zzzzzzzzzzz

I took mine out of retirement this morning for some test shots at F8, and then at F4.5. The F8 shots are good in the center and not so good on the left side. The F4.5 shots are pretty bad.

Here are two more, stopped way down.  They are ok.

Yeah. mine is all sort of bad at 28mm/wide apertures.  As I said above, it gets better at 28mm when stopped down to F9.  It is also better at focals longer than 35mm (all apertures).    Nikon is ...

I have a 28-105 that I bought new back when I shot film. Mine is terribly soft on my D800 at apertures below F9 at 28mm. It is better after 35mm, but even then it is nothing to brag about. I've ...

I used the 12mm Rokinon this weekend and I'm very impressed with it.  It is a fantastic value.

Good info, thanks for the reply. I'm happy with the 12mm Rokinon/Samyang I just got. MF seems to be acceptable, I have no trouble getting a sharp shot. Color and contrast look good and image detail ...

I just got my Rokinon. Manual focus is inconvenient, but it seems to work with the range finder indicators in the viewfinder. Image quality appears to be good. It is a good deal for the price.

I just ordered the Rokinon 12mm F2.8 fisheye, which is the same as the Samyang and it is supposed to provide a 180 degree view over the entire FX sensor.

It is a cost thing for me, $1,250 vs $400 for a specialty lens.  It would not be one of my primary lenses.

The 40 has less distortion, much less CA, it is sharper in the corners, it is sharp wide open (the 35 not so much) , and it focuses much closer.  I do have them both and agree that the focals are ...

Thanks for the replies, I didn't realize how fisheye lenses work.  I think I'm going for the Rokinon 12mm F2.8.

You are saying that 10mm with the new 8-15 provides a wider FOV than 10mm with my 10-24, both with full DX sensor coverage? How is that possible? I guess 10mm <> 10mm? I've always thought that ...

Complete FX sensor coverage at 8mm and I'd be all over it.  Unfortunately It seems like this lens doesn't even provide DX coverage as wide as my 10-24 DX.

I'm not sure I see the point of buying a fairly pricey 2x FX zoom that can't use the entire FX sensor until the very end of it's zoom range.  It almost sounds like a DX lens.

I've used two separate copies on a D90, D7000, D3300, and a D5500.  It is a nice little lens, with the exception of fairly high purple fringing at wider openings in high contrast areas.  I also ...

24-140 F4 VR N, an ultra wide, and a fast prime in a "normal" focal length.  Enjoy your trip and don't worry too much about gear.

I bought an original 18-200 back in 2006 and it has given me pretty good results with a D50, D90, D7000, D3300, and a D5500.  It actually seemed to be a little better on my D3300 than it is on my ...

True on the pricing, although the 10-24 frequently goes on sale for < $800.  I doubt the optics are better on the new one.  The 10-24 has more range, it is faster, it is ED, and it has better ...

Nikon already has a 10-24 DX so I'm not sure why a new 10-20 is exciting. I realize it will have VR, but that isn't critical in a super wide.