Next paycheck means my next lens

Well, really my next paycheck will go for a strobist starving student kit but i've already made that decision. The following paycheck is going to pay for my next lens and i need some help deciding from everyone!

I need a relatively inexpensive zoom to cover the shorter range that i don't currently have below my 70-200. The options I'm considering are as follows:

Sigma 24-60 f/2.8 (only 239.95 from amazon!)
Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 (389.00)
Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 (329.00)
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (424.00)
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (369.00)

As you can see, a wide aperture is a must, the 17-70 gets in there because the focal length seems so perfect and i know it makes great images so i could forgive its lack of a constant 2.8 aperture. I'll be using this lens mostly for indoor events, and pictures of people (full body, not head and shoulders portraits) So what do you all think? Which one would be the best addition to my stable?

I have and love the Tamron 28-75, but if you want full body shots indoors the 28 may not be wide enough (it works for me since most of the full body shots I get are of my kids, both of which are still under 3 feet tall). I looked long and hard at the 17-70 too, but there is a big difference from 2.8 to 4.5...big enough to lose some shots if you don't want to use flash. Considering that, I would probably get the 17-50

Of all those the Tamron 17-50 looks most tempting on paper... If f/2.8 is important I'd steer away from the 2.8-4.5 as that extra stop and a third will limit how far you can zoom in. 20mm is worth the constant 2.8, imho.

The Tamron 17-50. Great focal range, constant 2.8, and awfully sharp. It's a fantastic lens.

So three votes for the 17-50, no surprise, it seems you get what you pay for in most cases and it is the most expensive of the lenses in the bunch. My wallet was hoping there would be more votes for the 24-60, haha, its still a contender due to the great value but i certainly see everyones point. If i went the 24-60 route i'd end up grabbing a 10-22 or something to fill the wide end eventually anyway. Any other opinions?

The 17-70 is 339 at amazon through adorama, I paid 323 on amazon through 47st photo, although i dont see it anymore, I just got it a week ago too, i love it..

I would Say look at the sigma 17-50, its EX (sigma's answer to "L"), and its also across the board 2.8..

i know its not on your list but ive got a 28-135 IS USM im thinking of selling to help fund a 24-70L ...

otherwise i was going to go with the sigma 28-70mm lens ... but for some reason i got it in my head that i want an L lens haha

Fureinku- Thanks for pointing out the better price to be had on the 17-70, i had quoted the one from B&H. As far as a sigma 17-50 goes, maybe im confused, but i dont believe they make one. Could you be thinking of the Tamron 17-50 that i mentioned which is constant f/2.8 and is XR (Tamron's answer to L)? If sigma makes something in that area that for some reason i haven't seen I'd love to know as it would definitely be a contender.

neil85- L's certainly are great and i love mine dearly, I'd love to have the 24-70L as well, finances just dont permit it. As far as the 28-135 goes, I had been considering it, but the aperture isn't very appealing, and the IS wouldn't be of much use to me. Thanks for the mention though, and good luck with the sale!

Another vote for the Tamron 17-50.. i have had this for a month or two and its very very good. Especialyl for the cash i paid.

Connor P Price wrote in post #4152427
Fureinku- Thanks for pointing out the better price to be had on the 17-70, i had quoted the one from B&H. As far as a sigma 17-50 goes, maybe im confused, but i dont believe they make one. Could you be thinking of the Tamron 17-50 that i mentioned which is constant f/2.8 and is XR (Tamron's answer to L)? If sigma makes something in that area that for some reason i haven't seen I'd love to know as it would definitely be a contender.

neil85- L's certainly are great and i love mine dearly, I'd love to have the 24-70L as well, finances just dont permit it. As far as the 28-135 goes, I had been considering it, but the aperture isn't very appealing, and the IS wouldn't be of much use to me. Thanks for the mention though, and good luck with the sale!

The Sigma mentioned is the 18-50 ex. It also gets great reviews, although not quite up to the Tamron level. It is also a 2.8, but it is also right around the same price. You might want to look at that one too. The colors are a bit different on the Sigma than on the Tamron or the Canon. Some people like them, some people hate them, some don't see much difference.

The sigma 18-50 has been added to my list, I'm still getting the feeling that the tamron 17-50 may be the best way to go, thanks for the input vic6string!

After much research, I just picked up a 17-70 today second hand for 265$... it will be paired with my 70-200F4

Yes, sorry CPP, it was a sigma 18-50 2.8 EX, Ill stand by my 17-70 though..

IMO

I would go for the 17-70

Cheers

17-70 seems the perfect focal length, and with a speedlite handy, 2.8-4.5 shouldn't be to big of a hindrance. At the same time i really like the constant 2.8 of the 17-50 and I don't think the loss of 20mm should be a big deal. I'd love a 17-70 constant 2.8 but since there isn't one, I've just gotta find out which of those two compromises works better for me.