New 'daily use' lens needed. Suggestions?

[tirediron]

The time has come to replace the well used 18-70 (D70 kit lens) that is my every day lens. With almost 20,000 images to it's credit, it is starting to show it's age. What I want to replace this is a quality, fast lens with a similar focal range. I don't mind paying for quality (I'm thinking top-end price $2000.00, and ideally less).

In a nutshell what I want is a moderate wide-angle to moderate telephoto zoom for my D300. I also want a faster lens. Nothing slower than 2.8. So far, the only real candidate seems to be the Nikkor 17-55 f2.8 Dx, which, at a little less than $1500 is well within the budget for this purchase, BUT i would like one that has a little more on the telephoto end.

So, the question is, does anyone know of such a beast. It doesn't have to be brand new, it doesn't have to be Nikon (though a Nikon mount would be a plus! ) I've looked at Tamron, and didn't see anything right off the bat... are there older lenses that I could look for on the used market? It doesn't have to be a Dx lens either, but it needs to have the equivalent focal length.
Thanks!
John

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Nikon makes a superb 24-70mm

 

[tirediron]

Nikon makes a superb 24-70mm

Indeed, but that's not a Dx lens, so the equivalent focal length is something akin to 48-105mm; ideal on the telephoto side, shy on the wide-angle side.

 

[JimmyO]

Sigma also make a quick 24-70mm

 

[Garbz]

Indeed, but that's not a Dx lens, so the equivalent focal length is something akin to 48-105mm; ideal on the telephoto side, shy on the wide-angle side.

Even if it were a DX lens it would still be 48-105mm 35mm equivalent fov. Makes it a nice portrait lens though.

Nikon make a nice 17-55mm f/2.8 too, but it's a bit overpriced in my opinion.
The problem with f/2.8 lenses is that they get HUGE as the zoom range increases. You're unlikely to find anything 17-wider than ~50-70 if you're after f/2.8 over the range. There's a reason why superzooms like the 18-200 change so widely in aperture (f/3.5-5.6)

 

[Senor Hound]

Indeed, but that's not a Dx lens, so the equivalent focal length is something akin to 48-105mm; ideal on the telephoto side, shy on the wide-angle side.

Wouldn't it be more like 36-105? I don't know if that changes your mind, though. BTW, Sigma has a 24-70 2.8 for only about half the cost. With that price, you could get a 14-28 or something like it also! Just a thought.

 

[tirediron]

Wouldn't it be more like 36-105? I don't know if that changes your mind, though. BTW, Sigma has a 24-70 2.8 for only about half the cost. With that price, you could get a 14-28 or something like it also! Just a thought.

You're right right, my mistake on the guzintas! As far as the Sigmas go... it's a thought; I'd prefer to stay Nikon, but it's not a must-do... Thanks.

 

[JIP]

Fir a quality fast lens you just are not going to get the range you want. One way to go might be the 12-24 and the 24-70 but I imagine that is slightly out of your range. A suggestion might be the 17-55 and then get a decent prime like the 85 1.8 for $399 along with $1500 for the 17-55 you might exceed your budget just a bit with tax and shipping.

 

[kundalini]

I know you dismissed the 24-70mm fairly quickly and the 17-55mm is the only other Nikkor lens (that I know of) that falls in your desired range.

As good as the 70-200mm lens is touted, I find that for "walking around", I use the 24-70mm 90% of the time. It is a wonderful lens.

To fill out the compliment is the 12-24mm f/4. So with the three lenses, I go from 12-200mm and can catch just about any focal length I want within reason. Slap on the 1.7 TC and that extends it to 340mm. These are mounted on a D80 and a D300 and work great with either.

You'll just need a bigger wallet.

 

[tirediron]

Well, what goes around comes around, and it now appears that the Nikon 24-70 is the lead contender in the race. I still don't see why it's so darn hard for them to make the lens I want, I mean really....

 

[icassell]

It's not any longer than what you have, but I love my Tamron 17-50 f2.8. On my crop-sensor 30D, it fits the bill from a little WA to a little tele

 

[reg]

Indeed, but that's not a Dx lens, so the equivalent focal length is something akin to 48-105mm; ideal on the telephoto side, shy on the wide-angle side.

Dx vs non-dx has no bearing on it.

 

[tirediron]

Dx vs non-dx has no bearing on it.

Howzzat?

 

[djacobox372]

Sigma also make a quick 24-70mm

Sigma also has a 24-60mm f2.8 that you can buy new for $250!! I don't think the extra 10mm of the 34-70 is worth the $175 more asking price.

 

[tirediron]

Sigma also has a 24-60mm f2.8 that you can buy new for $250!! I don't think the extra 10mm of the 34-70 is worth the $175 more asking price.

Hmmm... at $250 - 425 I don't think these two are likely to be in the build-quality range I am looking for.