Replace Nikon 16-85 & 35 prime with 17-50 2.8

[Dmac60]

My 35mm prime never gets used, when I shoot indoor I tend to need something a tad wider, when I go outdoors it gets forgotten. I absent-mindedly left it behind on a recent holiday, when it would have come in really handy at night
The 16-85 is a cracking lens, but given the above I'm starting to think I'd get more use out of a faster zoom such as the Sigma 17-50 OS (funded by selling the other two). Any thoughts? From reviews I get the impression that in the overlapping range the Sigma is better, except maybe some softness at edges?

 

[carlosftw]

From what I've read the Tamron non vc is meant to be the best out of the 17-50 2.8 range (except for the nikon version of course).

 

[Dmac60]

From what I've read the Tamron non vc is meant to be the best out of the 17-50 2.8 range (except for the nikon version of course).

Food for thought .... cheaper and not as bulky either ...

 

[Boldonian]

If you only need low light capability infequently I would keep your current setup personally. The Nikon 16-85 is an excellent lens and the range is really nice for a walkabout . The Sigma / Tamron 17/18 - 50 f2.8's are no substitute for a Nikon prime in my experience.

 

[Syd]

Depends on the range you want and what you are snapping - I found that even on DX the Tamron 28 - 75mm did me proud 90% of time - and its a constant 2.8
lovely IQ and super sharp

 

[Dmac60]

Depends on the range you want and what you are snapping - I found that even on DX the Tamron 28 - 75mm did me proud 90% of time - and its a constant 2.8
lovely IQ and super sharp

I need something a little wider, so think I'm going to go for the 17-50, can't go wrong at its price. The two Nikkors are sold now, just waiting to sell my old body before I order a D5100 and the 17-50 I've a feeling I might miss the flexibility of the 16-85, but you gotta try these things to find out!