind you my studio is quite small) and sometimes outside on people who can stand still and I use it for landscape shots. I use the 70-200 for kids outside on the move so I can catch them as they run off. I use it for sports and some things like bees and flowers that I want to zoom in tight too and can't get too close. So... I think it depends on your motivation but both are excellent pieces of glass and I would do without either one! Next up for me is an 85mm portrait lens or a 105mm macro lens. Oh if I only had a money tree....

[anonymouscuban]

I would say most of my shooting is landscape and street/candid portrait shots. I haven't venture into macro and I don't have a studio or do I plan on setting one up in the near future. I am pretty sure I will get more use out of The Beast than I would the 70-200mm. However, I don't have currently own anything longer than 70mm so going the route of the 70-200mm would be an additional lens.

Now... if I went the route of The Beast... should I go with the updated 24-70mm or stick with trying to find a used 28-70mm (Beast)?

[Qarik]

I would say most of my shooting is landscape and street/candid portrait shots. I haven't venture into macro and I don't have a studio or do I plan on setting one up in the near future. I am pretty sure I will get more use out of The Beast than I would the 70-200mm. However, I don't have currently own anything longer than 70mm so going the route of the 70-200mm would be an additional lens.

Now... if I went the route of The Beast... should I go with the updated 24-70mm or stick with trying to find a used 28-70mm (Beast)?

For $300 more the new 24-70mm is the way I would go. It appears marginally better then the beast optically and is lighter.

[anonymouscuban]

For $300 more the new 24-70mm is the way I would go. It appears marginally better then the beast optically and is lighter.

$300 more? What I'm seeing as going rate for the 28-70mm used on Ebay and Craigslist is anywhere from $800 - $1250. The 24-70mm I see going for $1700-$2100. Does that sound right to you?

Can you give me some sources of good deals on either lens?

[DsrtVW]

I went from the Sigma 17-70 to the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 DX and have been very happy with it. Depends on which way you want to go wider or tighter. But I see you have the Tokina to cover the wide side.
But it is up there in the same price range 1500.00. Do not have any experience with the other you are looking at.
My next lens is either going to be the 80-200 or 70-200 f2.8 nikons just depends on the extra 500 to 750 for the AF-S and VR I know I could get by without it but if I am going to spend the money might as well get the more advanced technology.