Reading mode: Light Dark

Why has Nikon not given us a serious super wide zoom?!?

Go to last post
Maybe when I did my tests....I had a bad example of the Nikon...

But I am still thinking that a super well built 12-24 with 17-55 (or 17-35) image quality at the small end....would be in Nikon's best interest to build....

They commited to the DX form factor....and so have I.

The D2X when you put the best glass on it will out resolve just about any thing using a 35mm form factor DSLR (DX or FF)

With those factors in mind.....they need an intense quality lens for the area DX has its disadvantage is all I am saying.

But I like yur shots....and that trailor shot is awesome...

Roman
--
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
 
Steve Bingham said:
I still feel the 12-24 is an excellent lens. Certainly the best
currently available in this range - at any cost.

Admittedly the Nikon 12-24 is better at the 24 end than the 12 end,
but I can still get exceptional images from it. Although I strongly
favor my Nikon 17-35 I do like and use my 12-24. Here are a few
recent examples with the D200. (Yes, I do a lot of PP with a great
deal of dodging and burning as well as curves work). Do I want a
bigger heavier lens? Nope. But I can understand where you might.

This was taken with the 12-24 at f/7.1 at 15mm. Not much light. ISO
100



--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
Click to expand...
--

Steve,

Cozy home! Do you know if that chair is still there and for sale? My computer chair is getting a little worn these days, and that one sure looks like a winner! Of course since it is in California, I'm sure it is overpriced.

Norm

 
The 17-35 seems to test out somewhat better at the 17mm end than does the 17-55 - which excels to a greater degree as 55mm is approached. Just what I have seen from numerous tests. I have done none myself.
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
 
I own the Tokina and 2 days ago went outto give the Nikon a try. The build quality is not close to the Tokina. The tokina feels like a pro grade lens where the Nikon feels a bit flimsy and it is NOT in the same leauge build wise as the 17-55 or the 70-200. It's not quite as cheap as the 18-70 but its more like the 18-70 than the 17-55. While it is about 5% better in the IQ area over the Tokina its not worth the $500 extra, especially for a downgrade in build.

I did shoot the Tokina direct in to the AZ sun to see what would happen. Took 5-6 shots in my Backyard:



You can see a bit of flare in the bottom left of the image but its not bad. This was the worst of the shots I took.

What I see in the difference is the corners are a bit sharper with the Nikon, but even the Nikon 12-24 does not give the quality of the 17-55 or Nikons bid dollar lenses. Its should be priced at $650, not $1000

Just my opinion.

Steve
 
RomanJohnston said:
Im not saying the lens is an absolute slouch....

Just that it dosnt live up to the quality I have seen and come to
expect from a 1,000.00 Nikon lens.
Click to expand...
I can remember when $1000 was real money.
RomanJohnston said:
Read this test and you will see....Bjorn gives the 12-24 a rating
of 3.5 at 12m while the 17-55 has a rating of 5 throught the range.
Click to expand...
That is pretty disappointing. I think of 3.5 as minimum acceptable quality. The price vs. quality just doesn't make sense. The kit lens was the first new lens I had purchased in a long time. I could not and still can not believe how cheesy it is. Optical texts speak to how critical element centering is. Then you see how much the front barrel of the 18-70 moves. What does Nikon think that does to their image.

I have had a couple of the lower end Nikons apart for repair lately. I'm amazed at how many and which parts are plastic. And we are not talking thick machined pieces of Delrin. Just thin molded stuff. If nothing else the wear factor would be horrendous with any amount of use. Not to mention it's junk to start out with. Several of the adjustments are fixed in place with Scotch tape (clear tape). Yes, it serves the purpose, just not very impressive. One of the reasons not to leave the lens in the sun, ha, ha.

So much of this goes on today, I think people are just numb to it. Mechanically it's a shame to produce such junk for the little cost saved at the manufacturing level. Not a big difference molding plastic or casting metal. With all the high speed machining capacity, not much extra cost there either. Tokina can do it. Why not Nikon? Too much in advertising? Too much desire for more profits? Or enough buyers who just don't care?

The optical side just blows my mind. With all the technology to support the optics industry, how do people get $1000-$1500 lenses that are soft here, there and the other place? I know I'd be bumming to get one brand new. Does it make sense for me to drive 200 miles to test lenses at B&H? When someone spends that kind of money it says to me that they are reaching for the high end. Not a 3.5! If Nikon made a $6000 wide angle, then I could say the $1000 lens is sort of low end. But that's not the way it is. I read comment after comment from older Nikon users that have seen the quality fall away. Sad. In business I've dealt with Japanese firms that would have been mortified to release such poor quality products.

A couple of weeks ago I needed some parts for a Tokina tele. They faxed me an exploded parts view. They let me talk to Knowledgable tech. One that actually works with lenses for a question. Then they shipped the parts out the next day.

Yesterday I called Nikon for parts. I was told I could fax in a request but having actual part numbers made it a lot easier. Unfortunately it costs $85 for a CD and there are 5 CDs to cover the Supported lenses. As far as I can tell, there are no lists on line. I was told that it takes about 2 weeks turn around for parts. Wouldn't you think the larger company would be more efficient?

If I did the work you do Roman, I'd expect a 5 too! And it would be the first one out of the box, not the 3rd or 4th.

Joe
RomanJohnston said:
I just want my 4.5 or 5 rating on a super wide.

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AFS17-55G

Roman
--
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
Click to expand...
 
4.9 vs. 5.0

But my 17-55 is right on....must have a good copy....and I still need the little more range for weddings.

I want the perspective of a super wide.

Guess I just need to start saving for that hassy 39MP digital and put a super wide on it and just blow past this whole issue....lol.

At $40,000....OUCH!!!

Roman
--
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
 
Steve Bingham said:
Steve Bingham said:
Steve,

Cozy home! Do you know if that chair is still there and for sale?
My computer chair is getting a little worn these days, and that one
sure looks like a winner! Of course since it is in California, I'm
sure it is overpriced.
Click to expand...
The rightful owner, Tinkerbell, says she is still using it.


Steve Bingham said:
Norm

Click to expand...
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
Click to expand...
----

Figures! Whenever I see a bargain there is a catch. I don't think I want to fight anyone with the nerve to wear that outfit anyway. She might wave a magic wand and turn me into a Canon user!

Norm

 
to DX format.

IF they were catering to consumers, why a constant f4? They could do an f3.5 to f5.6 like the 18-35 lens in 35mm FF. Plus, it's filter size is 77mm like a pro lens.

If they were catering to pros, why isn't it f2.8 like every other pro lens?

This lens is a tweener. Too expensive for the consumer market, not enough for the pro market. When they come out with a 12-24 f2.8, that to me will signal Nikon's commitment to the DX format.

I keep coming back to buying a Tokina 12-24 plus a Nikon 17-35 for these very reasons, versus Nikon 12-24+17-55.

As to price, I'd expect a wide angle pro zoom would be about US$1200-$1500 like every other f2.8 pro lens under 300mm.
 
joe field said:
RomanJohnston said:
Read this test and you will see....Bjorn gives the 12-24 a rating
of 3.5 at 12m while the 17-55 has a rating of 5 throught the range.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Er, that's 12mm, not 12m.
joe field said:
That is pretty disappointing. I think of 3.5 as minimum acceptable
quality.
Click to expand...
If you actually read Bjørn's review, you'll get a rather better impression
of his opinion of it, I venture, that the fortune-cookie synopsis above can
provide. The capsule review (not fortune-cookie synopsis) at

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AFS12-24DX

For example:

"At 24 mm, very sharp and crisp images resulted at nearly all aperture settings. ... No Nikkor 24 mm prime lens gives this kind of quality images. "

By which of course, he means so Nikkor 24mm prime give such high-quality images , an observation that doubtless contributes to why he gave it a 5 at 24mm (only a 4 at 18mm). Reducing what he says to what fits in a fortune cookie does something of a disservice to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Meanwhile, his full review starts here:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/AFS12-24DX_rev00.html

Toward the end of his D200 review, he notably says in a photo's caption:

"Take your D200 with the 12-24 DX anywhere, an excellent combination for street and into-the-action kind of photography. Note also that despite the awful fluorescent-type lighting, colours are great and CA is virtually non-existent (no striping either)"

and right above there, he says:

"One just has to shoot with 12-24 DX set to 14 mm vs the 14 mm f/2.8 Nikkor to realise this. In fact, the 12-24 DX is possibly very synergetic with the D200 and might perform even better on that body than on the D2X. Could this result because its resolution matches better that of the D200 imager?"

That's at:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/D200_revlast.html#top_page

I should hardly called the direction to take the 12-24 DX w/ your D200 everywhere faint praise, especially calling it an excellent combo. I trust this brings the matter into sharper, um, perspective.

--tom
 
the 12- 24 is very good from 18 - 24 and ok from 12 - 18. if the lens is only very good from 18 -24, I think I might as well stick with my 17-35, which trounces all wide zooms.
--
Patiently awaiting the first Nikon FF DSLR, while enjoying my current gear.
http://www.kmiecphotography.com
 
Adam Kmiec said:
the 12- 24 is very good from 18 - 24 and ok from 12 - 18. if the
lens is only very good from 18 -24, I think I might as well stick
with my 17-35, which trounces all wide zooms.
Click to expand...
My goodness, you really are the gratuitously cantankerous old curmudgeon
that everybody says you are! Please! Go outside and get some sunshine;
even if this doesn't improve your disposition, it should at least reduce your
posting frequency, which I do guarantee will improve the rest of ours.
Adam Kmiec said:
Bitchilly demanding the first non-Kodak Nikon-mount FF DSLR, while incessantly
complaining about and belittling everybody else's gear.
Click to expand...
Duly noted, Mister U. Whiney Deeppockets.

--tom
 
I have somthing that performes at 17-24MM well....my 17-55.

If I wanted a lens that performed like that at that focal legnth....I would just stick with my 17-55.

I want a lens that performs at 10 or 12 up to about 20mm....hell...even to 17MM that performs as well as the 17-55 does throught its range....or as the 12-24 does when its at 18-24mm.

I bought into the DX form factor....now....Nikon should make a lens that performes in the area that the DX form factor provides a problem.

I dont want to argues symantecs.....just want glass that performs.

I dont want FF either....I like the fact my DX form factor maximizes my long glass without much of a trade off.

So...argue the review of the lens all you want...but at 12mm....it aint the glass I know Nikon can make.

Roman

--
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
 
I mean...besides just wanting it because that means pro.

On a super wide....their used for architectual...and landscape mostly....

In that light (no pun intended...lol) I would be absolutly fine with a f/4 lens......I just want better performance at the widest angle of this range...

Give me the magic I experience on my 17-55 at 12mm...and I would be a happy as a clam....and willing to pay up to 2,000 for this lens....as I know it really would be pushing the envelope.

No VR frills....no expensive 2.8....just insane quality at wide.

Roman
--
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
 
So....how do you know you would use it for weddings? (just wondering....not accusing)

I use the tokina for LARGE group shots.....very carefully as it distorts a lower end of the range.

Very few times I have needed it.

My 17-55 is my main wedding lens....that and the 70-200.

Roman
--
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
 
Physics? I don't know. Why? I also wonder just how much they can cram into a lens before they've asked to much of physics and the lens is junk?

--

'When trying to make art, don't make the camera do all the work.' from CBS Videographer Darryl Barton at NPPA boot camp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top