DimensionSeven
Leading Member
Ever since Nikon came out with the FX sensor (full Leica frame), I've been attracted to it. The per pixel noise quality not only on the high iso range, but the extremely smooth base iso was really appealing. The smaller DOF capabilities was also really nice. With the low pixel density of the 12MP sensor diffraction became almost a non-issue again, like in the film days. I think FX has a future with a brighter horizon than DX: with today's 16-18 MP DX sensors pixel density is very high, reaching the level of compact cameras, and that only means diffraction by f5.6 or around with no additional gain in resolution, as virtually no current lens can outresolve these sensors. On the other hand, FX has a bigger playground area with lots of reserves for 20MP or above with diffraction being only a problem at apertures still acceptable for landscape work.
The thing is, I'm mostly shooting stopped down landscapes and use filters (polarizers, ND filters, ND grad. square and color grad. square filters, infrared filters) a lot. There was no FX lens in the wide angle territory fitting the bill for quite a while: the 14-24 2.8 is a monster and cannot take filters, while the 17-35 f2.8 is overpriced compared to his performance in the digital age. Then, the 16-35 f/4 came out a year ago, and I thought that was the one for me. It takes filters, does not weight a ton, outperforms the 17-35 in terms of sharpness and although costing a lot, it's not more than the original price of the 2 DX lenses I'd had been willing to part with for it (Sigma 10-20 and 10.5 fisheye). I even had my hypothetical lens set up for FX: 16-35 f/4 for the wide angle, 50 f1.8 AFD or 50 f1.4 AFS for midrange (maybe a Tokina 28-75 f2.8 for a walkaround zoom), and my current 70-300VR for the long end. The Sigma 10-20 and the 10.5 fisheye would have been sold, and the 16-85VR would have been used exclusively on my D90-IR.
Untill today, I thought that FX was my future too. But. There was Nikon day at my favourite local photoshop (not Adobe's lol!). There were most current top notch lenses (think 14-24 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 VR2, 24 3.5 PCE, 85 1.4 AFS, 24 1.4, etc) and DX/FX DSLRs (except for the new D7000) displayed and everyone was allowed to play with them. I've had a brief flirt with a 16-35 f/4 on a D3x (omg...), and liked it (although the lens itself feels really front heavy).
The shock came as I tried to put a polarizer along with the Cokin P holder on top of the lens. I had to zoom in to 24mm to exclude vignetting with the normal holder and to 23mm with the wide angle holder! Without the polarizer, I barely won 1 mm with both holders. With the B+W ND110, being thicker than my slim CPL, the case would have probably been even worse I guess. OMG! This surprised me, as with the Sigma 10-20, I can get away at 12 mm from any vignetting in landscape mode, and that is equivalent to 18mm in FX land... This just rendered the 16-35 f/4 useless for my kind of work, as I prefer to use all kinds of filters for wide angles. The Cokin Z-pro series, that's one size bigger than the P series, costs twice as much, the X-pro series (that would be required probably) costs 4 times as much as the P series. Replacing my current P size filter setup with the X pro versions would cost half the price of the 16-35 f/4 itself, and that's only Cokin, which is plastic with no surface protection, no coating, etc. Lee or above filters would be in the price range waaay above my budget. Not speaking from the size of them - where on Earth would I put them? I'd probably need a new backpack - a smaller one that holds the square filters externally or an ever bigger one (I'm currently using a Tamrac Expedition 7, so it's not a small one by any means already) that holds them inside. Also not speaking from a new tripod as well, as my current 190 Pro-B Manfrotto would be outweighted with an FX body and the front-heavy 16-35 FX.
Damn, looks like I have to admit: FX is just not ment for me. It's for those who need the best high iso possible or the shallow DOF for portrait/bokeh work. For landscape photography, FX is only for the professionals, who can justify both the additional side costs and additional weight of the bigger sensor.
Only one question remains: which filter-capable DX ultrawide lens comes even close to meet the demand of the D7000's 16MP DX sensor in terms of sheer resolution? Is it the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 perhaps?
--
http://dimensionseven.deviantart.com
The thing is, I'm mostly shooting stopped down landscapes and use filters (polarizers, ND filters, ND grad. square and color grad. square filters, infrared filters) a lot. There was no FX lens in the wide angle territory fitting the bill for quite a while: the 14-24 2.8 is a monster and cannot take filters, while the 17-35 f2.8 is overpriced compared to his performance in the digital age. Then, the 16-35 f/4 came out a year ago, and I thought that was the one for me. It takes filters, does not weight a ton, outperforms the 17-35 in terms of sharpness and although costing a lot, it's not more than the original price of the 2 DX lenses I'd had been willing to part with for it (Sigma 10-20 and 10.5 fisheye). I even had my hypothetical lens set up for FX: 16-35 f/4 for the wide angle, 50 f1.8 AFD or 50 f1.4 AFS for midrange (maybe a Tokina 28-75 f2.8 for a walkaround zoom), and my current 70-300VR for the long end. The Sigma 10-20 and the 10.5 fisheye would have been sold, and the 16-85VR would have been used exclusively on my D90-IR.
Untill today, I thought that FX was my future too. But. There was Nikon day at my favourite local photoshop (not Adobe's lol!). There were most current top notch lenses (think 14-24 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 VR2, 24 3.5 PCE, 85 1.4 AFS, 24 1.4, etc) and DX/FX DSLRs (except for the new D7000) displayed and everyone was allowed to play with them. I've had a brief flirt with a 16-35 f/4 on a D3x (omg...), and liked it (although the lens itself feels really front heavy).
The shock came as I tried to put a polarizer along with the Cokin P holder on top of the lens. I had to zoom in to 24mm to exclude vignetting with the normal holder and to 23mm with the wide angle holder! Without the polarizer, I barely won 1 mm with both holders. With the B+W ND110, being thicker than my slim CPL, the case would have probably been even worse I guess. OMG! This surprised me, as with the Sigma 10-20, I can get away at 12 mm from any vignetting in landscape mode, and that is equivalent to 18mm in FX land... This just rendered the 16-35 f/4 useless for my kind of work, as I prefer to use all kinds of filters for wide angles. The Cokin Z-pro series, that's one size bigger than the P series, costs twice as much, the X-pro series (that would be required probably) costs 4 times as much as the P series. Replacing my current P size filter setup with the X pro versions would cost half the price of the 16-35 f/4 itself, and that's only Cokin, which is plastic with no surface protection, no coating, etc. Lee or above filters would be in the price range waaay above my budget. Not speaking from the size of them - where on Earth would I put them? I'd probably need a new backpack - a smaller one that holds the square filters externally or an ever bigger one (I'm currently using a Tamrac Expedition 7, so it's not a small one by any means already) that holds them inside. Also not speaking from a new tripod as well, as my current 190 Pro-B Manfrotto would be outweighted with an FX body and the front-heavy 16-35 FX.
Damn, looks like I have to admit: FX is just not ment for me. It's for those who need the best high iso possible or the shallow DOF for portrait/bokeh work. For landscape photography, FX is only for the professionals, who can justify both the additional side costs and additional weight of the bigger sensor.
Only one question remains: which filter-capable DX ultrawide lens comes even close to meet the demand of the D7000's 16MP DX sensor in terms of sheer resolution? Is it the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 perhaps?
--
http://dimensionseven.deviantart.com
