If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
No 12mm rectilinear FF lens?
On 2014-11-26 20:34:22 +0000, Alfred Molon said:
In article , Me says... No -it's just wider - same as the 12-24 on FX. It also can't be fitted with a protective filter, and every review I've read of it comments on decentering issues. The Sigma comes with a big lens cap, so there is no need for a protective filter. The problem with the Sigma 12-24mm and filters, is not so much a protective filter, but the ability to use other filter types such a CPF, ND, grads etc. It does have the facility to use gel inserts in the back and comes with a template for cutting those gels. However, they only provide tints and are not a substitute for good glass filters. Then when used on a crop sensor camera there are serious vignetting issues. I still have my original version , but I seldom use it these days as my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 has proved far superior on my D300S in all sorts of ways. Not sure what you mean with decentering issues. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
No 12mm rectilinear FF lens?
On 11/25/2014 9:12 PM, Me wrote:
On 26/11/2014 11:05 a.m., Alfred Molon wrote: In article , Me says... the practical difficulty on shooting outdoors without the sun in the frame. What's wrong in having the sun in the frame? Nothing wrong with it, but flare and ghosting can be a problem. Some lenses perform better than others. The large bulbous exposed front element on lenses like the Sigma 8-16 or Nikkor 14-24 can be a problem if the sun isn't in the frame - but hits the front element. Flare and distortion can add to the image. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/oyster%20festival_1260-Edit-2.jpg As a Dx and FX user, IMO FX has a massive advantage over DX at these focal lengths. The Nikkor 18-35 G is less expensive than the Nikkor DX 12-24, it weighs about the same, covers approx the same field of view, but is much, much sharper. Nothing on DX format comes close, .... The Sigma 8-16 DX lens is extreme and unique (as is the Sigma FX 12- 24). Yes exactly, the Sigma 8-16 beats the Nikkor 18-35. No -it's just wider - same as the 12-24 on FX. It also can't be fitted with a protective filter, and every review I've read of it comments on decentering issues. IMHO the Sigma 12-24, prodces an inconsistently soft image, with lots of bad distortion, and a lot of CA. For my taste the softness destroyed the drama I like in a WA image, neither the distortion nor the SA was "easily correctible" in post. For most of my WA I prefer the Nikon 16-35 f4. I was considering the 14, but it is quite heavy and cannot accept a filter. (for some WA, I will often use an ND flter for long exposure.) -- PeterN |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
No 12mm rectilinear FF lens?
In article 2014112613001448762-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says... Then when used on a crop sensor camera there are serious vignetting issues. Not true, at least not with all APS-C cameras. -- Alfred Molon Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
No 12mm rectilinear FF lens?
On 2014-11-27 07:11:52 +0000, Alfred Molon said:
In article 2014112613001448762-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck says... Then when used on a crop sensor camera there are serious vignetting issues. Not true, at least not with all APS-C cameras. I own the lens, and it has proven to be an issue on three of my Nikon APS-C DSLRs. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
No 12mm rectilinear FF lens?
On 27/11/2014 11:44 a.m., PeterN wrote:
On 11/25/2014 9:12 PM, Me wrote: On 26/11/2014 11:05 a.m., Alfred Molon wrote: In article , Me says... the practical difficulty on shooting outdoors without the sun in the frame. What's wrong in having the sun in the frame? Nothing wrong with it, but flare and ghosting can be a problem. Some lenses perform better than others. The large bulbous exposed front element on lenses like the Sigma 8-16 or Nikkor 14-24 can be a problem if the sun isn't in the frame - but hits the front element. Flare and distortion can add to the image. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/oyster%20festival_1260-Edit-2.jpg Yes - that doesn't look rectilinear to me. As a Dx and FX user, IMO FX has a massive advantage over DX at these focal lengths. The Nikkor 18-35 G is less expensive than the Nikkor DX 12-24, it weighs about the same, covers approx the same field of view, but is much, much sharper. Nothing on DX format comes close, .... The Sigma 8-16 DX lens is extreme and unique (as is the Sigma FX 12- 24). Yes exactly, the Sigma 8-16 beats the Nikkor 18-35. No -it's just wider - same as the 12-24 on FX. It also can't be fitted with a protective filter, and every review I've read of it comments on decentering issues. IMHO the Sigma 12-24, prodces an inconsistently soft image, with lots of bad distortion, and a lot of CA. For my taste the softness destroyed the drama I like in a WA image, neither the distortion nor the SA was "easily correctible" in post. I haven't used a 12-24, but yes I hear that it's soft - at least the old version. For most of my WA I prefer the Nikon 16-35 f4. I was considering the 14, but it is quite heavy and cannot accept a filter. (for some WA, I will often use an ND flter for long exposure.) Yup. I was also looking at the 14-24, and weight and lack of an easy way to use filters put me off. It's a shame because the optical performance is remarkable. I was going to get a 16-35, but Nikon had a sale on the 18-35 in local stores - which put it at just below half the price of the 16-35. It is extremely good, but an extra couple of mm at the wide end would be nice at times. If you can bear using CaptureNX, then distortion with the 16 or 18-35 at the fully wide end is corrected automatically (or in-camera for jpegs if you have the appropriate lens data file loaded). In the old days, I used PTLens for correction of distortion with the Sigma 10-20 - which straightened out the particularly bad "moustache" distortion pretty well. For my next wide lens I'm waiting to see what the 12mm FX Samyang F2.8 fisheye is like. I suspect that it's a lens that Samyang could really nail, and one where lack of AF wouldn't bother me at all. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
No 12mm rectilinear FF lens?
On 27/11/2014 9:34 a.m., Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Me says... No -it's just wider - same as the 12-24 on FX. It also can't be fitted with a protective filter, and every review I've read of it comments on decentering issues. The Sigma comes with a big lens cap, so there is no need for a protective filter. Not sure what you mean with decentering issues. Mis-aligned elements - so that focus is not consistent across the frame. Sigma had real issues with this with their UWA lenses, but it's not a problem unique to Sigma. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
No 12mm rectilinear FF lens?
On 25/11/2014 10:48 a.m., Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
Not really because with the APS-C format you can design the rear element of a lens closer to the image plane, which turns out to be pretty crucial with super-wide lenses. A full frame SLR's mirror would probably smash itself into pieces against the Sigma lens you mention. That's actually not correct, as the Sigma 8-16 will mount on any Nikon FX SLR body. The mirror will not touch the rear of the lens. It will however vignette. If it's so /crucial/ to get the lens rear element close to the image plane, then how come the best performing ultra-wide lenses are for SLR formats? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
No 12mm rectilinear FF lens?
On 11/27/2014 5:10 AM, Me wrote:
On 27/11/2014 11:44 a.m., PeterN wrote: On 11/25/2014 9:12 PM, Me wrote: On 26/11/2014 11:05 a.m., Alfred Molon wrote: In article , Me says... the practical difficulty on shooting outdoors without the sun in the frame. What's wrong in having the sun in the frame? Nothing wrong with it, but flare and ghosting can be a problem. Some lenses perform better than others. The large bulbous exposed front element on lenses like the Sigma 8-16 or Nikkor 14-24 can be a problem if the sun isn't in the frame - but hits the front element. Flare and distortion can add to the image. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/oyster%20festival_1260-Edit-2.jpg Yes - that doesn't look rectilinear to me. It's not a rectilinear lens.It's a 10.5 semi fishwyw, in an APS-C.. As a Dx and FX user, IMO FX has a massive advantage over DX at these focal lengths. The Nikkor 18-35 G is less expensive than the Nikkor DX 12-24, it weighs about the same, covers approx the same field of view, but is much, much sharper. Nothing on DX format comes close, .... The Sigma 8-16 DX lens is extreme and unique (as is the Sigma FX 12- 24). Yes exactly, the Sigma 8-16 beats the Nikkor 18-35. No -it's just wider - same as the 12-24 on FX. It also can't be fitted with a protective filter, and every review I've read of it comments on decentering issues. IMHO the Sigma 12-24, prodces an inconsistently soft image, with lots of bad distortion, and a lot of CA. For my taste the softness destroyed the drama I like in a WA image, neither the distortion nor the SA was "easily correctible" in post. I haven't used a 12-24, but yes I hear that it's soft - at least the old version. For most of my WA I prefer the Nikon 16-35 f4. I was considering the 14, but it is quite heavy and cannot accept a filter. (for some WA, I will often use an ND flter for long exposure.) Yup. I was also looking at the 14-24, and weight and lack of an easy way to use filters put me off. It's a shame because the optical performance is remarkable. I was going to get a 16-35, but Nikon had a sale on the 18-35 in local stores - which put it at just below half the price of the 16-35. It is extremely good, but an extra couple of mm at the wide end would be nice at times. If you can bear using CaptureNX, then distortion with the 16 or 18-35 at the fully wide end is corrected automatically (or in-camera for jpegs if you have the appropriate lens data file loaded). In the old days, I used PTLens for correction of distortion with the Sigma 10-20 - which straightened out the particularly bad "moustache" distortion pretty well. For my next wide lens I'm waiting to see what the 12mm FX Samyang F2.8 fisheye is like. I suspect that it's a lens that Samyang could really nail, and one where lack of AF wouldn't bother me at all. At that end, Thre is little concern about auto focus. I was in the process of ordering the Rokinon 15mm, when I saw the 12. I will wait. -- PeterN |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
No 12mm rectilinear FF lens?
In article 201411270038377533-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says... I own the lens, and it has proven to be an issue on three of my Nikon APS-C DSLRs. My brother has the lens as well, and he has no problems with his Sony camera. -- Alfred Molon Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
No 12mm rectilinear FF lens?
In article , Me says...
If it's so /crucial/ to get the lens rear element close to the image plane, then how come the best performing ultra-wide lenses are for SLR formats? You mean full-frame? I'm not an expert about lens design, but I think that being able to bring the lens very close to the sensor, gives additional lens design options. -- Alfred Molon Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GoPro lens - could it have been rectilinear? | Peabody[_3_] | Digital Photography | 3 | March 9th 14 05:15 PM |
Rapid Rectilinear lens baffles | murrayatuptowngallery | Large Format Photography Equipment | 17 | June 29th 06 11:28 AM |
No 12mm rectilinear prime? | Sander Vesik | 35mm Photo Equipment | 42 | October 26th 04 03:16 PM |
fs- Voigtlander 12mm lens and Bessa L body | [email protected] | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | July 1st 03 01:52 AM |
fs- Voigtlander 12mm lens and Bessa L body | [email protected] | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | July 1st 03 01:52 AM |