A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

No 12mm rectilinear FF lens?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 26th 14, 10:00 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old November 26th 14, 11:44 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 741
Default 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  
Old November 27th 14, 08:11 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,591
Default 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  
Old November 27th 14, 09:38 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old November 27th 14, 11:10 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 470
Default 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  
Old November 27th 14, 11:16 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 470
Default 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  
Old November 27th 14, 11:33 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 470
Default 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  
Old November 27th 14, 08:21 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 741
Default 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  
Old November 28th 14, 12:05 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,591
Default 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  
Old November 28th 14, 12:09 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,591
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.