Nikon 12-24mm f/4 DX zoom

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Roxy d'Urban, May 17, 2005.

  1. Roxy d'Urban

    Roxy d'Urban Guest

    I am giving serious thought to getting one of these for my D70. Has anyone
    got any comments on performance?

    According to Thom Hogan you can use this on a full frame SLR from about
    17mm onwards with good results, but I am more concerned with how it will
    render wide angles on the D70.

    The other option I am considering is the 10.5mm fisheye which has the
    option of being rectilinear with the software afterwards.

    Thoughts?
     
    Roxy d'Urban, May 17, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. This seems to be a pretty darn good review of this lens. So far, he has
    hit about dead-on with the lenses I am using.

    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1224.htm
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, May 17, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Thomas T. Veldhouse napisa³(a):
    In his opinion everything which has a Nikon sticker on it is a darn good
    professional tool. Not a pseudo-profi - actually created only for the
    amrketing reasons such as all of the Canon's equipment
     
    Marek M. \rogus\, May 17, 2005
    #3
  4. Why did you try to turn this into a Nikon -vs- Canon thread? The link I
    provided was for a review of a Nikon lens. The guy who wrote the
    review invariably shoots Nikon. The OP asked about a Nikon lens. What
    is your problem?
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, May 17, 2005
    #4
  5. Roxy d'Urban

    Cynicor Guest

    I have the 10.5mm fisheye and I absolutely love it, and not just for the
    "look I have a fisheye!!!!" photos. However, going rectilinear with it
    does give the image sort of a "matchbox diorama" look, and causes
    significant chromatic aberration at the edges.

    http://www.trupin/photos/sanfran/images/MuirWalk.jpg is a huge example
    of a photo taken with the 10.5 and a D70. (I really should shrink it,
    but the full size shows the aberration.)

    http://www.trupin.com/photos/london/ToyMuseum.jpg shows the "matchbook
    diorama" effect.

    A photo like this, on the other hand, would've been impossible with
    anything but a fisheye. http://www.trupin.com/photos/london/LilyPond.jpg
     
    Cynicor, May 18, 2005
    #5
  6. Thomas T. Veldhouse napisa³(a):
    I wouldn't treat Ken's opinion as hmmm let's even tiny objective ;)
    Well the guy has totally freaked on Nikon ;) and his reviews go like
    this "eventhough there is somthing wrong with focus[for example] well I
    do not usually use autofocus very often it is a feature for thoose
    kigohs which dont know how to mf"

    Really ain't turning the discussion into a flame war, but just suggest
    to eat rather a square meal with complete review and a minority of
    sujective opinion not otherwise.
     
    Marek M. \rogus\, May 18, 2005
    #6
  7. Roxy d'Urban

    Roxy d'Urban Guest

    Ken Rockwell is a complete idiot.

    I would take anything he says with a barrel of salt. Thom Hogan, OTOH, is
    also a Nikon-boy, but he can be very critical of them too. He hasn't
    posted a review on the 10.5mm yet though.
     
    Roxy d'Urban, May 18, 2005
    #7
  8. He has managed to make a name for himself. Who is Roxy d'Urban?
     
    James Of Tucson, May 18, 2005
    #8
  9. Roxy d'Urban

    McLeod Guest

    Yes, but as with any digital image being stretched by software the
    edges become soft afterwards. But I do like the lens for
    photojournalism.
     
    McLeod, May 18, 2005
    #9
  10. Roxy d'Urban

    Roxy d'Urban Guest

    Head of Research for the University of Psychopathic Interludes.

    Ken Rockwell once had the absolute gall to say that the 70-210mm Nikkor
    was sharper and better than the 80-200mm f/2.8. Anyone who takes him
    seriously needs a reality check. The man's a dope.
     
    Roxy d'Urban, May 18, 2005
    #10
  11. Roxy d'Urban

    Cynicor Guest

    So did George Bush and John Kerry. What's your point about idiots? :D
     
    Cynicor, May 18, 2005
    #11
  12. Roxy d'Urban

    Frederick Guest

    Quote from Ken Rockwell:
    "It's good, but not that good! For that price you could get a brand new
    80-200 2.8. which is better in every way except too big to stick in a
    pocket."
     
    Frederick, May 18, 2005
    #12
  13. And what about this specific review did you think incorrect? What about
    it was incorrect? Clearly he has his opinions on things, and that is
    normal for a review, but I see nothing factually incorrect, and as a
    matter of fact, he seems to be about dead on. I put this lens on a body
    and checked it out myself, and it seems to be a great lens [although I
    don't own it myself].

    Eh ... you did try to turn this into a flame war by your rantings about
    Canon and Nikon. I am not sure how else to take it. The thread was
    100% specifically about a Nikon lens. Nothing "Canon" about the
    question. Nothing.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, May 18, 2005
    #13
  14. Uhm ... I believe he said, "as sharp as". He made no claims of
    superiority in optics. It is clearly faster, but it is also clearly
    heavier. That is what he said? It seems some people have a need to
    justify their own decisions and will discount anything that does not
    support their choice.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, May 18, 2005
    #14
  15. Roxy d'Urban

    Alan Browne Guest

    So has Mouamar Khadafi.

    Rockwell is not taken seriously except by those insecure types who need
    a warm and fuzzy after they've bought Nikon equipment.

    Nothing against Nikon, but Rockwell is not always objective.
     
    Alan Browne, May 18, 2005
    #15
  16. Hmm ... I have used Ken's reviews, along with others like those at
    photo.net, to make purchasing decisions for lenses. I have not once had
    to use his site to justify a purchase I have already made.
    Cite a specific example?
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, May 18, 2005
    #16
  17. Roxy d'Urban

    JR Guest

    I would (and have) get the Tokina 12-24/4 lens. I had the Nikon and
    found the Tokina every bit as good optically at half the price. It also
    has a better build quality.

    JR
     
    JR, May 18, 2005
    #17
  18. Roxy d'Urban

    Tom Scales Guest

    The build quality of mine is excellent. What was wrong with yours?
     
    Tom Scales, May 18, 2005
    #18
  19. Roxy d'Urban

    Tim Smith Guest

    Well, he's a very opinionated person, with some views that fly in the
    face of "received digital wisdom." One example is his insistance that
    one should shoot JPEGs only, and not mess with raw images. Just about
    everyone else in the field who does fine art or nature photography
    says the opposite.

    But for many shooters, especially beginning non-pros, just shooting
    JPEGs, and not spending a lot of time tweaking stuff in PS, makes a
    lot of sense. Perhaps it's better to learn more about composition than
    how to fine tune an image before you have good images to fine tune.

    That's just an opinion. Every opinion has to be taken in a context.

    I wouldn't call him a dope. Some of his opinions and writings are very
    entertaining (and I don't mean this in a condenscending way).

    He's a Nikon guy, and so is Thom Hogan. Both very different. Hogan
    takes an engineering/scientific approach to evaluating Nikon gear,
    Rockwell takes a more (umm) "aesthetic" approach. Problem is, I don't
    like his images (Rockwell's), but I still read him.
     
    Tim Smith, May 18, 2005
    #19
  20. Roxy d'Urban

    Alan Browne Guest

    His whole site is Nikon-gush. Glad you use other reviews before buying.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, May 18, 2005
    #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.