Nikon Lens help wanted ....

[Matt K.]

... I know this is physics to some degree and any lens wide open will be equally challenged despite what the max aperture is, but it always strikes me as odd that I'm paying for a 2.8 but reviews say it's better stopped down to f/4.

Well yes, but then would the same not hold true for a f 3.5 lens ... stopping it down a couple of stops further to achieve better sharpness? So then I am looking at f 5.6 and beyond ....

[F8&Bthere]

Well yes, but then would the same not hold true for a f 3.5 lens ... stopping it down a couple of stops further to achieve better sharpness? So then I am looking at f 5.6 and beyond ....

Yes, that is what I meant by "I know this is physics to some degree and any lens wide open will be equally challenged despite what the max aperture is".

Have you seen the photozone.de review for the Sigma lens you are studying? I respect their opinions as do most of the photographic community and they seem to give that lens a thumbs up, overall.

Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC (Nikon) - Review / Lab Test Report

[Matt K.]

[QUOTE=F8&Bthere;79568]Have you seen the photozone.de review for the Sigma lens you are studying? I respect their opinions as do most of the photographic community and they seem to give that lens a thumbs up, overall. QUOTE]

Yes I have, and I have also read the forum on nikon.ca; seems to be an agreement on all. Methinks the newer 17-70 from Sigma would be the choice, though. It has optical stabilization and a slightly better aperture rating. Though the test says the older lens has beeter glass ... go figure.