Nikon 12-24mm f/4 DX zoom

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?

 

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 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

 

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?

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

He has managed to make a name for himself. Who is Roxy d'Urban?

 

Yes, but as with any digital image being stretched by software the
edges become soft afterwards. But I do like the lens for
photojournalism.

 

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.

 

So did George Bush and John Kerry. What's your point about idiots?

 

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."

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

 

The build quality of mine is excellent. What was wrong with yours?

 

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.

 

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

Cheers,
Alan.