I've been in a bit of a quandry lately, are large aperture wide-standard zoom lenses (i.e. sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5, 20-40 f2.8, 18-50 f2.8, Tamron 17-35 f2.8, Tamron 17-50 f2.8, Nikon 17-35 f2.8, 17-55 DX f2.8, etc) really better for camera resolution when it comes to print? I know this may sound like a noobish question, but I ask this because more and more of my future projects will be printed out (hopefully) and I really wonder if a high aperture wide-standard zooms really do offer as much detail as primes. Of course i could go invest in some good quality prime glass but I currently have no means to do so (thanks D80 :Sick:).

Anyway it was just a passing thought of mine. :D

Peace!

YEY!!!!! Graduate na yung D70 niya!!!! :D hehehehehehehehe...

Go for the 17-35 Nikkor f/2.8 and be amazed what it can do Bro.! :)

You really have to try it... To know...

It's not the big aperture per se that does wonders to the resolution. It's the optical design of those lenses that gives you the improved resolution or sharpness.

I have owned the 17-35 for about 3 years and the chromatic aberration (CA) of that particular lens is well-controlled, if not totally eliminated. CA becomes specially evident in digital cameras because of the linear design of photo diodes on CCD sensors. And low or zero CA results in improved contrast which in turn gives you good colour saturation and perceived sharpness.

You can't go wrong with that lens and I'm planning to re-acquire one soon. :)

Ken,

Congratulations on your new toy (D80). Yes it does matter to me if it's f2/8 specially on a low light situation.

Thanks for the replies guys, i'm not so concerned with low light performance per-se, my question was actually answered by Jerry. I guess optical design is really paramount especially if your photos make it to print. I ask this because upon close inspection of photos taken with my 18-70 mated to the D80, at 100% crop they look a little mottled (with out NR and at 400-800 ISO I guess i should expect this with a kit lens), mated to the 85 1.8 the pictures are fine (note: that aperture setting is at f5.6). My real worry is the lower priced f2.8 zooms really. I know the Nikkor 17-35 2.8 is legenday for it's image quality, my question now is that which of the lower priced zooms will really shine on the D80's sensor. I'm a real nitpicker when it comes to my pictures that will be printed out and my concerns are plausable. Haay.... :(

Peace!

Ken.. Nikkor 17-35/2.8 - it's worth every damn penny.

@jerry

hehehe I know... how much is one anyway... so i can relish the thought that i could ever afford one. hahahaha :D

Peace!

Depends where you ask, it should be in the 65-85T range.

Hello Sir Ken,

I also have the 17-35mm. To be honest, I seldom used it wide-open for my purposes. Pero the optics is simply amazing. Siguro eventhough its not f2.8 (kahit f4 pa sya or smaller), i would still consider it just for the brilliant performance.

Just my $0.02 on this. :)

Depends where you ask, it should be in the 65-85T range.

*whimper*

@melvin
Thanks for the input! Now I really have to shell out the moolah for this lens... anyone care to buy a kidney or foot? :D

Peace!

Welcome to the 17-35 club Ken! :)

I wouldn't count my chickens just yet... i still have to figure out which body part to sell to buy one! hahahahaha :D

Peace!

why nobody suggest a 17-55 f/2.8? Master Manny is using the lens. It pulls off a lot of sharpness and contrast too. Heard it performs well in low-light. it has a longer zoom too. contemplating for months now whether I'll go for this lens or not.

Congratulations in advance, Ken!!!

@Cesar
IMHO the 17-55 DX is a good lens but is severely limited to crop sensor DSLRs, not that I'm hoping that Nikon will release an FF DSLR anytime in the future, rather the 17-35 is more attractive because of it's legendary status alone and almost unparalled sharpness, which is why it's still more expensive than the 17-55 DX. Although I wouldn't mind if someone gave me one for a christmas gift. hehehe

@dindin
Thanks mommy dindin! :D (do you carry this lens ba? pa PM naman ng presyo hihihi)

Peace!

My vote goes to the 17-55 dx

Reasons:
More useful range
A bit smaller and lighter due to being dx
Sharper wide open http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=21135933
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=21151884&q=17+35+vs&qf=m
http://www.nikona.org/podcasts/NPC-ID-2006-11-23.mp3
Cheaper!

hehe... let me rephrase my last comment...

I wouldn't mind if i got either one for christmas! hahahaha :D

Peace!

why not get a tammy 17-50mm f/2.8? it performs surprisingly well for it's price class, and it won't cost you an arm and a leg... just a leg :)

I think we should band together this christmas and sing carols in the posh villages of Makati -- who knows, maybe some old lady with lots of money might like us enough to buy us lenses this Christmas! :D

Chewy, handa mo na dance number mo. Ken ikaw Tenor ha. I'll drive us all around. :D

Oh cge ba! *do re mi fa so laaaaa...aaghk aghk ubo ubo* hehehehe...

Peace!