Which lens is worth investing into for nikon?

I'm stuck between the nikon 24-70 2.8 and the nikon 24-85 2.8. Are they both the same? Or does one give off better quality. I want to use them for taking photos in dark places like when a band is playing and stuff like that. Please give all the information in your head and pour it out here.

The 24-85 is only f2.8 at the wide end, it goes to f4 at the long end. IT's also a D lens. The 24-70 is f2.8 all over the range and it's an AF-S lens.

That's specs. Now the 24-70 is 3-4 times more expensive because it's pro glass, nanocrystal coating and build like cast iron features in it's construction.

Even so, you will be struggling in those dark places. A body with good high iso performance and a 50 and 85mm f1.8 will probably do just as nicely.

The 24-85mm is a lens that changes maximum apertures from f/2.8 to f/4.0 as you zoom out. The 24-70mm is a constant f/2.8 lens. You might choose your zoom range based on how far you will be from the band. I needed a faster wide to medium zoom and recently chose a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. I had also considered a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 or a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 as an inexpensive alternative.

For my longer shots, I rely on a 70-200mm f/2.8, but your lens choice should match YOUR needs, not mine.

I use both lenses. Sometimes upping the ISO one stop is necessary if I need the extra reach of the 85 mm end of the 24-85 mm lens.

I shoot sports with both lenses and have yet to experience the older AF 24-85 mm lens auto-focus so slowly that I miss shots. Keeping the camera on continuous auto-focus seems to prevent that quite well

The key to shooting bands in dark night clubs, is to determine the proper exposure in the pools of light that the lighting director aims where the performer is supposed to stand most of the time and just shoot them when they have good light on them.

Using high ISO's is not a problem since it adds to the drama of performers stage presence