My apologies. You don't have to get jumpy !

But back to my question, would the Nikkor 10-24 be a better solution?

What kind of distortion? You mean the left and right sides of the picture when shot at 10mm? I believe all wide angles have this wide angle distortion. Limitation of the 35mm (or rather the smaller DX) frame.

Having said that, yes, Nikkors are always better but the question that remains is how much better are they compared to the rest...

What did you don't like about the Sigma?

How did you compile this list? Did somebody make a comparison test for all of them above?

Shooting landscapes is usually focused near infinity. Else, use hyperfocal technique and set aperture f8 to f11 and you should get everything spot on.

Going back to your reply, I was looking around and found that the newer 10-24 is indeed better in corner sharpness than the older 12-24. I would tend to think so since the 12-24 came out in 2003 just when the 4Mp D2H came out. So in 6 years, surely the optics must have improved. Moreso to cater for the new 16Mp sensors.

Have a short read;

http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00TiRa

http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Wahl

You can google and find a lot more comparison threads and most of them will conclude that the 10-24 is superior.

In any case, the 10-24 is 2mm wider and that's quite a bit on the wide end.

http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00T8S2

Regardless of which UWA you take, if you don't employ technique to properly level the camera and not tilt it upwards (or downwards), you will still experience the distortion. That's the inherent limitation of the 35mm (or DX) format.

I have not played with the 11-16. I own the Sigma 10-20. It's not the best but I'm ok with it. Distortion? If you talk about barrel distortion, all UWAs the same.

From the examples I've seen on the forums, it does seem that the Nikon 10-24 is tops.

I think you're drooling at the wrong lens. You should be looking at the better Nikkor 10-24 while being cheaper too than the Nikkor 12-24.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfocal_distance

If you're still not sure, play around with the online calculator below.

http://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

---

Added on March 1, 2011, 2:22 pmActually my opinion does not matter. Google out for more example and postings and have a read in the above links and make an informed opinion about it.

If you need for yourself to do it, go to BTS and test drive it side by side. The first thing that you will be awed is the 10-24's 10mm wideness.

This post has been edited by jchue73: Mar 1 2011, 02:22 PM

That is your own opinion. You may have tested a bad copy. Even the mighty 24mm f/1.4 is not spared with problems. Any lens for that matter.

So after giving you the links (you can also google out for more if you want), you still conclude that you have not come across anyone to suggest the 10-24 over the 12-24?



A higher density sensor will show more flaws of a lens than a lower density sensor. Wrong?

Hmmm, I never said my Sigma was the best. I only indicated that the Sigma was the better compromise for me. I take holiday photographs. I don't shoot for a living.

I believe you when you say you tested all of the UWAs you listed. If you claim to say something is better than another, please back it up. Show samples. If you can't, look for threads to say that the 10-24 is inferior to the 12-24. Else, it will just remain as hearsay...

I tend to agree with that. Nikkor glasses produce better colour and details out of the camera.

Yes, they do not change unfortunalWhen I started out, I never had new lenses. If they were Nikkor, they were all 2nd hand. Yeah, I could afford 3rd party lenses but of course before I spend I make sure there are plus points to getting a non-Nikkor lens.

I was referring to equal test done is the same lighting condition.

Oh, it's not about the age thingy. I mean how else would you want to search for information? FB?

Yup. That's why 12Mp is quite ideal.

But then again, if you take the 21Mp from the 5DMkII and down size it to 12Mp size, you'd notice that the noise is quite equal and in some ways better than Nikon's 12Mp. That happens to be the same for the D3X too.

Yeah, the ultimate test is printing out the output. That's why all the years before the D300 and D700, I was using a D2Hs because 4Mp (quality Megapixels) was enough for me. And before the Nikon D3 and D700 bodies came into the picture, the D2Hs was the best "high ISO" camera from Nikon. I had no problems shooting at ISO 1600.

Well, nowadays hard disk space is not a concern anymore. CPU power also the same. Last time, yes, those reason are very valid.

Oh, I leave video to the handphone.

Not required. The protector can stay there.

Hope you realise that the MDB-10 with the D700 is more bulky that the D3/D3s.

I still cannot get used to the selector button for focus selection on the MDB-10. It's too far away from my thumb. It's also quite hard to navigate with it as it's more like a joystick button. I'm so used to the placement of that button on the D2 series body. Really nice handling. Why can't they make that button the same type of quality and feel as found on the D700 body itself?

Yes, it's still relatively new and the button is stiff. So got no choice but to use it more often?

The feedbacks from this rumour are not positive. A little bit far fetched.

Brings back memories...

Nowadays, you have this;

That's only around 3% of the 24mm f/1.4 price.

When using the expanded ISOs, you are reducing the dynamic range of the sensor.

This is when you need the 1 or 2 stops ND filter.

Go easy on the USM. Too much sharpening.

Even thought I personally use RON 97 (I don't travel far), there's actually no harm using RON 95. Your engine's ECU will know how to compensate for different fuel and altitude.

Actually, f/1.4 aperture on the 85mm is not for low light but more for the bokeh.

If you count the out of focus bokeh, it's actually "easier" to create with the 135mm f/2 as the out of focus happens more immediately than say the 85mm f/1.4 for same subject distance.

I am fully aware on shutter speeds that can be achieved with f/1.4 vs f/2.0. But in broad daylight, all this is moot when you push up ISO 200 to ISO 400. You automatically gain 1 stop.

Try playing around with the website I posted earlier;

http://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Select Nikon D3X, D3s, D3, D700 as camera. Select 85mm as focal length. Select f stop of 1.4. Select subject distance of say 6 meters (20 feet). You can choose whatever you want. Press calculate and check out how thin the DoF is. In this case for subject distance of 6m, you should get 0.42m.

Now change the focal length to 135, select f/2.0 and press calculate, you'll get the DoF as 0.23m. This is what I mean when I say that the out of focus happens more immediately as DoF is thinner on the 35mm f/2.0 even though the 135mm has 1 stop less aperture than the 85mm.

Try, 200mm and f/2.0 and you see how razor thin the DoF is.

Then again, all the above is just some observations. Choosing either one would depend on your shooting style. In case anybody ask, yes, I do own the 85mm and 135mm. My wish is for the 200mm.

Paper talk? Books on photography are considered paper talk? Those are very fundamental theories that one needs to put into practice. Don't know about you lah but if I I like to understand my equipment and use it to it's full potential, I would like to understand why it's doing what it's doing.

So far I've only seen shots with your 85mm f/1.4 in daylight. You shoot in low light too? I've not seen them.

Like I said, it you're hard pressed for higher shutter speed, a bump in the ISO would help solve most problems.

Some questions... Are you sure your subject is 1.5m from the camera? From which point are you measuring? Subject to edge of lens hood?

From the calculations, the focus should be sharp 1.24cm in front of subject and 1.26cm behind the subject (2.5cm DoF). Paper talk says that what you experience in the field shooting (i.e. the other eye 1cm back also blur already) and what is predicted is about close to correct. You're talking about 24 to 26 mm difference here.

Now the thing is assuming you have taken a measuring tape and measured 1.5m accurately the subject distance, there is a possibility that the lens + camera combo is front focusing a little (perhaps by 24 to 26mm maybe?). This may mean that the eye that you're focusing might still be in the DoF range and therefore it's still sharp.

I'm just putting hypothetical numbers here. All this can happen of course and perhaps explain what you're actually seeing.

That's correct. That's why I mention at the end that choosing 85mm or 135mm is based on shooting style and preference.

Hmmm, I wonder why do people go onto forums like this?

No worries. If you can understand your equipment by just using it alone, more power to you ! I guess I'm not too surprised anymore with so much misinformation going around.

I do not understand why is it that a person's age gets attacked? Is there an age limit for liking photography? It bothers you to think that I only write but without experience?

Sharing photos? I believe there is a specific gallery for that. TCSS? There's a proper Kopitiam thread.

I think it's clear that this thread is about gears and it is not surprising that gearheads like yourself visit such a forum.

Your statement is contradictory. Isn't a gearhead suppose to also appreciating technical wonders of one's gears? If that were the case, no point announcing and discussing specs of the upcoming D700 replacement then.

Don't misunderstand me. I had not seen that one posted. It was never the intention to accuse you of NOT shooting in low light and neither was I implying that you did not.

Errr... Sorry. If you look back, I wasn't asking questions why you choose 85 over 135. I was just putting a fact that bokeh from the 135 is easier to create even though it's one stop slower than the 85.

I'll stop replying to this as the discussion not bring benefit to the thread.

Looks good. Colours look very faithful.



No worries. I've already said I will drop the subject and will not reply.

I have some old ones. Nothing new.

Get the one which you like lah.

I would disagree on the 35mm f/2.0. I would just say, test before you buy one. If it's good, take it.

If you don't have one, get the G. If you already have the D, it's still fine.

Looks pretty well kept. Great price too. Check to see if the blades are oil free. Check that the blades are smooth and not stuck.

Wah... Where did you get it?

Yup. Nowadays you have Phottix. Last time I was looking, the only non-Nikon solution was the mega expensive Quantum and the "cheap" one was a no-brand China made battery pack from Ebay.