 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / February 2007Wide angle lens suggestions (Nikon)
I recently shot some interiors that came out great, but it would have been nice to have a little more "wide." Any suggestions for a WA lens that won't get tons of use but has to be sharp? BTW, the best shots I was getting with my D-70 was using the camera in automatic mode with the SB 800 angled up at 45 degrees. Used the exposure settings on the flash to control lighting, and got an outstanding shot of a room with a fireplace in it. All the lamps glowed, the room was damn near perfectly exposed and the fire in the fireplace looks awesome. Every time I tried to use other settings and get fancy the exposure fell apart. Auto even balanced the lighting between the room and the view out the windows. Everything looked natural. Maybe the TTL in the flash is meant to use in Auto mode. > I recently shot some interiors that came out great, but it would have been > nice to have a little more "wide." Any suggestions for a WA lens that won't [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Maybe the TTL in the flash is meant to use in Auto mode. I'm assuming you are comparing to the 18-70? For interiors, distortion is important. As I know, you have budget constraints but no problem with using a tripod or manual focus. I'm awaiting delivery of a 10.5mm DX fisheye which can be corrected with additional $oftware to a rectalinear view and it seems noone complained about sharpness in the reviews. For a 12-24 zoom I think it was Tamron that came out the best value. If you've got a slew of interior work coming the zoom would be useful. Sorry no specifics, wide rectalinear is a tough target. I'm not familiar with any sharp, bargain, 16mm-ish rectalinear nikkor primes. As I recall even their classic 20mm does not get rave reviews. Just hoping to clarify, this is an interesting question. [...] > I'm assuming you are comparing to the 18-70? For interiors, distortion is important. As I know, you have budget constraints but no > problem with using a tripod or manual focus. > > I'm awaiting delivery of a 10.5mm DX fisheye which can be corrected with additional $oftware to a rectalinear view and it seems > noone complained about sharpness in the reviews. From what I've seen here, www.pbase.com/image/66538111 and www.pbase.com/ryien/image/67298825/original, the corners of this lens may not be exceptional (as the FF 16mm f2.8 Nikkor also were not at wide stops) - but the MF 16mm f3.5 Nikkor was exceptional even wide open, and even on a TC14A teleconverter. It was also very free of flare and ghosts. It works well also on digital cameras. > For a 12-24 zoom I think it was Tamron [Tokina - see other PF post] > that came out the best value. If you've got a slew of interior work coming the zoom would be useful. > > Sorry no specifics, wide rectalinear is a tough target. I'm not familiar with any sharp, bargain, 16mm-ish rectalinear nikkor > primes. This is unfortunately true. Even my 15mm f5.6 (VG on FF at f11 1/2) is so-so on digital, and the 14mm doesn't have a great reputation for this either... > As I recall even their classic 20mm does not get rave reviews. Huh??? The 20mm f2.8 AF/MF is wonderful at f5.6 and smaller, and the original f3.5 (not the later compact f3.5) and the f4 (if stopped down) were very good. > Just hoping to clarify, this is an interesting question. It is unfortunale that good, affordable, compact FF equivalents of the 20, 24, and 28mm don't exist (well, the 20mm almost counts, being a not-too-expensive, not-too-large, not TOO slow at a good stop 30mm equivalent...) but, then, Nikon never made an AF inexpensive 105 f2.5 or 135mm f2.8 either... Zooms sell, even if they rarely perform as well as non-zooms - and the exceptions are BIG, heavy, and EXPENSIVE. -- David Ruether DRuether@twcny.rr.com rpn1@cornell.edu http://www.ferrario.com/ruether >>I'm assuming you are comparing to the 18-70? For interiors, >>distortion is important. As I know, you have budget constraints but no [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and www.pbase.com/ryien/image/67298825/original, the corners > of this lens may not be exceptional... Agggh, those made me queasy. I've seen much better examples of de-fished shots, and of course after de-fishing the corners will be soft so that's really not the best use of this lens. It would be hard to judge composition through the lens as well. I have a 12mm rectalinear & that's plenty wide; too wide for most architectural stuff. I'm planning to mostly use the 10.5 fisheye for nature shots where the distortion may not even be apparent. Anything with straight lines is going to look freaky. More sample shots: http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/10_5_28g_dx > ...may not be exceptional (as the FF 16mm f2.8 Nikkor > also were not at wide stops) - but the MF 16mm f3.5 Nikkor was > exceptional even wide open, and even on a TC14A teleconverter. > It was also very free of flare and ghosts. It works well also on digital > cameras. OK but that's not really a fisheye on crop digital, just kind of odd looking with severe barrel distortion. >>For a 12-24 zoom I think it was Tamron [Tokina - see other PF post] >>that came out the best value. If you've got a slew of interior work >>coming the zoom would be useful. I wonder if even the Nikon 12-24 would be sharper than the 18-70 at 18mm? Wider yes but sharper? >>Sorry no specifics, wide rectalinear is a tough target. >>I'm not familiar with any sharp, bargain, 16mm-ish rectalinear [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > original f3.5 (not the later compact f3.5) and the f4 (if stopped down) > were very good. OK, maybe this would work for the OP. A little less wide but sharper and probably a decent price if it's old MF. It ought to do better than a 12-24 zoom but I think the 17-35/2.8 is equal but an expensive beast as you note below. I've also got a bargain grade used one of these coming in the mail, we'll see if it's not damaged performance wise. >>Just hoping to clarify, this is an interesting question. > > It is unfortunale that good, affordable, compact FF equivalents of the > 20, 24, and 28mm don't exist That works out to 13, 16 and 18mm and no I don't think any rectalinear 'primes' are available in that range. > (well, the 20mm almost counts, being > a not-too-expensive, not-too-large, not TOO slow at a good stop > 30mm equivalent...) but, then, Nikon never made an AF inexpensive > 105 f2.5 or 135mm f2.8 either... > Zooms sell, even if they rarely perform as well as non-zooms - and > the exceptions are BIG, heavy, and EXPENSIVE. Face it using a puny DSLR to do interiors where detail is VERY important is like a slow "J" Off, less than effective. Though digital is nice for seeing the end results up front, using something other than a View camera is going to suck in some way. Sometimes that sucking though is more acceptable than the sucking of ones wallet to afford the digital compatible 4x5 back. If you only want to do interiors then blow the bucks and buy a Better Light. > Agggh, those made me queasy.  SignatureWould thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian". > Face it using a puny DSLR to do interiors where detail is VERY important Ok, I can accept that... > is like a slow "J" Off, less than effective. Have you been drinking? >Though digital is nice for > seeing the end results up front, using something other than a View [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If you only want to do interiors then blow the bucks and buy a Better > Light. Can you provide a link to this "Better Light"? >> Agggh, those made me queasy. Actually yes, although less than impaired this time ;) > >Though digital is nice for > > seeing the end results up front, using something other than a View [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Can you provide a link to this "Better Light"? www.betterlight.com SignatureWould thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian". > Can you provide a link to this "Better Light"? http://www.betterlight.com/ http://www.betterlight.com/products4X5.html for the prices. They're scanning backs. > > Can you provide a link to this "Better Light"? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > They're scanning backs. Which is all that's needed for interiors. SignatureWould thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian". In article <AShadeosPerceptionvanishez-04BF8C.20122410022007@news.isp.giganews.com> , Little Green Eyed Dragon <AShadeosPerceptionvanishez@myplace.com> wrote: > > > Can you provide a link to this "Better Light"? > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Which is all that's needed for interiors. If you don't have a pug in the shot. :) > > > They're scanning backs. > > > > Which is all that's needed for interiors. > > If you don't have a pug in the shot. :) That's funny, I just did a magazine assignment of locally prominent people and the opening image was the husband and wife with their Pug in between. SignatureWould thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian". >>>I'm awaiting delivery of a 10.5mm DX fisheye which can be corrected >>>with additional $oftware to a rectalinear view and it seems noone complained about sharpness in the reviews. I'm a nut about corner performance. For me, a lens that is not sharp in the corners at a given stop is not sharp enough except for those images that do not require good corner sharpness. Many people seem blissfully unaware of corner/edge performance, no matter how poor - but I'm not one of them...;-(. Of the WAs made for digital that I tried myself (the 10-20 and 12-24FF Sigmas, and the 12-24mm Nikkor), I would consider none "VG" due to iffy corner performance at all stops - and all are expensive. The 16mm *f3.5* Nikkor fisheye (with a pleasant wider-than 24mm view on digital), the 8mm Sigma (rounded frame edges) and the good Nikkor FF WAs (which are not very WA on digital...) all performed well on a D2X. >> From what I've seen here, www.pbase.com/image/66538111 >> and www.pbase.com/ryien/image/67298825/original, the corners >> of this lens may not be exceptional... > Agggh, those made me queasy. I've seen much better examples of de-fished shots, and of course after de-fishing the corners will be > soft so that's really not the best use of this lens. It would be hard to judge composition through the lens as well. I have a 12mm > rectalinear & that's plenty wide; too wide for most architectural stuff. I have the 12mm Voightlander (uh, FS...) for FF, which is surprisingly sharp, but it does not fit dSLRs unfortunately. > I'm planning to mostly use the 10.5 fisheye for nature shots where the distortion may not even be apparent. Anything with straight > lines is going to look freaky. Used with care, the fisheye is an excellent choice for many landscapes. The trick is to keep long straight horizon lines centered or well broken up by other picture elements. The fisheye has the advantage of taking in a wide view without exaggerating near-to-far object size proportions. (I've gone on trips with only the 16mm - which can work even for city views...;-) > More sample shots: > http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/10_5_28g_dx There are some very nice ones there, showing the advantages of using a fisheye... >> ...may not be exceptional (as the FF 16mm f2.8 Nikkor >> also were not at wide stops) - but the MF 16mm f3.5 Nikkor was >> exceptional even wide open, and even on a TC14A teleconverter. >> It was also very free of flare and ghosts. It works well also on digital >> cameras. > OK but that's not really a fisheye on crop digital, just kind of odd looking with severe barrel distortion. Call it a "moderate" fisheye with the expected plusses and minuses, with a field of view that roughly approximates a 21-22mm lens on digital due to the curvature (the 24mm FL equivalency holds true only in the image center). > I wonder if even the Nikon 12-24 would be sharper than the 18-70 at 18mm? Wider yes but sharper? I don't know. I tried the 12-24 and 18-70 at three different FLs for each, but did not compare thse two lenses directly. The 18-70 is at least decent-good at 18mm, even to the corners. I would expect the 12-24 to be at least as good at 18mm, but it is a "so what" FL for interiors... >> The 20mm f2.8 AF/MF is wonderful at f5.6 and smaller, and the >> original f3.5 (not the later compact f3.5) and the f4 (if stopped down) >> were very good. > OK, maybe this would work for the OP. A little less wide but sharper and probably a decent price if it's old MF. A good used Nikkor 20mm f2.8 AF should not run too much, and on the smaller frame, should perform well slightly wider than f5.6. Still not exciting, or cheap, but... > It ought to do better than a 12-24 zoom but I think the 17-35/2.8 is equal but an expensive beast as you note below. I've also got > a bargain grade used one of these coming in the mail, we'll see if it's not damaged performance wise. Good luck - these do appear to vary (I checked out an excellent one (at - http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/wa-zooms.htm), but the range is limited. How about the 17-55mm f2.8 Nikkor for dSLRs - I hear this one is very good (though, again, not very wide...). >> It is unfortunale that good, affordable, compact FF equivalents of the >> 20, 24, and 28mm don't exist > That works out to 13, 16 and 18mm and no I don't think any rectalinear 'primes' are available in that range. -- David Ruether DRuether@twcny.rr.com rpn1@cornell.edu http://www.ferrario.com/ruether > Good luck - these do appear to vary (I checked out an excellent one > (at - http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/wa-zooms.htm), but the range > is limited. How about the 17-55mm f2.8 Nikkor for dSLRs - I hear > this one is very good (though, again, not very wide...). I have the 17-55/2.8, and it's on my camera most of the time. The focal length range is nice for a walk-around lens. Very popular with photojournalists, wedding pros, etc. Quite sharp at max aperture, good for low light situations. But it might not be the best choice for those who shoot mostly at the wide-angle end. In the 17-20mm range, the corners and sides are somewhat soft, even when stopped down. Might be due to field curvature. At longer focal lengths it is much better. I've had a chance to try 4 samples of this lens, and they all showed this, to varying degrees. Some people swear that they have a 17-55 which is corner-to-corner sharp at wide angles. Maybe you have to be a well-connected pro to get a cherry picked perfect sample. The performance of the 17-55 at wide angles is what led me to try the Sigma 10-20, and ultimately, to settle on a Nikkor 12-24. In most of the FL range where they overlap, my 12-24 has better corner-to-corner sharpness than my 17-55. The 12-24 is my preferred lens for landscape photography. Of course, I'm talking about small flaws. This level of nit-picking may be irrelevant if you shoot JPEGs for the web, or if you don't need to make prints larger than 8x10". SignatureJulian Vrieslander >>>>I'm awaiting delivery of a 10.5mm DX fisheye which can be corrected >>>>with additional $oftware to a rectalinear view and it seems noone [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Nikkor FF WAs (which are not very WA on digital...) all performed > well on a D2X. 8mm Sigma, wow, interesting, some sample images: http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/8_4_ex_circular_fisheye >>I'm planning to mostly use the 10.5 fisheye for nature shots where the >>distortion may not even be apparent. Anything with straight lines is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > up by other picture elements. The fisheye has the advantage of taking > in a wide view without exaggerating near-to-far object size proportions. Thanks for the tips. > (I've gone on trips with only the 16mm - which can work even for city > views...;-) I really like the field of view at 12-24. No problem heading out with only that lens. >>More sample shots: >>http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/10_5_28g_dx [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Call it a "moderate" fisheye with the expected plusses and minuses, A fisheye is already of pretty limited use, this is even less so, very unusual, very few situations where it would really be desirable. Maybe very handy for nature though. > with a field of view that roughly approximates a 21-22mm lens on digital > due to the curvature (the 24mm FL equivalency holds true only in the > image center). Hmm, that's an interesting way of looking at it. I guess the edges of a fisheye are a wider FL than the stated/center FL. So the 10.5 fisheye might be an average 8mm or some such? Maybe average is the wrong word, maybe it's field of view in the corners and once you de-fish, those corners are clipped and you are back to the stated focal length? Trying to wrap my head around this whole fisheye thing. >>I wonder if even the Nikon 12-24 would be sharper than the 18-70 >>at 18mm? Wider yes but sharper? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > decent-good at 18mm, even to the corners. I would expect the 12-24 > to be at least as good at 18mm, but it is a "so what" FL for interiors... I re-read the OP and he was looking for something wider and sharp, not necessarily sharper. Interesting discussion in any case. >>>The 20mm f2.8 AF/MF is wonderful at f5.6 and smaller, and the >>>original f3.5 (not the later compact f3.5) and the f4 (if stopped down) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > on the smaller frame, should perform well slightly wider than f5.6. > Still not exciting, or cheap, but... It's good to have these things in mind when shopping & browsing around though, thanks for that idea. [...] >> The 16mm >> *f3.5* Nikkor fisheye (with a pleasant wider-than 24mm view >> on digital), the 8mm Sigma (rounded frame edges) and the good >> Nikkor FF WAs (which are not very WA on digital...) all performed >> well on a D2X. > 8mm Sigma, wow, interesting, some sample images: > http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/8_4_ex_circular_fisheye Neat, huh? ;-) >>>I'm planning to mostly use the 10.5 fisheye for nature shots where the distortion may not even be apparent. Anything with >>>straight lines is going to look freaky. >> Used with care, the fisheye is an excellent choice for many landscapes. >> The trick is to keep long straight horizon lines centered or well broken >> up by other picture elements. The fisheye has the advantage of taking >> in a wide view without exaggerating near-to-far object size proportions. > Thanks for the tips. I forgot to add that a common problem if you must keep a long horizon line in the frame center so it doesn't bend is what to do with the sky that now occupies 1/2 of the photo. You can later crop some of it, or wait for nice clouds, or shoot from under trees, etc. to cover some of it... >> (I've gone on trips with only the 16mm - which can work even for city >> views...;-) > I really like the field of view at 12-24. > No problem heading out with only that lens. Yes - it is a nice range, and would cover95% of shooting for me (unless I were out with another lens...;-). >> Call [the 16mm fisheye] a "moderate" fisheye with the expected plusses and minuses, > A fisheye is already of pretty limited use, this is even less so, very unusual, very few situations where it would really be > desirable. Maybe very handy for nature though. I think it is a good "in-between" type of lens, falling between the characteristics of a rectangular-perspective WA lens and a fisheye. The view is nice for many things and is very "kind" to rounded subjects, like people. >> with a field of view that roughly approximates a 21-22mm lens on digital >> due to the curvature (the 24mm FL equivalency holds true only in the >> image center). > Hmm, that's an interesting way of looking at it. I guess the edges of a fisheye are a wider FL than the stated/center FL. So the > 10.5 fisheye might be an average 8mm or some such? Maybe average is the wrong word, maybe it's field of view in the corners and > once you de-fish, those corners are clipped and you are back to the stated focal length? Something like that. The differences are in the perspective types caused by off-axis magnifications. Spherical and rectangular perspective lenses are rated for FL the same way in the center of the image, but rotating a super-wide rectangular-perspective lens causes once-centered image elements to increase in size when moved off axis, most noticeable toward the corners. A spherical-perspective lens rotated causes once-centered image elements to decrease somewhat in size (a kinder thing to do to people's heads! ;-) People actually see in spherical perspective, though most people don't think they do... (see my article on it at http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/articles.html#perspective). Another perspective type exists that would probably best fit some needs, if cropped slightly - the orthographic projection, in which, as I understand it, image elements remain constant in size as the camera is turned (the 10mm OP-Nikkor is of this type). > Trying to wrap my head around this whole fisheye thing. [...] > It's good to have these things in mind when shopping & browsing around though, thanks for that idea. Oh, lenses, lenses, lenses........! 8^) -- David Ruether DRuether@twcny.rr.com rpn1@cornell.edu http://www.ferrario.com/ruether >>>Call [the 16mm fisheye] a "moderate" fisheye with the expected plusses and minuses, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The view is nice for many things and is very "kind" to rounded subjects, > like people. OK, good point. Here's a fun one: http://www.pbase.com/beaucamera/image/65400485 >>>with a field of view that roughly approximates a 21-22mm lens on digital >>>due to the curvature (the 24mm FL equivalency holds true only in the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > understand it, image elements remain constant in size as the camera > is turned (the 10mm OP-Nikkor is of this type). Hmmm, here's a good diagram of the difference (scroll down): http://www.nital.it/experience/fisheye2.php >>Trying to wrap my head around this whole fisheye thing. >> The [fisheye] view is nice for many things and is very "kind" to rounded subjects, like people. > OK, good point. Here's a fun one: > http://www.pbase.com/beaucamera/image/65400485 ;-) - but the table looks better than it would with a even a less wide super-wide rectangular-perspective view lens (since it isn't shot straight on) - but the nearly straight-on view does reduce the perspective differences somewhat... >> The differences are in the perspective types caused >> by off-axis magnifications. Spherical and rectangular perspective [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> understand it, image elements remain constant in size as the camera >> is turned (the 10mm OP-Nikkor is of this type). > Hmmm, here's a good diagram of the difference (scroll down): > http://www.nital.it/experience/fisheye2.php Thanks - this is quite good. >>>Trying to wrap my head around this whole fisheye thing. I used to have a 6mm Nikkor - now THAT is wrapping your head around fisheye images since it could shoot both in front of AND behind me at the same time! (See http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/phun.html, places, 2nd image [the floor the camera is sitting on surrounds the rest] and the sky around me at http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/whatever.html.) -- David Ruether DRuether@twcny.rr.com rpn1@cornell.edu http://www.ferrario.com/ruether (NOTE: Soon to change to www.donferrario.com/ruether.) > I'm awaiting delivery of a 10.5mm DX fisheye which can be corrected with > additional $oftware to a rectalinear view and it seems noone complained > about sharpness in the reviews. I've got the 10.5 DX and I love it. "De-fished" with Nikon Capture 4 it works very well as an ultrawide rectilinear. Inevitably there's some loss of definition in the corners because they have to get stretched a little to go rectilinear, but after all any conventional ultrawide that wide is going to go a little funny in the corners anyway. > For a 12-24 zoom I think it was Tamron that came out the best value. Tokina. I'll be ordering one of those fairly soon too. Half the price of the Nikon 12-24 and in most respects just about as good, from all accounts. No SWM, but on an ultrawide zoom that's not very important anyway. Neil > Tokina. I'll be ordering one of those fairly soon too. Half the price of the > Nikon 12-24 and in most respects just about as good, from all accounts. No > SWM, but on an ultrawide zoom that's not very important anyway. Take a look at the Sigma 10-20 too; I was also wondering which of the two to get, and went for the Sigma because it's wider (and couldn't get hold of the Tokina in a reasonable time). Optically, I have no complaints: it could be better, but it's fine as it is, very sharp; there is some vignetting and other small imperfections at the edges, but sharpness is fine. It has a motor ("HSM"), which gives you the advantage of full-time manual focus, and it's very well made indeed. The Tokina is faster at the long end (the Sigma is f/5.6). I think they're both good choices (I haven't used the Tokina, I am going from reviews), so I think it's a toss-up. >> Tokina. I'll be ordering one of those fairly soon too. Half the price of >> the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > they're both good choices (I haven't used the Tokina, I am going from > reviews), so I think it's a toss-up. Maybe so. But I've seen a number of reports on the Sigma 10-20 that were somewhat discouraging. There have been several complaints from different users about one side of the image being unsharp while the other side was sharp. Of course that may have been only a problem with some part of the production run. I've used Sigma lenses in the Minolta mount and found them excellent optically, and apparently very well made in the EX grade lenses. The 10-20 looks like good value as long as you don't get one with problems. Even their cheaper lenses are good, somewhat plasticky in construction but still good value for the money, I think. Neil > I recently shot some interiors that came out great, but it would have been > nice to have a little more "wide." Any suggestions for a WA lens that won't [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Maybe the TTL in the flash is meant to use in Auto mode. The Tokina Pro 12-24/4 is the best value....The Nikkor 12-24/4 is the better lens slightly.... JR > The Tokina Pro 12-24/4 is the best value....The Nikkor 12-24/4 is the > better lens slightly.... Yeah, Tokina, not Tamron. My Sigma 12-24 isn't that great unless you have full frame. I also suggest the Tokina 12-24. It rivals Nikkor as equal. This mean that Tokina is better in some aspects and Nikkor is better in other. If you use it from F5.6 and above and you dont shoot directly into sun or strong light sources it may be even slightly better than Nikkor. Nikkor is a little faster in AF and has a little less flare and twice the price. I have the Tokina, but before I had read all the available tests and I have test both for a tenth of photos in the shop. SignatureDimitris M >> I recently shot some interiors that came out great, but it would have >> been [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > JR >I recently shot some interiors that came out great, but it would have been >nice to have a little more "wide." Any suggestions for a WA lens that won't >get tons of use but has to be sharp? I'll also suggest the Tokina 12-24 F4 AT-X Pro DX, Though I'm not Rockwell fan his comparison of this lens pointed it out as the best value compared to the Nikon and better than the Tamarron and Sigma. It's AF not AF-S like the Nikon, but that didn't matter for me and almost double the cost. SignatureEd Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html >I recently shot some interiors that came out great, but it would have been nice to have a little more "wide." Any suggestions for >a WA lens that won't get tons of use but has to be sharp? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Maybe the TTL in the flash is meant to use in Auto mode. For the widest view, the Sigma 10-20mm is hard to beat, and its performance is fairly good, being somewhat (but not hopelessly) behind that of the Nikkor 12-14mm (best, but not perfect, and quite expensive). The Sigma has noticeable edge/corner chromatic problems and illumination roll-off, but sharpness holds up fairly well into the corners... -- David Ruether DRuether@twcny.rr.com rpn1@cornell.edu http://www.ferrario.com/ruether >> I recently shot some interiors that came out great, but it would have been nice to have a little more "wide." Any suggestions for >> a WA lens that won't get tons of use but has to be sharp? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > problems and illumination roll-off, but sharpness holds up fairly > well into the corners... For these ultra-wides on DX sensor, the best review comparison I've seen is Nikonians: http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/nikkor-12-24mm/review.html My own observation comparing Tokina and Sigma, was that the Sigma has very much lower CA than the Tokina. Distortions (incl complex pattern) are very easily and exactly corrected for these lenses with PTLens (PS plugin or stand-alone). Light fall-off can also mainly be corrected with PTLens. I use a Sigma 10-20mm on a D70 & D80 & find it very good. Bruce > For the widest view, the Sigma 10-20mm is hard to beat, and its > performance is fairly good, being somewhat (but not hopelessly) > behind that of the Nikkor 12-14mm (best, but not perfect, and > quite expensive). The Sigma has noticeable edge/corner chromatic > problems and illumination roll-off, but sharpness holds up fairly > well into the corners... Hi David - long time, no see... My experience with the Sigma is opposite of yours. I tried two samples on a D2X. Neither showed any significant chromatic aberration anywhere in the frame. Both were remarkably sharp near frame center - as good as I have seen on any lens. But both were awful on the right third of the frame. Really soft, visible even on an 8x10. Something was probably decentered. I have seen images from other samples of this lens which looked reasonably sharp across the frame, so there are apparently good ones, too. Did Nikon make a 12-14, or did you intend to type "Nikkor 12-24"? I have a sample of the 12-24. It does show less vignetting than the Sigma 10-20. It's actually not quite as sharp in the center as the two Sigmas that I tried (but close). But those Sigma samples did not perform as well in the sides and corners as the Nikkor. SignatureJulian Vrieslander >> For the widest view, the Sigma 10-20mm is hard to beat, and its >> performance is fairly good, being somewhat (but not hopelessly) >> behind that of the Nikkor 12-[2]4mm (best, but not perfect, and >> quite expensive). The Sigma has noticeable edge/corner chromatic >> problems and illumination roll-off, but sharpness holds up fairly >> well into the corners... > Hi David - long time, no see... Likewise, I'm sure...! ;-) > My experience with the Sigma is opposite of yours. I tried two samples > on a D2X. Neither showed any significant chromatic aberration anywhere [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > reasonably sharp across the frame, so there are apparently good ones, > too. Yes, I think I tried one. There was good symmetry of aberrations around the frame (opposite edges and all four corners). If I were to buy one in the $500 range (I'm not going to, nor will I buy the too-expensive Nikkor), I would choose the Sigma 10-20mm (or *possibly* the Tokina...). As I've pointed out before, the most variable quality lens samples are among the zooms that include wide angle (see my Nikkor lens evaluation list, at http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html). > Did Nikon make a 12-14, or did you intend to type "Nikkor 12-24"? ;-) - corrected above... > I have a sample of the 12-24. It does show less vignetting than the Sigma > 10-20. It's actually not quite as sharp in the center as the two Sigmas > that I tried (but close). But those Sigma samples did not perform as > well in the sides and corners as the Nikkor. This is not uncommon. Some lens makers optimize the center performance at the expense of the 1/2 or near-corner performance, assuming that many people see and judge a lens only by its sharpest part - and since most people nearly center "the subject" near the image center (forgetting that the whole image area is the subject), this works to make the lens appear sharper to them. Some of us know better, though...;-) -- David Ruether DRuether@twcny.rr.com rpn1@cornell.edu http://www.ferrario.com/ruether Sometimes at 10mm the Sigma 10-20mm can show some fall off at max aperture, but you're not likely to do that as soon as you are two stops down it's great and affordable. I use it often for landscapes & Iam not dissapointed. Bruce > I recently shot some interiors that came out great, but it would have been > nice to have a little more "wide." Any suggestions for a WA lens that won't [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Maybe the TTL in the flash is meant to use in Auto mode. I have used both the 10.5mm fish eye Nikkor and the 12-24mm Nikkor. These lenses are reasonably sharp. Distortion in both lenses is automatically corrected by DxO Professional software. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor > I recently shot some interiors that came out great, but it would have been > nice to have a little more "wide." Any suggestions for a WA lens that won't > get tons of use but has to be sharp? If you can get a good sample, the Sigma 10-20 is a terrific lens. More range at the short focal lengths than the other wide-zoom alternatives. But I recommend buying from a local dealer that will let you test the lens before buying, or who will agree to let you return or exchange a bad one. I tried two samples of the 10-20. Both were incredibly sharp at the center, but significantly soft on the right side. I've read reports from other buyers who saw the same thing. Since the lens was purchased from B&H, I could not exchange the second sample - they only allowed a refund. At that point, I decided to never buy another lens via mail order. Local dealers did not have stock on the Sigma or the Tokina 12-24, so I got a Nikon 12-24. It's fine, but I would have liked the extra 2mm on the Sigma. From this experience (and others) I'm led to believe that sample-to-sample quality variations are significant in current lenses, at least when they are subject to the extraordinary resolution capabilities of high-megapixel SLRs. Caveat emptor. SignatureJulian Vrieslander > In article <EoadnZJ0HtR4pVDYnZ2dnUVZ_urinZ2d@comcast.com>, > If you can get a good sample, the Sigma 10-20 is a terrific lens. More > range at the short focal lengths than the other wide-zoom alternatives. It is quite remarkably wide, and not a bad performer (not a lot short of the more expensive and less wide Nikkor...). > But I recommend buying from a local dealer that will let you test the > lens before buying, or who will agree to let you return or exchange a > bad one. Excellent advice! All lenses vary from sample to sample, but with the zooms varying more and zooms that include WA varying the most (see -- http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html - included are the number of samples tried of each lens, and the range of performance [see the 35-105,, MF and the 35-200mm for extreme examples...]). > I tried two samples of the 10-20. Both were incredibly sharp > at the center, but significantly soft on the right side. I've read [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Tokina 12-24, so I got a Nikon 12-24. It's fine, but I would have liked > the extra 2mm on the Sigma. I've had good luck going through multiple samples of the same lens at B&H - maybe you got the "wrong" salesman (or maybe it was my tax number, indicating "pro"?). I tried three samples of the 24-120 VR before giving up (not defective, apparently - just not very good, and I'm sorry I sold my good non-VR version to buy the VR!). > From this experience (and others) I'm led to believe that > sample-to-sample quality variations are significant in current lenses, > at least when they are subject to the extraordinary resolution > capabilities of high-megapixel SLRs. Caveat emptor. Yes. I tell people, "Buy from a dealer that will take returns, and TEST SOON AFTER BUYING - and that should happen before having fun shooting with the lens (otherwise you may be stuck taking pictures with that lens that all show the same problems). Do not assume that new lenses are free of defects!" -- David Ruether DRuether@twcny.rr.com rpn1@cornell.edu http://www.ferrario.com/ruether For a lens, Tokina makes a very solid 12-24mm f/4. It's about 1/2 the price of Nikon's and it's a great lens. It's not razor sharp; but it's sharp. Excellent colors and contrast and excellent build quality. I use it on my D70s. For exposure, I mainly use manual and aperture priority. But I will admit that "automatic" mode really does a nice job. Depends on what you're trying to do. Kevin > I recently shot some interiors that came out great, but it would have been > nice to have a little more "wide." Any suggestions for a WA lens that won't [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Maybe the TTL in the flash is meant to use in Auto mode. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.