Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Buy_Sell, Jul 24, 2008.

  1. This is true. Here in San Francisco there is one place that has some very
    attractive prices on things I could not hope to actually purchase like view
    cameras, a Nikon F3HP with a motor drive, and even Hasselblad systems. And,
    the best part is, if you hit them after 3:00 pm on Friday, you get it for
    half-off if it is not reserved. Sort of a take your chances, grab bag
    special, but on a slow weekend you could probably get a pretty nice set up
    for fairly cheap. The 14-24mm f/2.8G is not currently listed, but I doubt
    it would cost more than about $30 normally. The only things that are really
    that high are digital bodies, and the digital back for a medium format.
    Shoot, a complete set up to shoot 4x5 film with a view camera can be had for
    under $50. On the other hand, using a digital SLR could run you several
    hundred.
     
    Jennifer Usher, Aug 1, 2008
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Buy_Sell

    Bruce Guest


    Quite a range of Japanese manufacturers work as a sub-contractors to a
    specification, and produce some very fine glass. The Cosina-made Carl
    Zeiss lenses for Leica M mount are a prime example. Cosina makes not
    only these, but the cheaper Voigtländer lenses that are almost as
    good. Yet buy a Cosina-branded lens, and they are mostly appalling
    junk, with some among the worst third-party lenses ever made for SLRs.

    So whether Sigma makes anything under contract for the top name camera
    brands is irrelevant. As with Cosina, Sigma's own lenses are still
    highly variable in terms of optical and build quality. The cheaper
    non-EX lenses are almost all junk.

    As for the EX lenses, the samples supplied to magazine reviewers are
    optically excellent, suggesting that they are either very carefully
    chosen from the production line, or more likely hand assembled with
    special attention paid to precise collimation. The review samples are
    often also gifted to the reviewers to help gain a favourable opinion.


    Yet try and buy a Sigma EX lens that performs to the same high
    standard as a review sample! They are not easy to find, and the
    performance of lenses that people can actually buy is often
    substantially different. For example, reviews often mention low
    distortion, yet the same lenses on sale to the public exhibit much
    higher distortion than the samples reviewed in magazines. Resolution,
    contrast and light fall-off can all be very different.

    Sigma lenses are not only a lot cheaper than camera brand lenses, they
    carry a dealer profit margin that is very much higher than the camera
    brand lenses offer. For any given focal length and aperture, the
    actual gross profit (mark up) a dealer makes on a Sigma lens is at
    least 50% higher than for the equivalent camera brand lens, even
    though that lens would cost the customer a lot more to buy.

    This considerably enhanced margin explains why dealers are keen to
    sell Sigma lenses. Sadly, it also shows that Sigma lenses must be
    extremely cheaply made, so that dealers can make large margins on
    them.

    All this explains why, after more than two decades of Sigma claiming
    their lenses are good enough to be used by professionals, it is still
    the case that the vast majority of professional shooters will never
    even consider using a Sigma lens. Discerning amateurs would do well
    to steer clear too.
     
    Bruce, Aug 5, 2008
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Buy_Sell

    Don Wiss Guest

    I agree. But I do protect my lenses by leaving the lens hoods on at all
    times. The only time I remove one is the 12-24 DX requires removal when you
    are shooting wide and using the built-in flash. Oh, and I never use a lens
    cover.

    Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
     
    Don Wiss, Aug 7, 2008
    #23
  4. I check all purchased lenses for good alignment (agreement in
    all four corners in sharpness [and also with opposite edges] using
    detailed infinity targets, not test charts). It is surprising how
    often even very expensive lenses fail these checks, leaving one
    with a soft corner or edge in all photos shot at wide stops. I've
    never been happy with corrective service work on lenses with
    these flaws, preferring replacement while there is still time. I
    do do lens comparisons (I like to know my lens' performance
    characteristics and limitations, and I prefer to use "best of type"
    lenses if I can afford them) - see --
    http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html and --
    http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/wa-zooms.htm
    Each to his own, but I find the "filter degradation" arguement
    more theoretical than "real world", and filters have saved front
    elements from damage for me. Unfortunately, my fisheyes and
    15mm won't take them, along with some WA zooms.

    To the OP: the 17-35mm f2.8 Nikkor covers FF superbly (see
    the second URL above), and the 14-24mm is astonishingly
    considered even better...
    --David Ruether
    www.donferrario.com/ruether
     
    David Ruether, Aug 8, 2008
    #24
    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.