Nikon 12-24

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Brian Mitchell, Nov 3, 2003.

  1. Any ideas on who is offering this lens at the best price. I have had quotes
    from Gerry Gibbs and PRA in Perth of $2000 but that is still mush higher
    than AU$1750 if ordered from USA (incl post, tax, customs charges and credit
    card surcharge)

    Thanks
     
    Brian Mitchell, Nov 3, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Brian Mitchell

    PeteZ Guest

    PeteZ, Nov 3, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I tried one on an F5. I think I will keep my money in the bank.
     
    David in Perth, Nov 3, 2003
    #3
  4. Brian Mitchell

    Cameron Guest

    Considering they are a DX lens then I would keep your money in the bank too
    if you intend to use it on film! :) Why not buy my AF-S 17-35??

    Cameron
     
    Cameron, Nov 3, 2003
    #4
  5. Brian Mitchell

    PeteZ Guest

    hahahahaha - lol

    DX lenses are for digital camera, maybe you should think before you shoot.

    - peteZ
     
    PeteZ, Nov 3, 2003
    #5
  6. Brian Mitchell

    PeteZ Guest

    David,

    I just re-read my post and it came over as mocking and patronising - sorry I
    didnt mean it to be that way.

    It's just that as an F5 shooter, I figured you'd be across the DX line

    I'm sticking with the non-DX line for as long as I can as I'm hoping FF will
    appear on the Nikon pro camera line in the future.


    - peteZ
     
    PeteZ, Nov 3, 2003
    #6
  7. just don't say that on the nikon forum at dpreview.com or the DX-philes will
    eat you alive... "full frame? we don't need no stinkin' full frame! DX is
    all we could ever possibly need. canon has full frame, ergo it must be crap
    and that's why nikon aren't offering it"

    weird bunch they are, nearly as weird as the (bizarre and wildly
    overexaggerated) AF hysteria on the canon forum. :-/
     
    Warren Prasek, Nov 3, 2003
    #7
  8. Brian Mitchell

    Gavin Cato Guest

    Right, and why would you try it on an F5?



     
    Gavin Cato, Nov 3, 2003
    #8
  9. Brian Mitchell

    PeteZ Guest

    hee, hee.

    Although I hang out there at dpreview by default (under a different name), I
    have stayed away from the FF issue.

    I occassionally pick an old film 35mm and playfully put a 17-35 or a 28-70
    lens on it and OMG ! I'd love my D1H / D1X to have that spread - it only
    fuels my desire that FF

    It'll happen in some shape or form in the future, the market will demand it
    and it'll happen. The manufacturers arent idiots, $$$ talks and if the
    demand is there, then it's just a matter of time.

    - peteZ
     
    PeteZ, Nov 3, 2003
    #9
  10. Film or digital, there should still be good contrast and sharpness. No
    matter what it is 'optimised' for. All you did was prove how ignorant you
    are.
     
    David in Perth, Nov 3, 2003
    #10
  11. Brian Mitchell

    PeteZ Guest

    You really are the clown arent you - read up, learn and come back when you
    are a bit more up on it all. Your making a right fool of yourself here.

    Sorry for giving you the break that I did, it appears you still dont get it.


    - peteZ
     
    PeteZ, Nov 3, 2003
    #11
  12. Brian Mitchell

    Cameron Guest

    I think you may have had a "Friday Afternoon" lens. I find it to be nice
    and sharp with good contrast.

    Cameron
     
    Cameron, Nov 3, 2003
    #12
  13. Brian Mitchell

    Cameron Guest

    Cameron, Nov 3, 2003
    #13
  14. Which is a wonderful lens! Sharp as a tack.
     
    Flatulent Dingo, Nov 3, 2003
    #14
  15. Brian Mitchell

    Gavin Cato Guest

    thats a wild exaggeration to say the least




     
    Gavin Cato, Nov 3, 2003
    #15
  16. Brian Mitchell

    Gavin Cato Guest

    You've proven how ignorant you are a couple of times in this thread now.
    Doing very well.
     
    Gavin Cato, Nov 3, 2003
    #16
  17. Brian Mitchell

    Adam F Guest


    Well if the new digital lenses are no good on old bodies but oh so wonderful
    on the digital ones, does that not suggest to you that they are no longer
    worrying too much about good optical design? As david says, if the lens
    "works" on older nikon bodies, it should give respectable performance too.

    Actually we in minolta land (the rapidly-disappearing nation) have found
    much the same thing with their new 70-200ssm lens - it's been "optimised for
    centre sharpness" which seems to be an obvious hint to its possible use on a
    dlsr, but it means that the edges on 35mm suffer...and we don't even have
    the option of using it on a digicam yet! For shame...


    adam f
     
    Adam F, Nov 3, 2003
    #17
  18. Brian Mitchell

    Gavin Cato Guest

    No, it suggests to me they are putting the effort into the glass covered by
    the 1.5x sensor. Why on earth would they put extra effort into making the
    edges on a FF camera sharp when they don't intend the lens to be used on a
    FF camera?
     
    Gavin Cato, Nov 4, 2003
    #18
  19. Brian Mitchell

    Adam F Guest

    fair enough, but then there should be a clear recommendation against using
    it on real 35mm cameras on the box


    adam f
     
    Adam F, Nov 4, 2003
    #19
  20. Brian Mitchell

    Adam F Guest

    Have to admit I was being facetious, there's no such thing as a "real" 35mm
    camera (more like 24x36mm) anyway. Main point remains tho.


    Adam F
     
    Adam F, Nov 4, 2003
    #20
    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.