HORRIBLE vignetting with FF DSLRs

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by RichA, Feb 6, 2007.

  1. Wasn't it you that claimed, "nobody cares or looks at the corners" or is
    there another Skip out here? Like you, I'll just give the lame excuse that
    "it's not worth it to me renting" a 16-35. Maybe you'd send me yours for a
    few days? Naw, never mind... Hey, in the end it really doesn't matter,
    does it? Your happy with vignetting and major light fall off and I'm happy
    with clear crisp images.







    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Feb 14, 2007
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. You seem determined to prove you are not following the plot. I do not
    recall ever mentioning the Nikon D40 here, or in any other forum. I have
    no first-hand knowledge of it. All the published comments I have seen
    about it seem favourable. Where do you allege I made these comments.
    Initially, about as much as yours. As you go on your current path ...
    well, I'll let others judge.

    David
     
    David Littlewood, Feb 14, 2007
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  3. Skip, s/he won't, because s/he can't. Besides, random scattergun insults
    are *so* much more fun, and easier...

    David
     
    David Littlewood, Feb 14, 2007
    #83
  4. It must be a terminal case of oldtimer's disease setting in or you find it
    necessary to use selective memory? Which is it? It must have been some
    other David Little"wood" that was crying like a child about the D40 not
    having an AF drive motor. Like if anyone really cares your comments are
    archived in Google should they want to refresh their memory.
    Unlike you, I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. My comments are
    put out for the reader's general information and entertainment. And should
    they fail to get either from my comments that's on them, not me.







    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Feb 14, 2007
    #84
  5. Why do you find it insulting that the 16-35/2.8 has so much light falloff?
    That monkey is on your back, not mine since I use the legendary 17-35/2.8.






    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Feb 14, 2007
    #85
  6. RichA

    Bill Funk Guest

    I'll ask again:
    "Where did you see which lens was used?
    I looked at the EXIF info; it's not there."
    I have no idea why you wrote the above in response to my question.

    --
    Senator Barack Obama announced
    his candidacy for president
    Saturday from the courthouse
    steps in Springfield. He looked
    good. When most Illinois politicians
    are photographed standing on the
    courthouse steps they're wearing
    orange jumpsuits.
     
    Bill Funk, Feb 14, 2007
    #86
  7. Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

    <<Encroyable>>.

    The height of his (/"Rita's"/) arrogance.
     
    John McWilliams, Feb 14, 2007
    #87
  8. I repeat, I have never made a single comment, anywhere, about the D40.
    If you think I did, prove it with a reference.
    I think that just about says all we need to know.

    David
     
    David Littlewood, Feb 14, 2007
    #88
  9. RichA

    Guest Guest

    David Littlewood writes:

    David> Skip, s/he won't, because s/he can't. Besides, random scattergun
    David> insults are *so* much more fun, and easier...

    Please do not feed the trolls, they like it and it just
    increases the annoyance factor they crave.
     
    Guest, Feb 15, 2007
    #89
  10. RichA

    Skip Guest

    I didn't claim that, and that hardly "demonstrates" any disgust with the
    lens, anyway. And for me, it's a case of purchasing the adaptor, not
    renting the lens. I don't have to rent it, I can snag one on load for a
    little while, long enough to use it, anyway. You already have the adaptor,
    so, what the heck. And I'm happy with images that are sharp, too,
    especially with the 16-35 wide open, which is where it spends an awful lot
    of time.
     
    Skip, Feb 15, 2007
    #90
  11. RichA

    Skip Guest

    Quit finding excuses to not prove your point, and do it. Otherwise, your
    "credibility" may suffer. ;-)
     
    Skip, Feb 15, 2007
    #91
  12. Buy the adapter and borrow the legendary 17-37/2.8 so you can see what
    you're missing. It's a shame you have to crop 35% of an image taken with
    the 16-35/2.8. So sad.






    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Feb 15, 2007
    #92
  13. The legendary 17-35/2.8 Nikkor has no credibility issues.







    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Feb 15, 2007
    #93
  14. RichA

    Skip Guest

    I don't, and what do you do about the soft center image when you have to use
    the 17-35 wide open?
    I guess you just don't have the stones to back up your claims...
     
    Skip, Feb 15, 2007
    #94
  15. RichA

    Skip Guest

    It doesn't, you do. Quit stalling and get to work. Or are you afraid of
    what you might find?
     
    Skip, Feb 15, 2007
    #95
  16. Tell people that I'm shooting L glass, they understand and sympathize.
    Nope.





    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Feb 15, 2007
    #96
  17. No worries on my end.





    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Feb 15, 2007
    #97
  18. RichA

    Skip Guest

    If they shoot L glass, they wouldn't believe you
    Thought not.
     
    Skip, Feb 15, 2007
    #98
  19. RichA

    Mark² Guest

    You're far too patient, Skip.
    Kill file the "gentleman" and let him crawl back under his bridge...
     
    Mark², Feb 15, 2007
    #99
  20. RichA

    Skip Guest

    The "lady" protests too much.
     
    Skip, Feb 15, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.