«

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=31127576

Now Nikon, how about a decent 300mm f4 VR or / and 70-200mm f4 AF-S VR
for $1100?

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=31127576
>>
>> Now Nikon, how about a decent 300mm f4 VR or / and 70-200mm f4 AF-S VR
>> for $1100?
>
> But things are looking up for Canon users. They've caught up with the new
> 24TSE, and the new 17mm TSE

Cool, I had not heard of that one:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001TDL2OA
Canon 17mm f/4L UD Aspherical Ultra Wide Tilt-Shift Lens
Price: $2,499.99
Usually ships within 1 to 2 months.

> is functionality that Nikon doesn't provide
> (that is a "yet", of course, but it looks like Canon scooped Nikon something
> fierce on this one and given the economy, Nikon may not be able to respond
> for an age), and a shift 17mm lens is very interesting for urban
> architecture work: I've been shooting Beacon Hill in Boston recently, and
> 24mm, even with a lot of shift, simply isn't wide enough.
>
> Sure, the Nikon 14-24 is real nice (flipping amazing, even wide open), but
> in real life, one shoots way stopped down for wide things, since more
> foreground comes into view the wider you go. So the Stigma 12-24 (with its
> superb geometric correction) at f/11 and f/16 (on a sturdy tripod) produces
> superb images with the 5DII. Unfortunately, while my copy of the Stigma
> 12-24 is excellent out to the corners at all focal lengths at f/11 and f/16
> _for interiors_, it is good out to the corners only at 14 and 15mm at
> infinity focus; Sigh.
>


--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

David J. Littleboy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=31127576
>>
>> Now Nikon, how about a decent 300mm f4 VR or / and 70-200mm f4 AF-S VR
>> for $1100?

> But things are looking up for Canon users. They've caught up with the new
> 24TSE, and the new 17mm TSE is functionality that Nikon doesn't provide
> (that is a "yet", of course, but it looks like Canon scooped Nikon something
> fierce on this one and given the economy, Nikon may not be able to respond
> for an age), and a shift 17mm lens is very interesting for urban
> architecture work: I've been shooting Beacon Hill in Boston recently, and
> 24mm, even with a lot of shift, simply isn't wide enough.

> Sure, the Nikon 14-24 is real nice (flipping amazing, even wide open), but
> in real life, one shoots way stopped down for wide things, since more
> foreground comes into view the wider you go. So the Stigma 12-24 (with its
> superb geometric correction) at f/11 and f/16 (on a sturdy tripod) produces
> superb images with the 5DII. Unfortunately, while my copy of the Stigma
> 12-24 is excellent out to the corners at all focal lengths at f/11 and f/16
> _for interiors_, it is good out to the corners only at 14 and 15mm at
> infinity focus; Sigh.

Is that because it has a curved plane of focus which is closer at the
edges? If so, that's rather handy for interiors. Is it impossible at
any aperture to focus distant edges?

--
Chris Malcolm

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Chris Malcolm" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> David J. Littleboy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> Sure, the Nikon 14-24 is real nice (flipping amazing, even wide open),
>>> but
>>> in real life, one shoots way stopped down for wide things, since more
>>> foreground comes into view the wider you go. So the Stigma 12-24 (with
>>> its
>>> superb geometric correction) at f/11 and f/16 (on a sturdy tripod)
>>> produces
>>> superb images with the 5DII. Unfortunately, while my copy of the Stigma
>>> 12-24 is excellent out to the corners at all focal lengths at f/11 and
>>> f/16
>>> _for interiors_, it is good out to the corners only at 14 and 15mm at
>>> infinity focus; Sigh.
>> Is that because it has a curved plane of focus which is closer at the
>> edges? If so, that's rather handy for interiors. Is it impossible at
>> any aperture to focus distant edges?
>
> In my testing, I wasn't able to get sharp corners at infinity whatever I did
> (at 12mm or 17mm or longer). It looked to be more a matter of the lens not
> resolving (smearing the image) than a focus problem. The DoF formulas tell
> you that you should see a lot of DoF at 15mm (the f/16 hyperfocal distance
> is a tad under 1 meter), but with such an extreme retrofocus zoom, life
> seems a bit more complex than the DoF formulas predict. (It's only recently
> that I did the tests to figure out how to get sharp corners at infinity, and
> I haven't done much outside with the lens since then (and I haven't
> determined how far I can defocus from infinity at 15mm and f/11 and f/16 and
> still get sharp images across the frame at infinity). There is the point, of
> course, that if the plane of focus is actually a plane, then the "distance"
> from the lens to the stuff at the lower corners with an extreme wide angle
> lens is actually very very short (a point which was implicit in your
> question).)
>
> For interior work, even at 12mm at f/16, getting both the far wall of a
> large room and the carpet close at hand in focus requires care. (For a CoC
> of 0.018 mm, the hyperfocal distance should be 1.7 feet, so just leaving
> focus set to 1 meter should cover all interior sins, but it doesn't.)
>
> Lots of people seem happy with the 12-24 and don't seem to (or say that
> they) have the difficulties I do. Even with the difficulties, though, it's
> great for interiors and is still the cheapest 15mm lens around for
> landscapey things.
>
> (I just shot the interiors of a couple of 1843 Beacon Hill (Boston, the one
> in the US<g>) row houses, and used 12mm for just about everything. I haven't
> had time to process the images, and I'm a bit afraid that all that 12mm
> stuff is going to get real old real quick when I show them to people.)
>

Are you using a Canon with JPEG? Canon are known to smear fine detail
with their 'in camera' processing, have you tried RAW?

Eddie Hunt

"David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> "Chris Malcolm" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> David J. Littleboy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>> Sure, the Nikon 14-24 is real nice (flipping amazing, even wide open), but in real life, one shoots way stopped down for wide
>>> things, since more
>>> foreground comes into view the wider you go. So the Stigma 12-24 (with its superb geometric correction) at f/11 and f/16 (on a
>>> sturdy tripod) produces superb images with the 5DII. Unfortunately, while my copy of the Stigma 12-24 is excellent out to the
>>> corners at all focal lengths at f/11 and f/16 _for interiors_, it is good out to the corners only at 14 and 15mm at infinity
>>> focus; Sigh.

>> Is that because it has a curved plane of focus which is closer at the
>> edges? If so, that's rather handy for interiors. Is it impossible at
>> any aperture to focus distant edges?

> In my testing, I wasn't able to get sharp corners at infinity whatever I did (at 12mm or 17mm or longer). It looked to be more a
> matter of the lens not resolving (smearing the image) than a focus problem. The DoF formulas tell you that you should see a lot of
> DoF at 15mm (the f/16 hyperfocal distance is a tad under 1 meter), but with such an extreme retrofocus zoom, life seems a bit more
> complex than the DoF formulas predict. (It's only recently that I did the tests to figure out how to get sharp corners at
> infinity, and I haven't done much outside with the lens since then (and I haven't determined how far I can defocus from infinity
> at 15mm and f/11 and f/16 and still get sharp images across the frame at infinity). There is the point, of course, that if the
> plane of focus is actually a plane, then the "distance" from the lens to the stuff at the lower corners with an extreme wide angle
> lens is actually very very short (a point which was implicit in your question).)
>
> For interior work, even at 12mm at f/16, getting both the far wall of a large room and the carpet close at hand in focus requires
> care. (For a CoC of 0.018 mm, the hyperfocal distance should be 1.7 feet, so just leaving focus set to 1 meter should cover all
> interior sins, but it doesn't.)
>
> Lots of people seem happy with the 12-24 and don't seem to (or say that they) have the difficulties I do. Even with the
> difficulties, though, it's great for interiors and is still the cheapest 15mm lens around for landscapey things.
>
> (I just shot the interiors of a couple of 1843 Beacon Hill (Boston, the one in the US<g>) row houses, and used 12mm for just about
> everything. I haven't had time to process the images, and I'm a bit afraid that all that 12mm stuff is going to get real old real
> quick when I show them to people.)
>
> --
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

This little lens has been surprisingly good: the tiny 12mm f5.6
Voightlander (made for Bessa rangefinder or Nikon reflex
bodies). Its performance peaks around f8, but it is similar at
all other stops - and its sharpness into the corners is remarkable
(although overall it is not the equal of the 14-24mm f2.8 Nikkor).
There is no reflex viewing with it, but the optical finder supplied
with it is accurate for framing (but that does have rather extreme
barrel distortion, although the lens has essentially no distortion).
There is also a useful side-view leveling bubble. The main failing
of this lens is illumination roll-off toward the corners, but that
often doesn't show in images, and can be at least partially
removed if it does. For a photo of it, and one made with it, go
here: http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/fs-misc-photo.htm.
--David Ruether
www.donferrario.com/ruether
(E-Mail Removed)

"David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed) :
>
>> "Edward Hunt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> Are you using a Canon with JPEG? Canon are known to smear fine
>>> detail with their 'in camera' processing, have you tried RAW?
>> If you read more carefully, you'd realize that I'm very happy with the
>> sharpness I'm getting everywhere except the corners (and even there,
>> there enough are cases where I'm happy with the sharpness that the
>> lens will remain part of my kit for a long long time) with the 5DII +
>> Sigma 12-24. (And yes, I've "tried" raw; I've been using raw since the
>> 300D was first released.)

Truly sofisticated people call it "tartar", not "raw"..

Please try and keep up



P.
(leaving that typo in is truly painful, btw)
>>

Rich wrote:
> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in
> news:q0mtl.18073$(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>> "RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...essage=3112757
>>>> 6
>>>>
>>>> Now Nikon, how about a decent 300mm f4 VR or / and 70-200mm f4 AF-S
>>>> VR for $1100?
>>> But things are looking up for Canon users. They've caught up with the
>>> new 24TSE, and the new 17mm TSE
>> Cool, I had not heard of that one:
>> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001TDL2OA
>> Canon 17mm f/4L UD Aspherical Ultra Wide Tilt-Shift Lens
>> Price: $2,499.99
>> Usually ships within 1 to 2 months.
>>
>
> That's actually a lot cheaper than I figured it would be. Hope it works
> well. The slow f-ratio should help control the edge.

BTW, I saw this on nikonrumors.com and didn't mention because I figured
it was a fake... and it is:
http://nikonrumors.com/2009/02/18/so-was-it-fake.aspx
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 10-18mm f/4 G ED N

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>> But things are looking up for Canon users. They've caught up with the new
>>> 24TSE, and the new 17mm TSE
>> Cool, I had not heard of that one:
>> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001TDL2OA
>> Canon 17mm f/4L UD Aspherical Ultra Wide Tilt-Shift Lens
>> Price: $2,499.99
>
> Ouch. That's pricey. The new 24TSE is also pricey at $2,199.99. Sigh.

There's one case where the Nikon equivalent is less expensive.
PC-E Nikkor 24mm f/3.5D ED $2,000 (and should come down a bit).

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:32:53 -0700, Frank ess wrote:

>> Truly sofisticated people call it "tartar", not "raw"..
>>
>> Please try and keep up
>>
>>
>>
>> P.
>> (leaving that typo in is truly painful, btw)
>
> Which one is painful?

Only the one that was intentional, obviously. The other typo, as
a quick check with google shows, is not all that rare.

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "ASAAR" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Only the one that was intentional, obviously. The other typo, as
>> a quick check with google shows, is not all that rare.
>
> OK, I admit it: I'm being slow. What typos???
>
sophisticated vs sofisticated was the intentional one; 'course, I'm
having trouble seeing the other one as well..


P.