Looking to upgrade lens

<p>I am looking to upgrade to better low light lens for shooting indoor and to use as a walk around general purpose lens.I use a D90 and the lens will be used mostly for wide angle landscapes,waterfalls and museums and indoor events like parties and family gathering.I have narrowed my choices to the<br>

Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM macro<br>

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD<br>

Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8 AT X165PRO<br>

What are the different s between these lenses,any pro s or cons you have experienced using these lenses will be appreciated.Which would be better for the type of photos I will be shooting,since they are priced very similar .I know the Tamron is a 67mm lens that my screw on filters will fit,but that not a big deal in deciding witch is the right lens for me to get.</p>

 

<p>What do you have now and what don't you like about it?</p>

<p>Do you have a good tripod for the landscapes and waterfalls?</p>

<p>i have the kit lens 18-105vr an a 70-300 vr an a 50mm ,yes i have a tripod ,just looking to get a faster f/2.8 lens and the nikon 17-55 is out of my price range.</p>

<p>For indoor events I can DEFINITELY see getting a faster lens. For landscapes and such, it doesn't matter as much because you're probably stopping down to f8 and on a tripod.</p>

<p>The Tamron has the best rep around here (specifically the older one without built-in-motor and without VC --evidently it's sharper), followed by the Sigma. I rarely hear anybody talking about the Tokina, although it's the best built. Cheaper than the Nikkor you can't afford and so much lighter (that 17-55 is a BIG old beast!)</p>

<p>A 35mm f1.8 is also a LOT of fun in low light.</p>

<p>i have the 17-50 original version. after 3 1/2 years nothing really bad i can say about it. wide open sharpness is comparable the nikon 50/1.8 at 2.8, and stopped down to f-8-9, the corners get really sharp too. distortion at 17mm is evident, esp. wide open, but that's a characteristic of all wide angle zoom lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>here's a shot</p><div></div>

<p>They are all good. I bought the Tamron over the Sigma because at the time it was $50 less and has a 6 year warranty. Try handling them. Maybe you'll like one more than the others. Otherwise you can choose based on price.</p>

<p>i have both the tamron (old version) and the sigma. i prefer the the sigma because i like the finish better and it seems faster. it also balances better on the D90 since it's slightly heavier......plus a very minor plus to me ---- when the hood is reversed for storage, the wider part of the petal design is offset in such a way that it is out of the way of your left thumb zooming (if you are righthanded). you might want to take note also that the zooming on the sigma is in the opposite direction of the nikon's 18-105mm, if that will matter to you.</p>

<p>i have been happy with tokina lenses in my film days. right now i'm interested in the tokina 16-50mm. still saving :-)</p>

<p>I had both Sigma 18-50 and Tamron 17-50 I prefer Tamron. I didn't see any difference in IQ between those both. I liked the feel of it. If you have extra cash get a Nikon 17-55, great lens built like a tank and great IQ. For indoors shooting you need the speed to choose Tamron or Sigma.</p>